Sunday, September 30, 2012

Muslim take-over - please read

This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim. Make sure you read the paragraph (in red)towards the end.

 

Joys of Muslim Women
By Nonie Darwish


In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.


Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.


The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.


The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World (America and Britain) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and British Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.


By passing this on, enlightened American and British women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Ripping the West in Two.

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.


She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .


When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.


In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping shariah law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.


For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.


Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.


While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Shariah teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Shariah encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.


While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Shariah advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.


It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.


While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.


(In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S.
 and Britain to elect the President and Prime Minister by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the US... Dearborn Mich. is one...and there are others... Britain has several cities now totally controlled by Muslims.)


We think everyone in the U.S. And Great Britain 
should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!


It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful. Some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam. The peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America and Britain are getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children
, the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America and Britain.


This is your chance to make a difference! Pass it on to your email list or at least those you think will listen.


Some of those we are sending it to WILL NOT! 
 Put your head back under the covers so you can't see the boogie man!

Obama, The Real Reason Behind Muslim Violence,

Usmc

 

See: http://www.gulf1.com/politics/Polls/Default.html

Description: Description: cid:015522113@30092012-2880Obama, The Real Reason Behind Muslim Violence, Redux
by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired 

In case you are one of the readers who missed this the first time, I have renamed and edited it somewhat.  It is noteworthy that with the passage of time even the White House and it's propaganda arm, the mainstream media have come to the same conclusion but decline to state it. Specifically, it was the killing of al Qeada operatives, not an unworthy-of-watching, much less discussing video, except as a diversion to Obama's foreign policy catastrophe, that prompted the September 11th, firestorm.

In the past two weeks the world has witnessed widespread violent street protests by Muslims, the White House refers to them as radical, but judging from polling data they are mainstream. For example 80% of Egypt's population fall in that category. When "all hell" broke loose, featuring attacks on U.S. Embassies primarily throughout the Muslim world, Obama, Clinton and Rice and other Administration officials, not to mention non-paid Administration operatives in the media were quick to cite a video that offends Muslim sensibilities. Their assertion flies in the face of the facts since an earlier movie by major financial supporter Bill Maher titled "Religulous" is arguably more offensive than the video trailer, "Innocence of Muslims." 

The violence actually has deeper roots, roots that lead directly to Obama.  It began predictably with his "apology tour" which pandered to Muslims around the world. He apologized for U.S. assertion of its right to defend itself; he declared the U.S. to be one of the largest Muslim nations on the planet; he cited "important" contributions of Muslims to the United States throughout its history; he declared that the U.S. is no longer a Christian nation; he espoused his personal affinity to Islam; and, he asserted that his election would have a decided calming effect on Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. In his recent U.N. speech he continued to blame the U.S. for the actions of a single idiot, who incidentally sullies Christianity by claiming to be one. But a distinct difference is that Christians do not call for his head, or the head of Andres Serrano whose so called, art titled "Piss Christ" was recently reinstated in a museum. 

After he took office, Obama upped the ante for bringing justice to bin Laden and combined that with limited combat operations and indigenous training operations to set a definitive date for withdraw U.S. Forces from Afghanistan. His evident thinking was by decapitating Taliban leadership it would cause a collapse of the movement with minimum expenditure of resources and that would allow early and predictable withdrawal of U.S. forces.  Ground combat forces engaged in a massive manhunt for a single target does not work efficiently or well anywhere, much less in that area of the world. So he adopted a strategy of precision targeting made possible by high resolution imagery, human intelligence, precision munitions, world-wide digital command and control and highly efficient delivery platforms (None of which he built). 

By fitting drones with precision guided munitions, it is possible to efficiently kill a target with minimal collateral damage. That drone strikes occur has long been common knowledge, what was not known, according to a New York Times article on May 29, 2012 was, "Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret 'nominations' process to designate terrorists for kill or capture..." This is borne out by Obama's selection of American-born Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki for assassination by drone attack in Yemen in September 2011.  Numerous media sources cite the death in June of 2012, of al Qaeda's deputy leader Abu Yahya al-Libi by drone attack. Then Saeed al-Shihri, deputy in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's leadership, was killed on September 10th, 2012. Drone sorties number in the hundreds and one can be assured that a large percentage are dedicated to attacking al Qaeda soft targets which Obama personally selects.

Evidently it is not well known in the White House that despite Obama's affinity to Islam, Muslims harbor thousand year old grudges against competing Muslim sects, engage in blood feuds between tribes, families and individuals, not to mention infidels; all of which demand retribution. Anyone who has the mistaken impression that Muslims harbor no ill will for bin Laden's death and other al Qaeda leaders who have been assassinated by Obama, do not understand.

In light of available information it is all but indisputable that Obama's personal selection of targets set the stage for al Qaeda's retribution attacks on September 11th, 2012, and effectively decimated his Muslim outreach.  Wittingly or otherwise, he threw fuel on the flames by citing "Innocence of Muslims" as the cause, which attackers gladly took as a gift to incite their base.

Now, Obama's "apology chickens" are coming home to roost, his foreign policy is a complete disaster, the U.S. economy is in shambles; and like Nero "fiddling" while Rome burned, Obama smiles big and acts "cool" on Letterman and other hip shows. What may seem "cool" for those who know little or nothing or who are not paying attention, is disastrous for the United States of America.  Ahead in the Polls? We'll see how the movie ends.

Choose, this day whom you will elect, as for me and my house we will vote for Romney/Ryan.

 Semper Fidelis,
Bob Pappas

 . 
If you wish to  read PREVIOUS ARTICLES by Col Pappas, please see: http://www.gulf1.net/columns/Pappas.html
 

 

Copyright © September 21st, 2012, revised September 30th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed. It may not be used in any way, in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.  For those who have a burning desire to send a writen letter by the United States Post Office our mailing address can be found on this contact page.   http://www.gulf1.com/contact/default.html

 

Disarming America----Paving The Road To Dictatorship

 

Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx

Disarming America----Paving The Road To Dictatorship
(Plus Communist SEIU Ad And Bogus Website Misrepresent Gop Medicare Plans)
by Alan Bates, MD

Before I get to my main topic today, let me call your attention to the pro-Obama, pro-Communist Party USA SEIU (Service Employees International Union) radio ads which are aired daily throughout Florida to scare seniors away from Romney and Ryan. This dishonest ad refers listeners to a bogus website which disgracefully misrepresents the Romney-Ryan plans for Medicare and Medicaid, stating that the GOP nominees would destroy both programs. Nothing could be further from the truth as, unlike the fact Obamacare steals 716 BILLION dollars from Medicare over ten years, Romney and Ryan repeal Obamacare and preserve Medicare for those over age 50 and seek to gradually privatize senior healthcare for future retirees younger than 50. Under Obamacare, seniors face reduced benefits and higher premiums under Medicare starting January 1st of next year (conveniently after the election!). The SEIU website is just another ‘push Granny off the cliff’ attempt to demonize the rational approach by Romney and Ryan to address our overextended entitlement programs which are otherwise soon doomed to bankruptcy under Obama. Please alert senior citizens about this dishonest ad by SEIU-COPE.

The main topic today is a review of Barack Obama’s intentions with respect to our Second Amendment rights. Our founders established the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights so that American citizens could defend our sovereignty against threats both ‘foreign and domestic’ (like Barack Obama and his Marxist minions). Obama and his handlers ARE threats to our sovereignty and therefore are focused like lasers on the Second Amendment. There can be no doubt what Barack Obama has planned should he be reelected for another term. He will unleash numerous unconstitutional executive orders to complete his transformation of a free America to a dictatorship run by wealthy socialist elites while relegating We the People to government submission with no means of defending ourselves. We the People will be forced to place government over person and family. Here are the facts about what Obama has done besides oversee the Fast and Furious scandal of running guns to Mexican cartels to make it appear that America’s Second Amendment right to own and bear arms is responsible for cartel violence:

  • Obama supported a ban on manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns in 1996.
  • Obama endorsed a ban on sale or transfer of semi-automatic firearms (handguns) in 1999.
  • Obama supported 500 percent increase in taxes on guns and ammunition in 1999.
  • Obama proposed banning gun stores within five miles of schools or parks in 1999.
  • Obama co-sponsored legislation limiting gun purchases to one per month in 1999.
  • Obama served on the radically anti-gun Joyce Foundation board of directors from 1994-2002.
  • Obama voted to ban many conventional rifles and shotguns in 2003.
  • Obama voted to prosecute victims who use guns for self-defense in their homes (2004).
  • Obama backed federal law to abolish Right-to-Carry nationwide in 2004.
  • Obama voted to ban rifle ammunition in 2005.
  • Obama voted to expose U.S. gun industry to bankrupting lawsuits in 2005.
  • Obama voted to reject pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
  • Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s ban on guns in the home for self-defense in 2008.
  • Obama voted to jeopardize federal criminal investigations by opening up sensitive BATFE gun-trace data for manipulation by anti-gun politicians in 2008.

The above items occurred BEFORE Obama was elected in 2008. As president, Obama has suggested that a permanent ban on semi-automatic guns be implemented, though he has not yet enough support by the Congress (will he issue yet another unconstitutional executive order doing so if reelected?). Many of those appointed to Obama’s cabinet are anti-gun and anti-hunting radicals. His ‘regulatory Czar’ Cass Sunstein is on record stating that sport hunting should be banned. Fast and Furious however has proved to just what lengths the corrupt anti-American Obama Administration will go in order to deprive us of our gun rights. Even after the actual intentions of Fast and Furious were discovered, the Administration imposed orders for gun registration in four Southwestern border states---despite Congress finding DOIJ AG Eric Holdout in contempt of Congress for withholding critical communications records which would most certainly blow wide open the Administration’s ulterior anti-constitutional criminal motives to the American public.

Even more concerning is that a second Obama term would see two or three more anti-
Second Amendment justices appointed to the high Court which would permanently destroy our right to personal defense at home or business, and just as importantly, our Constitutionally-endowed right of We the People to remove a rogue dictator from power----just what imposter Barack Obama and his handlers want!

Americans are now faced with one chance to save our Constitutional liberties---the November 6 election. Urge your friends, neighbors and work associates to make themselves aware of what is at stake in this election and to vote accordingly, or watch our personal liberties including personal protection rights vaporize. Keep in mind that it is the Second Amendment which protects the First Amendment.

Reference material: America’s First Freedom magazine, October 2012 edition, the National Rifle Assn.

Send a comment to Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx


__,_._,___

Your Universal Service Fee at Work

September 30, 2012

Your Universal Service Fee at Work

By Rosslyn Smith

That Universal Service Fee we pay as part of our phone bill each month has helped double the number of "free Obamaphones" in the hands of people in Ohio since last year to more than 1 million. While the mainstream media has ignored this story, the Ohio press is covering it. Maybe interest in the You Tube rant of the now infampus Obamaphone Lady, now at 2.2 million views in three days, will help get out the story of how this program skyrocketed in a key swing state. Then there is the issue of the dubious ethics of having private businesses both actively promote a government welfare program and name it after an elected figure in their marketing materials

From the Dayton Ohio Daily News.

The program in Ohio cost $26.9 million in the first quarter of 2012, the most recent data available, versus $15.6 million in the same timeframe in 2011. Compared to the first quarter of 2011, the number of people in the program nearly doubled to more than a million.

Growth could cost everyone who owns a phone. The program is funded through the "Universal Service Fund" charge on phone bills - usually a dollar or two per bill - and the amount of the fee is determined by the cost of this and other programs.

A growth of $100 million in this program could result in an increased fee of a few cents on the average bill, according to officials from the agency that administers the program. The total cost of the program nationwide was $1.5 billion in 2011, up from $1.1 billion in 2010.

Growth in the program is fed by the 2008 decision to extend it to prepaid cellphone companies, which get up to $10 every month that someone is subscribed. The number of cellphone companies offering the service in Ohio grew from four in 2011 to nine currently, with seven more awaiting approval from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

The left is freaking out over this. In addition to maintaining it is racist to show a black person making a fool of herself they are screaming to high heaven that the program began under Ronald Reagan. That is true, but they fail to note that in the 1980s it was proposed as a very limited program to provide land line service to those who could show both financial need and a reason they needed a phone, such as medical conditions that would require them to call emergency services. As is common, once in place the program expended until by 2008 some 7.1 million were enrolled. Then in 2008 it was revised to include cell phones and actively marketed by cell phone providers to people on a variety of government assistance program regardless of need. Today 12.5 million free phone accounts exist.

It's the active marketing of this program by cell phone providers that is most problematical. In The Shady Ethics of 'The Obama Phone' Timothy Dalrymple writes:

Imagine, for instance, that it were the government itself that advertised the phones as Obama phones, starting in 2009. This would be, at the very least, deeply misleading. It would be taking credit for a program begun under predecessors. It would be similar to President Bush in his first term, if he had come to office after Clinton initiated a program that gave free cars to welfare recipients, seeking electoral advantage by advertising them as "Bush cars."

But clearly (?) that's not the case here, right? A visit to FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net - which calls itself "a small publishing company and the authority on the U.S. government's Lifeline Assistance program as it applies to mobile phones" - decries the "false rumor" of Obama Phones, which it calls an "incorrect term" because the cell phone program began several months before Obama's election. Case closed.

Or maybe not. Visit ObamaPhone.net and here's what you see (I suspect they'll make changes soon, if they haven't already, so I took a screenshot):

Image001

It gets even more interesting.

When you click the link at ObamaPhone.net to apply for a free cell phone, you're redirected to...wait for it...FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net. That's right. The same website that decried the "false rumor" and "incorrect term" of The Obama Phone Program has another website, surely desired to attract search engine traffic, that advertises The Obama Phone Program. Nice.

UPDATE: The website has already been changed! Visit Obamaphone.net now, and you'll get something like a blog with no pictures of Obama, as though they're in the process of dismantling the site. But surely there's nothing to see here, folks! Let's talk about Mitt Romney's tax forms!

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/your_universal_service_fee_at_work.html#ixzz27yNZsI8C

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

27% OF OUR POPULATION IS 17 & UNDER..100% CONTROL OUR FUTURE 
All posts should be something you are not ashamed to show to your young people or your clergy. Suggestions, Complaints, Problems, Personal Criticisms and Subjects that could cause debates that could be controversial are to be kept out of sends to the whole alliance. Either send them personally to each other or directly to a ccpga moderator, or the owner at this address: 
ccpga-owner@yahoogroups.com

.

Image003

__,_._,___

Why Democrats, including me, are abandoning Obama


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/07/why-democrats-including-me-are-abandoning-obama/?intcmp=obinsite

Why Democrats, including me, are abandoning Obama

By Rob Taub

Published September 07, 2012
I wrote an article last month for this website discussing how I – along with other Democrats and independents – might just cast our vote for Romney, although I didn't fully explain the rationale for the change. While I'm not claiming there is a new wave of supporters for Mitt Romney, there is no denying that there is a large number of disgruntled Democrats and independents who are dissatisfied with President Obama. And that may just be enough to elect Mitt Romney.

At this week's Democratic Convention, president Obama spoke of his many hopes and dreams for America. He has often said that he expects to leave a legacy of great achievements, like those of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

Kennedy was able to galvanize the nation not simply because he wanted to do so, but as a result of methodical campaigning and stumping that culminated with a cross-country trip in 1956<

>, where he introduced himself to voters, delegates and politicians.  Lyndon Johnson was able to pass numerous bills into law, not merely for the reason that they were morally right, but because he was a skilled politician who understood and accepted the workings of our political system.

JFK was a relentless and industrious campaigner.  He came from a level of wealth and privilege that placed him at the top of the one percent of his day, yet instead of rejecting the mandatory campaign requirements of politicians of that era, he embraced the daily rigors of handshaking, personal visits and ward style politics, exploiting them further than anyone ever had before. 

The president has a wonderful vision for America, but it's nothing more than a delusion that can't be achieved during a time of record – and climbing – deficits.

-

Lyndon Johnson was the consummate politician who truly understood that the art of the deal was all about bipartisanship<

> and he worked tirelessly to unite our country.  It’s been said that while most men were content to read a book or watch a sporting event for recreation, Lyndon Johnson would follow the results of a local Texas school board election for fun.  His love for politics was unflagging.  That was his tennis.

President Obama is said to abhor the daily machinations of Washington politics.  He refuses to miss more than two dinners a week with his daughters. He prefers not to meet with senators, congressmen or significant donors, yet he still expects to reap the benefits normally provided by those circumstances. 

Obama snubbed the advice of George Soros (perhaps his wealthiest and most influential donor) and has alienated many other important supporters. What President Obama may perceive as altruistic is nothing more than intractable behavior along with a refusal to accept the reality of American politics and – ultimately – the basic job description of president of the United States.

Perhaps President Obama should consider that his dislike of Washington politics has contributed to the inertia and current stalemate that exists in Washington. He promised hope and change, but his current campaign is divisive with negative advertisements and driven by class warfare. 

In Thursday night's convention address, President Obama reprised the same promises he made in 2008, again with no feasible suggestions of how to pay for them.

The president has a wonderful vision for America, but it's nothing more than a delusion that can't be achieved during a time of record – and climbing – deficits. Our government has built roads, bridges and schools that have educated us.  However, it has also become a bloated money burning machine in desperate need of reform – a word that does not seem to exist in Obama's vocabulary.  

Democrats are jumping ship because President Obama is offering nothing but blame for the previous administration and his own pipe dreams at a time when voters need some real assurance if they’re going to believe the economy can be saved.  Unfortunately, speaking as one of those Democrats, I have little hope that President Obama will change.

Rob Taub is a writer and comedian. He is host of Tech Hub<

> on WOR AM radio.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/07/why-democrats-including-me-are-abandoning-obama/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz27u3BezEL

__._,_.___

Dishonest Media Avoids Truth About Obama Through Diversions -- The Movie ‘2016’ Provides A Reality Check!

Disarming America----Paving The Road To Dictatorship
(Plus Communist SEIU Ad And  Bogus Website  Misrepresent Gop  Medicare Plans) 
by Alan Bates, MD

Ab
Before I get to my main topic today,  let me call your attention to the pro-Obama,  pro-Communist Party USA   SEIU  (Service Employees International Union)  radio ads which are aired daily throughout Florida to scare seniors away from  Romney and Ryan.   This dishonest ad refers listeners to a bogus website which disgracefully misrepresents  the Romney-Ryan plans for Medicare and Medicaid,  stating that the GOP nominees would destroy both programs.  Nothing could be further from the truth as,  unlike the fact Obamacare steals 716 BILLION dollars from Medicare over ten years,  Romney and Ryan repeal Obamacare and preserve Medicare for those over age 50 and seek to gradually privatize senior healthcare for  future retirees younger than 50.  Under Obamacare,  seniors face reduced benefits and higher premiums under Medicare  starting January 1st of next year (conveniently after the election!).  The SEIU website is just another ‘push Granny off the cliff’ attempt to demonize the rational approach  by Romney and Ryan to address our overextended entitlement programs which are otherwise soon doomed to bankruptcy under Obama.  Please alert senior citizens about this dishonest ad by SEIU-COPE. 

The main topic today is a review of  Barack Obama’s intentions with respect to our Second Amendment rights.   Our founders established the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights so that American citizens could  defend our sovereignty against  threats both ‘foreign and domestic’ (like Barack Obama and his Marxist minions).   Obama and his handlers ARE threats to our sovereignty and therefore are focused like lasers on the Second Amendment.  There can be no doubt what Barack Obama has planned should he be reelected for another term.  He will unleash numerous unconstitutional executive orders  to complete his transformation of a free America to a dictatorship run by wealthy socialist elites while relegating We the People to government submission with no means of defending ourselves.  We the People will be forced to place government over person and family.   Here are the facts about what Obama has done besides oversee the Fast and Furious scandal of running guns to Mexican cartels to make it appear that America’s Second Amendment right to own and bear arms is responsible for cartel violence:

  • Obama supported a ban on manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns in 1996.
  • Obama endorsed a ban on sale or transfer of semi-automatic firearms (handguns) in 1999.
  • Obama supported 500 percent increase in taxes on guns and ammunition in 1999.
  • Obama proposed banning gun stores within five miles of schools or parks in 1999.
  • Obama co-sponsored legislation limiting gun purchases to one per month in 1999.
  • Obama served on the radically anti-gun Joyce Foundation board of directors from 1994-2002.
  • Obama voted to ban many conventional rifles and shotguns in 2003.
  • Obama voted to prosecute victims who use guns for self-defense in their homes (2004).
  • Obama backed federal law to abolish Right-to-Carry nationwide in 2004.
  • Obama voted to ban rifle ammunition in 2005.
  • Obama voted to expose U.S. gun industry to bankrupting lawsuits in 2005.
  • Obama voted to reject pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
  • Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s ban on guns in the home for self-defense in 2008.
  • Obama voted to jeopardize federal criminal investigations by opening up sensitive BATFE gun-trace data for manipulation by anti-gun politicians in 2008.

The above items occurred BEFORE Obama was elected in 2008.  As president,  Obama has suggested that a permanent ban on semi-automatic guns be implemented,  though he has not yet enough support by the Congress (will he issue yet another  unconstitutional executive order doing so if reelected?).   Many of those appointed to Obama’s cabinet are anti-gun and anti-hunting radicals.   His ‘regulatory Czar’ Cass Sunstein  is on record stating that sport hunting should be banned.   Fast and Furious however has proved to just what lengths the corrupt anti-American Obama Administration will go in order to deprive us of our gun rights.  Even after the actual intentions of Fast and Furious were discovered,  the Administration imposed orders for gun registration in four Southwestern border states---despite Congress finding DOIJ  AG  Eric Holdout in contempt of Congress for withholding critical communications records which would most certainly blow wide open the Administration’s ulterior anti-constitutional criminal motives to the American public. 

Even more concerning is that a second  Obama term would  see two or three more anti-
Second Amendment justices appointed to the high Court which would permanently destroy our right to personal defense at home or business,  and just as importantly,  our Constitutionally-endowed right of We the People to remove a rogue dictator from power----just what imposter Barack Obama and his handlers want!  

Americans are now faced with one chance to save our Constitutional liberties---the November 6 election.   Urge your friends, neighbors and work associates to make themselves aware of what is at stake in this election and to vote accordingly,  or watch our personal liberties including personal protection rights vaporize.  Keep in mind that it is the Second Amendment which protects the First Amendment.

Reference material:  America’s First Freedom magazine,  October 2012 edition,  the National Rifle Assn.

Send a comment to Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx
 
Get the facts.  Watch the latest video clips about the latest issues on Gulf1
 
If you no longer wish to receive these columns from Dr. Alan Bates, please use: http://www.gulf1.net/remove/remove_bates.html
 
Copyright September 30, 2012 by Gulf1 
For those who have a burning desire to send a writen letter by the United States Post Office or mailing address can be found on this contact page.   http://www.gulf1.com/contact/default.html

Democrats lay out second-term wish list for President Obama

 

"“He's got to continue to concentrate on jobs… I'm hoping he'll do immigration reform… We should get back to an energy policy… revenue generation... immigration reform… I think he'd want his administration to start on healthcare…"

Yeah.  Like his first term was so great on all those.

--S.

Democrats lay out second-term wish list for President Obama

The presidential contest is far from over, but House Democrats are already readying their legislative wish-lists in hopes that President Obama is reelected.

The lawmakers are floating a broad array of issues they'd like Obama to tackle immediately in a second term, placing a focus on jobs and the economy, but also thorny discretionary issues like immigration, climate change, housing – even a return to healthcare reform.

An Obama victory in November would lend the president a new fistful of political capital as he confronts Republican leaders over how to avoid the fiscal cliff and steer the polarized country through the next four years. More than a month before November's elections, his allies in the House are already offering tips for how to spend it.

“He's got to continue to concentrate on jobs,” Rep. Bill Pascrell said last week as the House was leaving town for a long, pre-election recess.

“I'm hoping he'll do immigration reform,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas).

“We should get back to an energy policy – one that acknowledges that climate change is real,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

“The critical issues will be revenue generation … and … a concerted push on immigration reform,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.).

“I think he'd want his administration to start on healthcare,” said Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.).

The remarks highlight the sheer variety of issues the Democrats are hoping to address after two years in the House minority – and foreshadow the degree of pressure a reelected Obama would be under to satisfy his allies after a bruising campaign season.

The quotations also suggest some rising confidence among Democrats.

The presidential contest remains a close one, but recent polls show Obama with a growing lead in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida are indication that GOP contender Mitt Romney has a hard road ahead to unseat the incumbent. National polls this week also showed Obama with a growing lead, while Republican criticism of Romney has intensified.

Although the Republicans are expected to keep control of the House, an Obama win amid a lingering jobs crisis would – at least in the eyes of Democrats – validate some of the policies the president has adopted on the campaign trail and pressure Republicans to reach deals on them. Indeed, some leading Republicans have said an Obama victory would be “a referendum” for raising taxes on the country's highest earners, one of Obama's top priorities.

The power of post-election momentum was evident four years ago when Obama was swept into the White House in a wave of Democratic victories that allowed the party to secure the early passage of their controversial economic stimulus package and paved the way for the enactment of sweeping healthcare reforms the following year.

Although voter enthusiasm toward Obama waned, reelection would give the president new – if fleeting – leverage in his negotiations with GOP leaders over a range of issues.

His House supporters are hoping he uses that leverage to fight for a long list of Democratic priorities that were lost to the partisan battles of the last Congress.

Topping the list are lingering concerns about an economy where unemployment remains stuck above 8 percent.

“Debt and jobs,” Welch said. “That's the fundamental issue: How are we going to deal with the debt in a way that promotes growth?”

Obama last year floated legislation designed to create jobs by boosting infrastructure spending, promoting manufacturing and hiking taxes on corporations that outsource jobs – central elements of the Democrats' “Make it in America” agenda. But Republicans in both chambers have prevented that package from going anywhere.

Other lawmakers think social issues will be on the president’s radar.

A growing number of Democrats, for instance, see immigration as a top issue in a second Obama term, particularly if Latinos vote overwhelmingly for the president – as current polls predict – and Republicans are pressured to compromise or risk losing those voters in every national election for the foreseeable future.

“If we don't do it next year, 2014 is going to be here, and then 2016 is going to be here,” said Cuellar. “So I think we'll have a window like we had a window in 2009 after his election … and I hope we get to do it.”

Grijalva agreed that a big win for Obama with Latinos would be enough to convince Republicans to support immigration reform in early 2013 just to “put that issue behind us.”

“It's been a venomous issue politically now for almost three election cycles,” he said.

Honda, meanwhile, wants Obama to return to healthcare reform – the issue that consumed more than a year between 2009 and 2010 – to expand on the state-based insurance exchanges enacted under the Affordable Care Act.

“We've got more to do,” he said. “There should be a federal exchange.”

There's also an emerging push for the Democrats to revisit climate change legislation next year, an issue House Democrats addressed in 2009, only to watch Senate leaders ignore their proposal. The vote was a liability for a number of conservative-leaning House Democrats in the 2010 elections that swept the Republicans into the majority, but Welch argued the issue isn't as partisan as it seems.

“By focusing on energy efficiency, where there's a lot of common ground, [we could] create jobs and it would achieve one-third of the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050,” he said. “That's a big deal.”

Obama, for his part, is optimistic that Republicans would be more willing to compromise in a second term than they were in his first.

“My hope is that when the American people speak in this election – if I'm fortunate enough to be elected but we still have a Republican-controlled House – that some of the fever breaks and the particular goal of beating me no longer holds,” Obama told Ohio's Plain Dealer Thursday.

Still, the window to act on significant legislative changes will likely be short, as the fiscal cliff debate could extend well into 2013, leaving little room to maneuver before the campaign season launches for the 2014 midterms.

Asked how Obama should spend his political capital if he wins reelection, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) offered some advice.

"Carefully," he warned. "Carefully.

"Whatever we go after first has to be a bipartisan issue, whether it's cyber-security, whether it's payroll tax, whether it's the doc fix in Medicare, whether it's the jobs bill – whatever it is – we've got to do it together," Cleaver added. "Because even if we have the votes and try to run over them, the hostility will be so great here on the Hill that the midterm will very likely create problems."

Black Bishop Launches Brutal Attack Against Democratic Party

 

'Exodus Now': Black Bishop Launches Brutal Attack Against Democratic Party

Image001


You can't imagine how many videos I get sent to me. I make a point of watching some of all of them, but I couldn't stop watching this one:

-

-

Note that Bishop Jackson is not endorsing Mitt Romney or the Republican Party and never once mentions Barack Obama. His testimony is merely an indictment of the Democrat Party, not from a racial or partisan perspective, but from a Christian one.

Honestly, I would love to hear anyone attempt to argue against the points the Bishop makes about Planned Parenthood, same sex marriage, and most especially the Democratic Party's attacks against God, up to and including the booing of God last month at the Democratic convention in Charlotte (something the Bishop mentions in the video).

Bishop Jackson has turned his beliefs into a moment called S.T.A.N.D. -- which stands for Staying True to America's Destiny. Here's the website.

From the looks of it, he's just getting started.

__,_._,___

The squaddie and the squirrel: Soft-hearted soldier who nursed dying baby creature back to health


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210653/The-squaddie-squirrel-Soft-hearted-soldier-nursed-dying-baby-creature-health-feeding-hours.html


The squaddie and the squirrel: Soft-hearted soldier who nursed dying baby creature back to health by feeding it every four hours

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED:18:54 EST, 29 September 2012| UPDATED:19:50 EST, 29 September 2012

A kind-hearted soldier rescued a baby squirrel on the verge of death and then nursed him back to health by feeding him every four hours.

Warrant officer Pyotr Pankratau was serving in the Belarussian army when he discovered the tiny baby squirrel under a tree.

Despite his military duties, Pankratau took him back to base and managed to squeeze in feeds of milk every four hours around his busy schedule.

Image001

Adorable: Warrant officer Pyotr Pankratau was serving in the Belarussian army when he found the baby squirrel under a tree

Image002

Best friends: Pyotr Pankratau and his squirrel Minsk are now inseparable after he nursed the sick animal back to health

Image003

Yum: Pankratau fed Minsk with baby food and milk every four hours until he got better

Incredibly, the baby squirrel made a full recovery and stayed with Pankratau throughout his two years of service in the army.

Pankratau named the squirrel Minsk - after the Belarus capital - and he now never leaves his side.

More...

Minsk even accompanies Pankratau, now a taxi driver, as he drives passengers around the city.

He told Euro Radio: 'He was lying unconscious under the tree. There were worms in his mouth and right eye so I took them out. Two weeks later everything got back to normal.

Image004

Backseat driver: Pankratau left the army and now works as a taxi driver - with Minsk by his side

Image005

Kicking back: Minsk is well-trained and stays in his designated areas of the car

Image006

Popular: While Minsk mainly keeps out of sight of customers, the friendly squirrel is a favourite with children

Image007

Furry pals: The squirrel Minsk shares a snack with a feline friend

'I fed him with baby food and milk through a syringe every four hours.

'Then his teeth came out and he started eating himself.

'Half a year later I vaccinated and registered him.'

These adorable pictures show Minsk on his rounds with Pankratau who says he is well trained and sticks to certain parts of the taxi so he doesn't disturb the customers.

He added: 'I don't show him to everyone. Why disturb him all the time? I show him to kids.'

Image008

Hats off: One of Minsk's favourite places to have a nap is in Pankratau's military caps

Image009

Sleepyhead: Minsk is also happy to use Pankratau as a pillow if there aren't any hats around

Image010

Domesticated: Minsk is now a house squirrel and lives indoors

On the Road to Benghazi

September 30, 2012

On the Road to Benghazi

By Clarice Feldman

In retrospect, the Democratic Convention highlighted a liar, Elizabeth Warren. She was hired by Harvard law school because she lied about her ethnicity to gain affirmative action benefits, exaggerated her scholarship which was shoddy, practiced law for years in Massachusetts out of her law school office without being a member of that state's bar -- and possibly at the time a member of no bar at all. She gummed on before the crowd about working for the middle class hiding from the audience that she had made hundreds of thousands of dollars representing big corporations in disputes against steel workers and asbestos victims among others. This week, Professor William Jacobson exposed all of that.

But she was hardly the only world class mythomaniac from Harvard law school on the podium at that Convention, the theme of which was Obama the bold slayer of Bin Laden and destroyer of Al Qaeda, the experienced and aggressive counter terrorist expert. After all, his domestic policies, are so bad they were hardly anything about which to spike the ball so the brain trust picked international anti-terrorist hero theme.

If you've been too busy to keep track of the lies about the origin and perpetrators of the tragedy in Libya, Iowahawk has once again condensed this to its essence:

"Fast & Furious, Benghazi edition?"

Let's review the sad history of an Obama foreign policy initiative which resulted in the murder of our Ambassador, and three other Americans in an action which suggests that (reminiscent of Fast & Furious) the Administration let loose countless dangerous weapons , cannot trace them and has unloosed even more destruction -- including against the U.S. -- in this highly unstable region.

March 2012

According to Mark Hosenball of Reuters, sometime in that month, Obama decided to aid the rebels in ousting Gaddafi, a man who was at the time seemingly much subdued after we invaded Iraq and no longer creating the trouble in the region he'd been infamous for.

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."

Congress was not consulted. Congress did not authorize this. The entire decision and responsibility is Obama's.

While it may have appeared that we were only providing air support to the rebels, Obama announced at the time he had not ruled out supplying the rebels with arms, and from the nature of the attack on our consulate and a nearby "farm" in Benghazi we can assume that we, in fact, provided them. I can think of no other reason why we had so many former Seals and outside contractors in these locations except that we were trying unsuccessfully to retrieve these arms before they fell in the hands of Al Qaeda. And this development was as Hosenball reported something of great concern to people with a great deal more experience and historic knowledge than Obama:

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.

A Little song, A Little dance, A little Seltzer Down Your Pants

It was reasonably obvious from the outset -- especially considering the words of the Libyan government and the reports on the ground -- that the attacks on the consulate and at a nearby " farm" were not spontaneous outbursts occasioned by fury at a video which was critical of Muhammad, "Innocence of Muslims." At the Daily Beast, Eli Lake reported it was known within 24 hours of the incident that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the well-supplied and orchestrated attacks, but the Administration persisted for a week using various spokespersons, especially Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Secretary of State Clinton, to lie and suggest that was the cause of the murder of the Ambassador and three others.

Charles Krauthammer is the go to guy on why such an obviously juvenile effort to deflect blame onto a stupid video (probably few people have seen) was made:

This was clearly deception on part of the administration in sending Susan Rice to say this was a spontaneous demonstration, when as you reported, it was known inside the administration within a day that it was not. It was a terror attack. So why did they deceive? It's obvious. Because the attack took place five days after the Democrats had spent a week in Charlotte touting, spiking the football on Osama. And essentially, since it's the only foreign policy achievement of the four years they repeated it over and over again, the great triumph over al-Qaeda. Well, within a week, al-Qaeda sacks a U.S. embassy, kills an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit it so it spent a week deceiving Americans to think it's about demonstration, it's about a film, thinking, I think correctly that if it strung it out long enough the media would let it slide and now that it becomes it's obvious and true, nobody will care, I guarantee you. This is not a headline in the mainstream media.

John Nolte at Breitbart shared that point of view:

The false White House narrative blaming the murders on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video never really passed the smell test. But Obama maintained that illusion straight through to his speech before the United Nations two days ago, even as reports surfaced that our government knew al-Qaeda was behind the attack within 24 hours. Apparently, this has become too much to sweep under the rug for some of the mainstream press and Democrats.

The behavior of Obama and Secretary of State Clinton over the past 14 days is a scandal of the highest order. Lies, cover ups, and neglect for security of American intelligence and personnel that borders on criminal.

I've been skeptical that the same media, that early on conspired in this cover up by intentionally pouring all of its focus and fire on Mitt Romney's criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology, would go near this before the election. But the sins are so great and glaring, it doesn't look as though ignoring it will be possible for another 40 days.

After lying the Administration is now refusing to respond to inquiries based on a phony claim that the matter is "under investigation," an investigation that is nonexistent. (See video2 here.)

And Now a Little Two Step

Even though the make believe scenario has fallen apart, Obama still publicly continues to act as if it were true.

His Attorney general got involved and the film maker was widely photographed being hustled off (for questioning) by the Los Angeles police department and was just jailed on a pretense -- a probation violation. The "offense" seems at best a technical violation and at worst a signal to the Middle Eastern fanatics that while we say we can't do anything to stop them from being offended because the First Amendment forecloses such action, we really can and will punish those who offend them,

The same message was made more explicit in Obama's silly and groveling statement before the UN: "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam."

The use of the word "Prophet" in this context is bizarre. Do we refer to "Lord Jesus" or "Prophet Moses" in news accounts and secular speech? The suggestion that criticism of Islam is the equivalent of slander (a justiciable offense) and must result in the defeat of the speaker is nonsensical. The entire statement indicates to me the President is appeasing our attackers, bowing to the jihadis as earlier he touched the ground before the Saudi King. The entire claim that we must not give religious offense, moreover, is odd coming from a President who sees nothing wrong with "piss Christ" exhibits in publicly financed museums and whose Secretary of State publicly indicated she thought a play mocking Mormons was terrifically funny.

The pretense that Islam is entitled to some special protection because otherwise the world will suffer has even spread to NYC where after an MSNBC commenter was arrested for spray painting a pro-Israel poster the transit authority decided to remove those posters to avoid giving further offense to people like the defacer!

To recap, this was an armed assault, not a spontaneous demonstration. The weapons used against us were likely in the hands of Al Qaeda because our President on his own put them there, and we are being denied our free speech rights as part of an elaborate ruse to keep the press from reporting the scandal and the voters from learning before the election what really went down.

Other Implications

My friend Matt Holtzmann adds a coda, a description of the current state of play as a result of this series of administration blunders:

Susan Rice, our ambassador to the U.N., decided to have lunch with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday instead of attending Israeli PM Netanyahu's speech. Diplomatically this was the equivalent of flipping the bird. I believe this sends as clear a message as possible of the Administration's intentions in the Middle East.

That Mohammed Morsi released Mostafa Hamza, a leader of The Islamic Group, who was responsible for the Luxor temple bombing in 1997, is indicative of a new phase in the global war on terror.

In that attack, which killed 58 foreign tourists, the terrorists locked the gates of the temple grounds and for over 30 minutes raped, terrorized, and murdered almost everyone within the grounds. From the survivors' descriptions it was an orgy of violence. It was the worst terrorist attack in Egyptian history.

Morsi is also pressing for the release of the Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and who is at the center of an extradition battle in the U.K. trying to evade imprisonment in the United States.

With what we have just learned about the Administration's prevarications regarding the nature of the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Libya, the refusal to maintain some form of common front with our greatest ally in the region should ring alarm bells regarding our commitments and obligations to allies in the region.

Should Iran advance its agenda there is a very high probability that not only Israel, but the Gulf States will also go nuclear.


Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/09/on_the_road_to_benghazi.html at September 30, 2012 - 09:28:11 AM CDT

I Can’t Believe You Guys Are Covering For Obama on This Libya Disaster


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/krauthammer-to-fellow-panelists-i-cant-believe-you-guys-are-covering-for-obama-on-this-libya-disaster/


Government

Krauthammer to Fellow Panelists: I Can’t Believe You Guys Are Covering For Obama on This Libya Disaster

Posted on September 29, 2012 at 4:58pm by Becket Adams

During a Friday broadcast of PBS’ “Inside Washington,“ conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer accused members of the mainstream media of ”covering” for the Obama administration over its handling of the Libya fiasco.

“I just want to respond to my liberal pals over here,” Krauthammer said, referring to NPR’s Nina Totenberg, PBS’ Mark Shields, and Politico’s Evan Thomas. “I can’t believe you guys are covering for the administration on the Susan Rice thing when they themselves said five days later it was obviously a terror attack.”

“Obviously, everybody could see it. So why for a week did the administration pretend that it was a demonstration?” he asked.

“Well, it wouldn’t be a very good plan if they were pretending and then saying something different later,” NPR’s Nina Totenberg responded.

“It’s a good plan because the longer you draw it out, the less that the media and the country will care about it. It’s an issue, you seize of the issue right away, and it’s worked. Who talks about it other than –” Krauthammer started to explain.

“Well, we’re talking about it,” PBS Host Gordon Peterson noted, apparently ignoring Krauthammer’s earlier point that the media and the White House spent days discussing an obscure YouTube video before mentioning terrorism.

“The third PBS segment of the show. Come on, give me a break,” the conservative commentator responded.

“Now you’re insulting your audience, the people who are still with us,” Peterson responded.

“No, these are the nine people in America who really care about stuff. What about all the others?” Krauthammer said.

Do you think Krauthammer is incorrect when he half-jokingly refers to the small number of people who “really care about stuff,” or do you think he’s on to something when he claims the administration purposely misled Americans because they knew the first version of events would be the thing most people remember?