Is this the way Government is supposed to work?

As Democrats brace for a November wave that threatens their control of the House, party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.

In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers. --Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse New York Times

If the people are dissatisfied with the leadership of their government should the government fight to thwart the will of the people?

If the legitimate source of authority of the government is the people (and it is) then any action that the government would take to foil the people’s will should be seen as inappropriately seditious.

Therefore, any talk of a “firewall” by Democrats or any actions by Democrats to use a collective pool of money, government or private, to fight against the people, interferes with the natural normal working of the election process. (see article)

This seemingly innocuous manipulation is in fact iniquitous because it disguises political contempt for the people’s will, while the political class shores up its power against the people by unscrupulous political machinations.

Case in point, Democrats stand to face electoral repudiation and possibly lose control of the House of Representatives for their “In yo Face” style of, we won the 2008 elections so we are going to fundamentally change America .

Americans are now seeing what it means to have Democrats control the country, Health Care Reform thrust upon us, bailout of Banks and Auto Industry that we did not want, $1Trillion dollar stimulus package that didn’t work to save or create jobs, stealing money from our posterity and corrupting the federal government.

Democrats are making the government a lawless tyrannous Fascist arm of an Oligarchy of special interest groups, Amerians have rejected this apocalyptic Progressive Socialist vision of America and all indications are people want to reject Democrats this November in mass.

I think voters should.

A Message to Muslims about Rights

There is no greater dis-respecters of religion than the United States and Islam. Just look at their mutual opposition to Christianity and Islams opposition other religions. Islam disrepects every other religion and even it's own religion as Sunni is against Shiite and al Qaeda Muslims will kill other Muslims.   Therefore Islam should expect no special treatment. Your piss Mohammad, Elephant Dung Mohammad and homosexual Mohammad awaits. If  Jesus whom Americans claim to venerate was so disrespected Americans will do it also to your Prophet (PBUH)--Alaphiah

What does the Piss Christ, the Elephant Dung Virgin Mary and the ground zero Mosque have in common? Actually they have several things in common.

First not one Muslim protested these events when they occurred. Second, in America though many many people disagreed with the expression of all three, an equal amount of, if not more, people defended the rights of all involved to express their rights of free speech or the right to build a Mosque at ground zero.

Though Jesus Christ is considered a prophet of Islam (PBUH) when the crucifix was submerged in urine not one Muslim riot broke out around the world.  No shouts of, “Death to Art!” “Death to the Artist” could be heard. Not one! Yet when a cartoon caricature depicting the Prophet Mohammed was drawn the whole Muslim world rioted and issued death threats and Fatwahs against the cartoon artist.

Furthermore, the Quran honors the Virgin Mary as the Mother of Jesus but when her likeness was rendered in Elephant excrement not one Muslim riot broke out. Not one!

When an Imam unveiled plans to build a Mosque at the foot of ground zero to open on 9/11/11 nothing but arguments were heard from Muslims and non Muslims alike about the rights to have a Mosque built near ground zero no matter how may people such a thing would offend.

So now burning the Quran is proposed on 9/11/10 and you would think by all of the bawling from as far as General Petraeus in Afghanistan to the Whitehouse west of the Potomac that someone was proposing burning the American flag!

Speaking of the American flag I was looking at the News last night and saw it burning and being stomped on while shouts of “Death to America ” went up all around it. I’m still waiting on comments from the General and the Whitehouse concerning such disguising behavior as burning the American flag and shouting death to America. Of course, I won't hold my breath.

In addition to that the U.S. government has already particapated in burning Bibles in Afghanistan (see 2:02min video)

My understanding is that the Leadership confiscated these bibles so they could not be distributed here in Afghanistan.  And it was their best judgment at the time that the best way to deal with it was to destroy them.  And I understand that they were burned. --Colonel Greg Julian

Whether one supports the burning of the Quran or not, I think Mayor Bloomberg or some advocate of building the Mosque at ground zero should step forward and defend Pastor Terry Jones and his Church’s RIGHT to burn the Quran just as vehemently as they defended Muslim’s rights to build a Mosque at ground zero! That would be only fair.(see article)

Remember it’s the “right” that is important not the fact that people are offended. That’s what we’re being told regarding that Mosque near ground zero. So naturally one would expect the same attitude regarding the burning of the Quran. Right?

"Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan , in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America , and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."—president Barry Hussein Soetoro (source)

Muslims have the Right… Isn’t that what president Barry Hussein Soetoro said at his Iftar dinner during Ramadan? The president went on to say that allowing the Islamic center to be built so near the site of devastating attack is a hallmark of being American.

Well if you agree with the president then you must agree that burning the Quran on 9/11/10, too is a hallmark of being American.

We live in a Country of Rights. You build a Mosque at ground zero, someone burns Qurans and we all have exercised our “Rights” to be American. Nobody can be mad at that. Right?

Death to all who wishes Death on Americans expressing their Rights!

A Second No a Third Stimulus won’t work either Mr. Obama

Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation’s roads, railways and runways that would cost at least $50 billion.—Washington AP

New ways? Why Mr. president you’re touting the same old rehashed infrastructure propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place! If Republicans drove the economy into a ditch as Mr. Soetoro pointed out then his stimulus packages has launch our economy on to an unknown asteroid which we may never see coming this way again.

When the president first announced the $787 Billion dollar stimulus package a year ago, which incidentally has ballooned to about $1Trillion dollars, he say it was for shovel ready good green jobs as well as building roads, bridges and the country’s infrastructure. (see 1:46min video)




Then he called for a second stimulus, called a jobs bill, which he got an additional $26Billion dollars (see previous post)

Now he’s calling for a third stimulus, at least $50billion more for starters, to do what? To start an infrastructure bank and create jobs in the near future (next year). I’m not kidding. This third bite of the apple would be for rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays. Why the same old things that he said the first $1 Trillion dollars was for in the previous video (see 1:36min video)




If you don’t remember, the first stimulus was allocated as follows:

• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
• $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
• $300 million for grants to combat violence against women
• $2 billion for federal child-care block grants
• $6 billion for university building projects
• $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
• $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
• $1 billion for community-development block grants
• $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
• $650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
• $145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
• $83 billion for the earned income credit
• $150 million for the Smithsonian
• $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
• $500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
• $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
• $350 million for Agriculture Department computers
• $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
• $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
• $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
• $450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
• $600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
• $1 billion for the Census Bureau
• $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
• $1.7 billion for the National Park System
• $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
• $7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
• $150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
• $150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
• $2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
• $2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
• $6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
• $3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
• $3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
• $200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
• $300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
• $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
• $1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
• $1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
• $8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
• $4.5 billion for electricity grid

Somewhere in all of the above Soetoro promised jobs to fix the jobs infrastructure one year ago. It didn’t happen so where is the money and why does Soetoro need over $50 billion dollars more when he already has over $136Billion Dollars held in reserve out of $275 Billion allotted for jobs creation from the original $1 Trillion dollars. (source)

The fact is, the [first] stimulus package has been a remarkable failure when it comes to creating new jobs. The Obama administration claims that the stimulus spending created or saved 640,329 jobs by the last quarter of 2009. Given the $275 billion from the stimulus devoted to programs to create jobs that means every new job costs the American taxpayer $429,000. According to Census Bureau numbers, in 2008 the median wage for full-time jobs was $37,115. With benefits, let’s round this up generously to $50,000. If the stimulus money were being spent as efficiently as private-sector money is, the stimulus should have created nearly 5.5 million jobs.

According to figures at the administration’s own Web site, recovery.gov, of that $275 billion originally allocated for job creation, as of today, only about half has been spent--$139 billion. --Mary Kate Cary (source)

All of the lies that are being told by this administration, “If we would just let a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat President spend the money of our children and our children’s children we would have good green shovel ready jobs that would repair our infrastructure and fix our economy.” Here, here, here and here.

It didn’t happen, the first stimulus didn’t work and now Soetoro is asking for more money, another Stimulus?

In addition to that, we’re being told that Soetoro’s handpicked top Economic advisor didn’t know what she was doing. Therefore, she’s quitting and going back to the profession one is employed in when one can’t do.

Christina Romer, chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers has quit effective September 3, 2010. She is going back to teaching.

According to Lori Montgomery reporter for Washington Post, Romer was instrumental in crafting the $862 billion economic stimulus package that Obama signed shortly after being sworn into office. She co-wrote a paper that predicted the stimulus would prevent unemployment rates from rising above 8 percent (source)

According to Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, Ms. Romer had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things. (source)

Her boss thinks he knows that’s why he’s calling for a third stimulus package in the amount of over $50billion dollars when the first two didn’t work. This one won’t either.

France’s Ground Zero Mosque

The video I’m about to share is disturbing to say the least. France is home to the Eiffel tower. There are no twin towers in France that Islamic terrorists can crash two Boeing767’s into but they do have a ground zero Mosque.

How is that possible you ask? It’s possible because like America France has allowed Islam to manipulate its laws and turn those laws against it. France’s Liberal politically correct laws have aided in its own sacking. France portends what is due to occur in the United States because the exact same Liberal politically correct thinking has ensconced itself firmly in the seats of power in the United States of America.

France’s ground zero Mosque has no walls like America’s ground zero Mosque will, at least not yet. The only thing that is left is for the French to allow an actual Mosque where Muslims have illegally decided to gather to pray, right in the middle of the streets of France. (see 5min video)






Alarming? Why should it be, after all Muslims have a Constitutional right to establish Islamic rule in the United States similar the Islamic rule that they’ve already established in the streets of France.

The ground zero Mosque in New York is the gateway from which Islamists will launch their Islamification of the United States. France’s ground zero, Muslims showing their power by publicly broadcasting the Azan, the Muslim call to prayer, followed by their illegal prayer in the streets of France foreshadows what the ground zero Mosque represent for the United States.

Americans seem to be oblivious to the phased timed-release attack on America by Islam, first by air, second by Constitutional exploitation and third by Sharia Law. Islamification of America can only be successful if Americans purposely ignore the forewarning in the country and the streets of France.
Islam means submission that is exactly what France is doing. America next?

The most Ethical Congress in History is more like a bigger Pelosi Swamp

U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) and U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

Charles Rangel (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) are all facing ethic charges in a Democrat controlled Congress on charges brought by a Democrat controlled Ethics Panel. This is historic, never were ethic hearing held simultaneously in the history of Congress. Interestingly enough, it had to happen under Nancy Pelosi’s watch. In what Pelosi characterized as the most ethical Congress in history.

Rangel and Waters know Democrats will face possible defeat if these hearings go forward openly so they’ve purposely opted to have their hearings public in order to put pressure on their fellow Democrats. Rangel and Waters are hoping that Democrats will concede and withdraw the charges of corruption against them instead of jeopardizing control of the House in an election year, too late though, these charges are already public that makes it virtually impossible for Democrats to dismiss the cases.

It is so late for Rangel that president Barry Hussein Soetoro has already thrown the Congressman under the bus, following is a video-line of Democrats taking control of Congress, Democrat’s promise to be the most ethic Congress in history and the reality of Democrat corruption.

Nancy Pelosi: the most ethical Congress in history 3:14mins




Nancy Pelosi: Drain the Swamp :28secs




Charles Rangel (D-NY) Ways and Means Chairman: Charged with corruption 9:59mins




President Soetoro wishes Rangel would leave with dignity :24secs




Maxine Waters (D-CA): Charged with corruption 1:17mins




Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tx) Charged with corruption 9:01mins




The Democrat Party a Party of Corruption 1:22mins

Science is Dead: How Al Gore Killed Science

Gott ist tot--Friedrich Nietzsche

According to Austin Cline, Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance, when Friedrich Nietzsche wrote those words, Nietzsche didn't mean the death of a literal god, but the death of the shared cultural belief in a god in Europe.

Certainly the empirically driven scientific method has not failed but thanks to Mr. Gore and the corporate interest that used the name of science attempting to force a multi-trillion dollar global tax scheme upon the world’s people, science has been forever knocked off of its pedestal of unquestionability .

Forever forward when one hears something presented as a scientific fact, one will be forced to ask, “Who’s behind the science and what is their motive?” Al Gore made apolitical science political.

There is no longer just science, Gore has introduce a virulent strain of hard Left wing science by which crazed manifesto writing eco-terrorist live and die by. (see articles here and here)

[Eco-terrorist James] Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”-- msnbc.com

Therefore, cultural belief that all science is above reproach as well as the belief that science should be regarded as the final authority in all things is dead.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

Matt Patterson’s article “Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’” summarizes the tale of two scientific bodies that were and remain at the center of attempting the most cataclysm paradigm shift in recent history, “The Global Warming” scare.

Patterson explains how The United Nations’ IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia attempted to fraudulently convince the world’s populace of the claim that if a world tax was not allowed, we would all die. These two “scientific bodies” presented this conclusion as a consensus of scientific fact supported by all legitimate scientists. (see article)

The “evidence” and argument was if mankind did not change the way we consume energy mankind would be the cause of the plant’s destruction was based on bogus science. It was all based on Left wing political science not empirical science.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

Science is Dead and Al Gore invented partisan political science to replace it. It’s all about money now. Thus making everything we know subject to one’s political subjective point of view instead of objective empirical research.

Wissenschaft ist tot!

The Permanent Campaign broadcast straight from the Oval Office

[What was the President’s Oval Office speech about?] Was it about Iraq , as we were led to expect, or was it about Afghanistan , as we were not led to expect? Was it about the economy, which the president mentioned, or education, which he also mentioned?

Could it have been directed at Iraqis, whom the president praised in terms they would not have recognized, or was it about our troops, whom the president praised over and over again -- a kind of rhetorical tick that suggested he had run out of things to say?

As a speech, Obama delivered a version of the pudding once served Winton Churchill. “Pray, remove it,” he supposedly said. “It lacks theme.”-- Richard Cohen (source)

If you are anything like me, after hearing the president’s Oval office speech you may be wondering why president Soetoro felt that he needed to give such a speech. As you probably surmised, this speech was not to announce the end of the Iraq war though he did certainly announce a “New Dawn” in the manner in which America, under his leadership, plans to invite attack from those who declared war on America .

Obviously the “turn the page” media meme echoing at us throughout the day suggest that.

No, this was a campaign speech broadcast from the Oval Office of the White house.
This was a campaign speech which was designed to make mention of all of the president’s “accomplishments”. But what this speech really was—was a chest thump and snort signifying to Americans that Mr. Soetoro fulfilled his campaign promise to end the war. (see 17:56mins
video)

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq , while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq ’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done […] Ending this war is not only in Iraq ’s interest -- it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq , and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -- a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq , we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page. –president Barry Hussein Soetoro

This was quintessential Barry Hussein Soetoro. He was attempting to extend his coattails to the, quivering in their boots, Democrat Party by looking America squarely in the eyes and by asking the America people the question, “Who you gonna believe, about how things are going, me or your lying unemployed American eyes. See I ended the war give me my due!”

This was a campaign speech and campaigning is what this president does best according to former DNC chairman Howard Dean. This president is always campaigning none stop if Dean is to be believed. Dean even named the phenomenon as the “Permanent Campaign” (see previous post)

Even though I know that president, Soetoro politicizes everything what bothered me the most is how this twisted political hack of a president used former president Bush. First Soetoro called president Bush earlier that day so that he could say in his speech that he spoke to president Bush and then he said this:

I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.—president Barry Hussein Soetoro

There are just so many things wrong with this mischaracterization of Bush, that president Soetoro borders on psychosis. First, there was not a disagreement between the two men as if they were mutual friends or colleagues. Bush was president and he was making decisions for the nation whereas Senator Obama was touting the partisan Democrat Party line of anti-war and anti-Bush.

Second, for president Soetoro to intimate that because his opinion differed from president Bush’s that in turn would be cause for someone to doubt president Bush’s support for the troops, Bush’s love of country and Bush’s commitment to our security is simply diabolical

In the minds of a majority of Americans president, Bush’s patriotism was never ever in question as president Soetoro attempted to intimate. However, the same cannot be said of the current president then and now.

What’s more, there is not and never was the false parallel that president Soetoro has constructed between those who supported the war and those who were against it, those who supported the war where supporting the war because they thought it was the right thing to do for America. On the other hand, those who were against the war used the war primarily as a tool to drum up discontent against president Bush and the Republicans.

Democrats did it to attempt to win elections, in other words opposition to the war was done to score political points. No, I reject the notion that there were patriots on both sides of the argument, especially when Democrats who opposed the war were willing to lose the war in other to win the White house.

There can be no question that whatever the underlining matters that were presented by president Soetoro on Tuesday night; the war, the economy and jobs the focus of this speech was Barry Hussein Soetoro. This was a campaign speech, this was the president campaigning to savage November 2010 for Democrats and 2012 for himself. That is what this Oval office speech was about.

Obama’s Quiet Amnesty for Illegals has Already begun

Aug. 20 memorandum from John Morton, the head of the agency — drew praise from immigrant advocates, who called it a common-sense strategy, and was denounced by several Republicans as evidence that the Obama administration was weakening enforcement and making it easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.-- JULIA PRESTON

The thing about having a lawyer as president is he or she, if unscrupulous, will manipulate the law according to his or her own personal philosophy instead of upholding original intent of the law. Why because legal training teaches them all things are relative and values have no meaning. That’s why the president says the things he does about America and the constitution to which Americans scratch their heads in disbelief and say, “I can’t believe he just said that!”

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are classic exemplars of this type of thinking. The Clintons known for the philosophy of “The Third Way” meaning not only was there a right and wrong or black and white but there was a third way that was equally as viable as the other two alternatives. The Clintons were always parsing language and meaning because if words have no real intended meaning then one can, as they often did, arrive at any personal conclusion all depending on what you are will to accept the meaning of is—is.

Therefore, the Constitution is what a judge says it is, not what it was meant to be. (That’s why Justice Elena Kagan was selected) Nevertheless, we’ll talk about that in a moment.

The latest assault on reason and constitutionality is the Barry Hussein Soetoro covert amnesty initiative. (see story here and here)

Oh, the Soetoro administration wouldn’t call it that. No silly, instead they will use some intelligence insulting jargon about dismissing immigration cases to relieve an overburdened court system of non-criminal immigration cases. You know the Bill Clinton, it depends on what is-is. (but, after all, that’s why we’re here, to alert you to Orwellian redefinitions) (see article)

Immigration enforcement officials have started to cancel the deportations of thousands of immigrants they have detained, a policy they said would pare huge case backlogs in the immigration courts.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the new approach was part of a broad shift in priorities at the agency, to focus its efforts on catching and deporting immigrants who have been convicted of crimes or pose a national security threat. The policy — announced in an Aug. 20 memorandum from John Morton, the head of the agency-- JULIA PRESTON

So ICE says that releasing illegal aliens instead of deporting them, releasing them by the way violates the constitution, is actually good for America? Okay, I get it; they’re saying that releasing illegal aliens  it’s good for the courts and Law “UnEnforcement” and by extension the Democrat Party. (see I told you it would insult your intelligence.)

So the bottom line is this president has perverted the entire legal system and judiciary of the United States of America because of his politics. And he is only enforcing laws, which he agrees with.

In other words the Soetoro administration has ordered by Memo of John Morton, the head of ICE, all government agencies involved with the prosecution of illegal aliens; the Justice Department, The Courts and Immigration enforcement to virtually halt all enforcement of law by “focusing” only on criminal illegal alien. (see memo below)






27immig Memo

This is why Thomas Jefferson warned about the judiciary getting into judgment concerning societal opinions. Little did Jefferson know or expect that the president would be the one pushing the judiciary into such controversies. Jefferson stated that if judges started adjudicating opinions such as religion or sexuality the judge would ultimately and  tyrannically impose his or her own views on the people thereby quashing the views of the people, which he or she disagreed with.

Whether it was prophesy, logical conclusion or he was recanting a historical experience Jefferson was right about the judiciary substituting their personal whims in Oligarchical rule over the people when judging matters of public opinion.

[T]he opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate (Judge) to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;--Thomas Jefferson, (1777 draft of a Bill for Religious Freedom)

Intruding his powers into the field of opinion is exactly what California homosexual District Court judge Vaughn Walker did when he made his own opinion the law over that of the people of California and of California’s constitutional definition of marriage.

Walker’s judgment regarding homosexuality, and his condemned of the sentiments of the voters of California was not based on law his judgment was based on his personal feelings and beliefs. Walker ruled as he did because the sentiments of California’s voters differed from his own. Just as Jefferson said would happen.

The president has completely bypassed Congress, the people’s representatives, and ordered the justice department to grant de facto amnesty to illegal aliens by ordering the lawyers of the justice department, the courts and the non-enforcers of the law to release illegal aliens.

Barry Hussein Soetoro Amnesty is officially granted. This is a practice this president has developed, which is completely against the will of the people, without Congressional approval and in complete violation of the Constitution.

I suppose the president would like the American people to thank him for yet another accomplishment.

Troops out Earlier than Obama’s campaign promise? Really?

contradiction is truth and ending is continuing

We know something about Barack Obama; he can hold two totally contradictory things in this mind at the same time and claim allegiance to both of them. You know we saw it when the D.C. gun ban was over turned and he said he was all for it when ah...but before he had been against ah…before he’d been in favor of the band and when most of it was turned over he said he was in favor of that too. --Fred Barnes

Tonight president Barry Hussein Soetoro will attempt to claim credit for keeping his crystal clear un-bifurcated and unchanged campaign promise to end the Iraq war on March 31, 2008, his promise to end it in 2009 and his promise to end the war in 16 months after January 20, 2009, which would be May 2010. The president promised while campaigning that all troops would be out of Iraq by 2009. So if he never changed his promise how then is he now claiming he promised to withdraw just some of the troops by August 31, 2010 and reassign the remaining troops as support and training units for Iraqi security forces? Yet, he will say or intimate tonight that he has in fact kept his campaign promise to end the Iraq war.

In order for Mr. Soetoro to succeed in his verbal doublethink or “doublespeak”, tonight Americans will have to either suspend disbelief, be incredibly forgetful or be as stupid as he believes Americans are.

In Mr. Soetoro’s Orwellian world, contradiction is truth, like not really ending a war is ending a war.

In George Orwell’s novel 1984 Winston Smith the novel's protagonist, described doublethink in this fashion:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

***
Doublespeak is saying what you doublethink—Alaphiah

Following is the record of Soetoro unchanged and crystal clear promises. Promises so clear that the Soetoro media was having problems of their own suspending disbelief. First Soetoro says he authored a bill as a Senator that would have all troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. (see 50 sec video)





Then Soetoro promises again to withdraw all troops by March 31, 2008. Then he promises that as president he would have all troops out of Iraq by 2009 and redeploy to Afghanistan a war Soetoro said that we can win. (see 6:10 min video)

We know something about Barack Obama, he can hold two totally contradictory things in this mind at the same time and claim allegiance to both of them. You know we saw it when the D.C. gun ban was over turned and he said he was all for it when ah...but before he had been against ah…before he’d been in favor of the band and when most of it was turned over he said he was in favor of that too.—Fred Barnes

President Soetoro doubles down on ending the war in 2009 (see 3:26min video)





Mr. Soetoro stance is so ever changing that reporters from the middle east even question whether the president broke his campaign promise about ending the war (see 5:19min video)





Even with all of the confusion that president Soetoro has intentionally created about ending the war in Iraq the news media is insistent on aiding with the narrative that Mr. Soetoro has kept his campaign promise to end the war. However, which promise, the one to end the war in 2008, 2009 or 2010? In addition, he made multiple promises regarding bring the troops home first he promised to bring all of the troops home and then he promised just to bring some of the troops home. (see articles here and here)

“[A]s a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war; as President, that’s what I’m doing.”—Barry Hussein Soetoro

While you watch the president’s congratulatory self-pat on the back tonight, Barry Hussein Soetoro will be pretending that he is fulfilling a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq. While at the same time he will be telling you that he has began a phased withdrawal of our troops leaving 50,000 in Iraq in reclassified roles as support and trainers for Iraq’s own security forces. These two contradictory things can only be true at the same time in an Orwellian world.

The president cannot brag that he is keeping his campaign promise to end the war while breaking his campaign promise to end the war by continuing the war and leaving troops in Iraq when he distinctly said he would end the war and bring all of our troops home.

Yet, that is what he will do tonight because obviously either he believes that we are a nation of idiots or he doesn’t know about YouTube.

I’m quite sure he knows about YouTube!

The Honor of Becks Event overshadowed ugliness in the name of Civil Rights

Rev. Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck

Civil rights leaders, meanwhile, protested the event by holding a rally of their own. The Rev. Al Sharpton and others claim the timing and location of Beck's rally is a dishonor to King's legacy.--FoxNews.com

Glenn Beck with a million Americans gathered on Saturday in front of the Lincoln Monument to talk about love--love for America. Al Sharpton and hundreds gathered on Saturday at a High school to talk about hate--hate of Glenn Beck and by extension White people.

Not since the Tawana Brawley hoax has the Reverend Al Sharpen been more on the wrong side of an issue as he is now.

We are living in extraordinary times—times in which the lines between right and wrong are increasingly blurred.

Glenn Beck demonstrated on Saturday August 28, 2010 beyond all doubt that his vision of the event to call for the restoration of America’s honor was above the pettiness of his distracters. (see article)

Beck’s all-inclusive event, which featured Jews, American Indians, descendants of Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria and the descendants of slaves, was a call to the principles that we haven’t heard since Alexis de Tocqueville looked for the source of America’s greatness in the eighteen hundreds.(see 1:19min video)





What Glenn Beck was able to accomplish was good for America and much needed for the spirit of America, especially when there are increasing attempts to divide American into little Balkanized enclaves of hyphenated-Americans and special interest causes. Beck featured the patriotic voice of former Alaskan Governor and Vice President candidate Sarah Palin plus the reconciling voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was represented in the person of Dr. Alveda King – the niece of the late Dr. King.

Yet, we are living in times when those who claim constitutional rights are actually working directly against the constitution in very subversive and destructive ways. This is a time when Civil Rights are be used to comment civil wrongs. This is a time when a true patriot like Glenn Beck can be demonized by subversives and anti-Americans who are trained in counter-messaging and chaos politics.

One million American citizens, who are not “activists,” heeded Mr. Beck call to come to the Capital Mall to sing songs, pray prayers and pay respect to America’s military.

After issuing various civil awards to citizen designees the keynote address was, given by Mr. Beck who called Americans to what constitutes as a spiritual and patriotic revival.

This event was free from partisanship, free from politics and free from controversy other than the controversy that detractors have attempted to heap on Mr. Beck and the event.

Mr. Beck’s event transcended race and was all-inclusive it centered on God and never mentioned the Sharpton event. On the other hand, the other gathering organized by Rev. Sharpton was exclusively a racial gathering, which was primarily an all black event which focus was utterly focused on race and hate. It was advertised as a counter demonstration to the Beck event.

It seems that like the N-word Sharpton is working hard to make Civil Rights off limits to White people.

I’m reminded of a remark that a former pastor would sometimes say after a sermon. He would exclaim, “Now nobody’s mad but the Devil.”

We will see in the coming days just who the rest of devils are as partisans in the media report. We'll see just how mad they were driven by Glenn Beck's talk about Christianity and honor to the million attendees in D.C. at the feet of Lincoln.

Today We Pray God Restore Honor In America

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Why I believe that I’m a Christian

People are questioning my faith so I’m going to share my beliefs. And when I’m done you will know, and when I am done you will know…

I am a Christian.

So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.

Intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.

I'm rooted in the Christian tradition.

I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

I believe there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward.

I believe there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.

My grandmother was Methodist. My grandfather was Baptist.

My grandparents later joined a Universalist church.

My mother had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We'd go to church for Easter. She wasn't a church lady.

My Stepfather wasn't particularly he wasn't a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you'd hear the prayer call.

I don't think as a child we were, or I had a structured religious education.

My mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world's religions, and talk to me about them.

I think always, her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.

So that was what I carried with me through college. I probably didn't get started getting active in church activities until after college.

I joined church and committed myself to Christ in church.

I went up to altar call it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it gave shape to my faith, also, it allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.

I did this 16, 17 years ago. 1987 or 88

I’m born again, although I don't, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

I pray often, well I guess I do.

It's not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it.

The biggest challenge is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I'm having internally. I'm measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I'm on track and where I think I'm off track.

It's important for me throughout the day to measure and to take stock and to say, now, am I doing this because I think it's advantageous to me, or because I think it's the right thing to do? Am I doing this for the recognition or am I doing this because it's necessary to accomplish my motives.

The most powerful moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth.

This power is not necessarily the Holy Spirit or God rather I think it's the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between people and me.

Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

In my life Jesus is someone I feel I have a regular connection with, a personal connection with.

I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I read the Bible. I read it not as regularly as I would like. These days I don't have much time for reading or reflection, period.

I'll be honest with you; I used to try to take some time for meditation prayer reading all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But now I don't. And I probably need to and would like to, but that's where that internal monologue or dialogue I think supplants my opportunity to read and reflect in a structured way these days.

It's much more sort of as I'm going through the day trying to take stock and take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose.

I have people in my life that I look to for guidance; my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.

I have a number of friends who are ministers and I interact with and hold close colleagues dear.

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure.

I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country.

I'm very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in public

Now, that's different from a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it's perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.

What I say regularly is that my views are informed by a belief that we're all connected. That if there's a child somewhere that can't read, that makes a difference in my life even if it's not my own child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere, that's struggling to pay for their medicine and having to choose between medicine and the rent that makes my life poorer even if it's not my grandparent. And if there's an Arab American family that's being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes people have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

I think that I am disturbed by, let me put it this way: I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate.

I think there is this tendency that I don't think is healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.

This is something that I'm sure I'd have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.

I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.

That's just not part of my religious makeup.

I believe that women have the right to choose.

I believe that watching Fox News or listening to talk radio is confusing and dangerous and creates intolerance

I believe that faith is a personal thing.

Oft times people may presume a set of doctrines that I subscribe to that I don't necessarily subscribe to.

I think that each of us, when we walk into our church or mosque or synagogue, are interpreting that experience in different ways, are reading scriptures in different ways and are arriving at our own understanding at different ways and in different phases.

If all it took was someone proclaiming, "I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins," and that was all there was to it, people wouldn't have to keep coming to church.

I don’t believe in heaven, you know the harps and clouds and wings. I don’t believe that heaven is a place you go to when you die.

What do I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

I believe that we can create heaven right here on earth.

I believe in sin, sin is being out of alignment with my values

I believe that one sins the same as what I believe about heaven. What I mean is if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, that’s heaven, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment, that’s sin.

I find spiritual inspiration in so many things, I can be inspired in church. By a good choir and a good sermon, these things moved me by these things I am transported.

I can also be transported by watching a good performance of Hamlet, or reading Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, or listening to Miles Davis.

However, I am most inspired in my own sort of mental library, the Civil Rights movement has a powerful hold on me. It's a point in time where I think heaven and earth meet. Because it's a moment, in which a collective faith transforms everything. So when I read Gandhi or I read King or I read certain passages of Abraham Lincoln and I think about those times where people's values are tested, I think those inspire me.

I feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually when I'm being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a person when I'm recognizing them and exchanging a good word.

I believe bin Laden to be a bad example of a spiritual man

I believe Gandhi to be a good example of a spiritual man

I also believe that Dr. King and Lincoln applied their faith to a larger canvas without allowing that faith to metastasize into something that is hurtful.

I did not suddenly come to faith or belief in God I just acknowledge that faith that was in me all the long. I think my going to the alter was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me.

The most detailed and fascinating explication of Barack Obama's faith came in a 2004 interview he gave Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani when he was running for U.S. Senate in Illinois. The column she wrote about the interview has been quoted and misquoted many times over, but she'd never before published the full transcript in a major publication. -- Steve Waldman (source)

What’s Best for America

Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the property slated for Ground Zero mega-mosque

[Daisy]Khan evaded the question of whether they had been in talks with New York Gov. David Paterson about moving the center to another location. Asked twice about it, Khan said her side wants to meet first "with all the stakeholders who matter, who are the New Yorkers. The community board has overwhelmingly supported this. . . ."And we have to be cognizant that we also have a constitutional right. We have the Muslim community around the nation that we have to be concerned about, and we have to worry about the extremists as well, because they are seizing this moment." -- Michelle Boorstein

E PLURIBUS UNUM-- Many uniting into one. "Out of many, one"

There was a time that civil rights were used to batter down the doors to a closed society. Civil Rights were the catalyst meant to guarantee inclusion into the American Dream and the American idea. No matter what your origin we are all Americans first and foremost. But alas the melting pot became a salad bowl and the principle that made American, American was lost.

Daisy Khan wife of Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf, the ground zero Imam, exemplifies the worst in modern civil rights. Ms. Khan claim that her group has the constitutional right to bring offense to America by building this Mosque near ground zero is correct but if your stated purpose for building this Mosque is to promote good will, you’ve defeated your purpose. (see article)

After our proposal to build a community and cultural center two blocks from the World Trade Center site, I was pleased and gratified by the outpouring of support from city officials and a wide range of people who understand our mission—Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (source)

Yet in Imam Rauf’s proposal, we find the cause and the answer to the whole controversy. The proposal is not to build a Mosque; the proposal is to build a Mosque two blocks from ground zero with emphasis on ground zero.

The idea to build a Mosque two blocks from ground zero is insensitive to American values. Only someone with loyalties other than to America would conceive it and support it. In addition, to attempt to wrap the constitution around this bad idea is the epitome of using civil rights to perpetrate civil wrongs. (see previous post)

Of late Civil Rights have been used for something else. Now when Civil Rights are exerted, they are a wedge to Balkanize the nation into hyphenated-special interest groups rather than the unified one nation under God that the Founder intended. For example, the original Civil rights movement fought in this Nation was for total inclusion into the American experience in every aspect.

Today’s Civil rights whether used by Mexican illegal aliens, homosexuals or Muslims is being waged to make America conform to the wishes of special interests groups. Rather than honoring the American tradition, these groups fight to tear down American tradition to replace tradition with something foreign, something bizarre and offensive to the principle of E Pluribus Unum.

Illegal aliens are fighting for Civil rights in a Country that is not their own. There is not a constitutional right to illegally enter America and set down roots to exploit the American economy. The Constitution doesn’t give illegal’s rights in the U.S. because Mexico has failed to use its vast resources to produce a vibrant first class economy. Yet Mexican illegal aliens are fighting to change America to conform not only their individual needs by to the needs of their entire country in the name of Civil Rights. Therefore, Mexican illegals are not concerned with what is best for America.

Homosexuals are fighting for Civil rights that are not Constitutional defined. There is no constitutional right to be homosexual, there is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sex and there is no constitutional right to marry. Yet homosexual activists invented a group status, the “homosexual community” which to confer none existence rights upon thus counterfeiting the original civil rights experience. Homosexuals aren’t fighting for the right to be the same as ninety-seven percent of the rest of our society as Blacks fought so earnestly for.

Homosexuals fight for new and special designations made up in courts so they can celebrate how different they are a part from rest of society. They fight for exclusive needs and for their exclusive “community” not for what is best for America.

Muslims fight for Islam not what is best for America as demonstrated by the ground zero Cordoba House Muslim Community Center & Mosque renamed Park51 to avert the connotations of the Islamic conquest of the Christian city of Córdoba Spain.

Mosque promoters defend the proposed $100 million dollar project as an act of friendship, respect and goodwill. Yet what the promoters and the supporters of this highly controversial Mosque fail to take into account is the ill will that this particular Mosque generates and the disrespect that Americans feel because of this affront.

Such a bad idea and the recalcitrant nature of the defense of this bad idea beg the question do Muslims fully understanding what the American experience is.

Civil Rights are about correcting societal wrongs. The American experience is supposed to bring us together around American ideas. E PLURIBUS UNUM.

Unfortunately, that is not what is going on here. What is going on is Muslims using Islam to divide us while hiding behind the constitution. Muslim Rights of Religious Freedom will not be wronged if the ground zero Mosque is not built, but America and Americans will be egregiously wronged if this particular Mosque is built.

Muslims should respect this and do what’s best for American rather than what is best for Islam.

The Collaboration of Mosque and State

The Islamic Center of Washington is a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Washington, D.C

While much attention has been focused on questions surrounding the Ground Zero mosque and the appropriateness of the State Department funding Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s trip to the Middle East, little attention has been given to the fact that U.S. taxpayer money is funding mosque development around the world.>—Caroline May

Here is something that all fair-minded Americans need to consider. In Barry Hussein Soetoro’s American, there seems to be a disparity. It seems there is Separation of Church and State for Christianity while Islam enjoys the Collaboration of Mosque and State. Now that doesn’t seem fair or constitutional but that is what’s presently going on with our government. Allow me to explain.

With all of the high-minded talk about first amendment freedom of religious rights one would think American is going through another Age of Belief.

It is not. Instead, America is reverting into another Dark Ages one, which the Great Inquisitions of the past gives away to the sweet Azan, which according to president Barry Hussein Soetoro is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”-- NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (source)

The media insist on attempting to make the ground zero mosques a intolerance issue, but it is not there are already two mosques in the vicinity of ground zero as reported by CNN’s Susan Candiotti (see 1:48min video)




This debate is not about building a mosque. There have been many mosque built in America as there are churches built. Its not about opposition to a mosque, because Governor Patterson has offered another possible location to the developers where the mosque could be built.

It is becoming apparent, even through all of the misuse of civil rights jargon, that Muslims and supporters of this project are not concerned about a mosque. It isn’t about a mosque to them it’s about location, location, location. It's about ground zero. They’ve rejected offers of building elsewhere because is not about having a mosque, rather it’s about having a mosque as close to ground zero as possible. It seems, if they could build directly on top of ground zero they would.

What this austere approach, to seeking rights, shows us is those who support this project are not willing to give deference for the true hurt and feelings of their neighbors. We use to call it Christian compassion. Rather they demand their constitutional rights in the most hateful way imaginable, as if they were using the very constitution to fly into the twin towers of our memories of all who died on 9/11 and into the offense that this mosque symbolizes in this particular location.

If one listens, closely one can hear the Muslim call to prayer wafting through neighborhoods all across America and throughout the world. Can you hear it? Not yet? Soon it will be very soon. What does this mean, and why would I say this?

It means that the fundamental transformation of your way of life and the United States has already begun. There is no more constitution, at least not as you’ve once known the constitution.

Do you remember when George W. Bush sent Christian envoys throughout the world as representatives of Christianity in America? You don’t remember that, you say that would be a violation of separation of church and state. Well you do remember when the United States government funded the building and refurbishing of Churches all around the world don’t you? Hum, you don’t remember that either.

Why not? Because it never happened, Bush never sent a Christian minister or priest as a special envoy on the behalf of the United States anywhere at any time. In addition, Bush never authorized the funding of Christian Church projects throughout the world for building and refurbishing Churches.

So why is president Barry Hussein Soetoro’s state department paying for and sponsoring the ground zero imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, trip to the Middle East on behalf of the United States representing Islam to Countries in the Middle East?

According to Washington Times Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States.

Huh? Mr. Soetoro how is sending the Ground Zero imam to the Islamic Middle East to foster greater understanding about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States?

Isn’t that like sending a Mexican Illegal alien back to Mexico to foster greater understanding about crossing the border illegally. And reporting how illegal Mexican communities are getting along in the United States?

And who’s paying for this nonsense? “Youse” paying for this nonsense! Imam Rauf will get a daily $200 honorarium for the 15-day tour to Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirate.

Airfare is included, as well as the standard federal government per diem for expenses and lodging in each of the cities, he will visit. Those per diem rates range from nearly $400 to nearly $500, according to official documents. Our federal government according to the Associated Press discloses that this unconstitutional trip to “foster greater understanding” about Islam in the United States will cost you and I sixteen thousand dollars. That’s only what they’re willing to disclose.(source)

But, that’s not even the half. You and I are paying mosques to be built and refurbished all around the world. That’s right, U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to fund construction, renovation, and rehabilitation of various mosques abroad. The benefiting countries include Bulgaria, Pakistan, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Egypt, Tunisia, the Maldives, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Serbia and Montenegro. (source)

How is the government able to violate separation of church and state when it comes to Islam? According to the DailyCaller by The U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) —, which is putting millions toward “heritage preservation” projects in the developing world — financed mosque-related projects in all the aforementioned countries. By calling it “Heritage” that’s how. Don’t even think about saying that Christianity is a part of America’s heritage though you would be supported by Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote, “Democracy in America.”

In Montenegro, for example, the State Department has funded an effort to restore and conserve the Shadrvan (Fountain) of the Old Mosque in Pljevlja. According to the State Department’s website, without needed repairs there would not be a sufficient place for ritual washing before prayer.

“To support the restoration of a fountain at a 16th-century mosque concurrent with the restoration of the mosque itself. Used for ritual ablutions before prayer, the fountain has deteriorated over time and needs a new wooden octagonal roof, pipes, water-taps, and pavement,” the description of the project reads.

I can think of many churches in this country that would benefit from such generous government largess. Oh but there’s that pesky ACLU and lawyers that would raise constitutional issues if a mere dime where spent on a church.

Caroline May informs us that, “The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has also spent millions reconstructing and financing multiple mosques in Cairo and Cyprus, as well as providing computers for imams in Tajikistan and Mali.

Interestingly, however, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, “USAID funds may not be used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for inherently religious activities.”’
The Washington Times disclosed that in April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642.

The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds. (source)

Is anyone getting that this is double standard? For Christians its separation of church and state but for Muslims it’s taxpayer funding and the collaboration of mosque and state. I've an idea why doesn't bankrupt America discontinue funding the religion Islam and let the multi-billionaire oil rich Muslims fund their own religion.

The whole irony is, while the supporters of the ground zero mosque are calling us all racists, bigots and haters of Islam U.S. citizens are paying imam Rauf expenses, of over $16,000 to go fundraise for the $100 million dollars he needs in the Islamic countries of Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar. For money to build his Mega mosque, an Islamic headstone to the 3,000 that died at ground zero.

Furthermore, while we are being called intolerant and ignorant and insensitive to Muslim concerns we, U.S. taxpayers are building mosques in Muslim countries Bulgaria, Pakistan, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Egypt, Tunisia, the Maldives, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Serbia and Montenegro.

Can you hear it now, faintly in the distance…

God is most great. God is most great.
God is most great. God is most great.
I testify that there is no God except God.
I testify that there is no God except God.
I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
Come to prayer! Come to prayer!
Come to success! Come to success!
God is most great. God is most great.
There is none worthy of worship except God.

Isn’t that one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset?