Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions


If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Friday, December 30, 2011

On a $4M Vacation, Michelle Seeks $3 From Backers

by Keith Koffler on December 30, 2011, 1:21 pm

Speaking from her paradisical $4 million Hawaii vacation, Mrs. Obama wants to know: Do any of President Obama’s supporters have $3 to spare for his reelection?

This is approximately like coming upon Warren Buffett on a street corner with a McDonald’s cup asking if he can have 15 cents.

Michelle’s request was part of an email sent to the Obama 2012 list today.
Over the next 11 months we’ve got an organization to grow, voters to register, and people to get fired up.
I hope you’ll close out this year by donating $3 or more now to help make sure we’re ready for the next one . . .
Thank you so much, and happy new year,
The obscene juxtaposition of the first lady on a $4 million vacation while asking what would have to be middle to low income earners for three bucks – who else would they be targeting with such an appeal? – is yet another example of lack of perspective the Obamas seem to be gaining while in power.

Mrs. Obama takes extravagant vacations to Spain and southern Africa. The president golfs obsessively and is currently dining at Honolulu’s ritziest restaurants. All while asking their fellow Americans to “sacrifice” during this time of not plenty.

And they blow $4 million – mostly taxpayers’ money – on a vacation, while wondering if the small people can come up with $3.

What about renting a beach house next year at the Jersey shore? I mean, if we’re all going to sacrifice.

Michael Reagan Says Newt 'Will Help Continue My Father's Vision'

Michael Reagan

In a 30-minute Newsmax election special, Michael Reagan, conservative columnist, radio host, and the eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan, offered the following comments:

“Soon Iowa will make a critical vote . . . In a minute we are featuring a person who we believe will help continue my father's vision . . . A man who fought in Congress for my father's programs. That person is Newt Gingrich.

“Millions of dollars have been spent in negative ads against him. But let's discuss the real Newt Gingrich. . . . Newt became a leading ally of my father, Ronald Reagan. He helped Congress push through massive tax cuts. He worked to secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union. Under his leadership Congress also limited the welfare state. . . As a leader in the Reagan Revolution, Gingrich began to confront both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for their cozy insider deals. . . Gingrich led the most reform-minded Congress in America. . . He has helped keep my father's legacy alive."

Reagan’s comments come on the heels of the endorsement by the renowned economist Art Laffer, the architect of the Reagan economic recovery in the 1980s. Mr. Laffer will appear with Newt today in Iowa.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

DIRECTV Profits For Third Quarter Come On Back Of Consumers From Cancellation Penalties At Issue In Class Action Lawsuit

Consumer Watchdog Warns Shareholders Profits May Need To Be Refunded
Pamela Pressley
Phone Number:
310-392-0522 x307

Santa Monica, CA —DIRECTV reported net profit of $516 million for the 3rd Quarter of 2011, bringing its net profit to $1.89 billion for the first 9 months of the year and putting the company on track to top its record 2010 profit of $2.3 billion. DIRECTV’s profits come at the expense of its customers who are assessed hefty “cancellation penalties” -- up to $480 -- when they terminate their service, said Consumer Watchdog. This “early cancellation penalty,” the subject of pending litigation, is charged regardless of the reason for the cancellation, and is often removed without consent from customers’ bank accounts or credit card accounts.

According to Consumer Watchdog, whose attorneys represent a class of California DIRECTV customers in a lawsuit challenging the cancellation penalty, DIRECTV has levied the cancellation fee on over 570,000 California consumer accounts from 2004-2010, pulling millions of dollars from their bank and credit card accounts as many juggled budgets to pay for groceries and gasoline. Consumer Watchdog warned shareholders that if the case is successful DIRECTV will have to refund millions of dollars.

“During a time when many families are struggling to make ends meet, DIRECTV is earning record profits while it continues to plunder its customers’ bank accounts to pay a fee that we believe is unlawful,” said Consumer Watchdog Litigation Director Pamela Pressley, who is one of the attorneys in the case.

In a complaint filed in September 2010 in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of current and former California DIRECTV customers who were charged an early cancellation penalty, Los Angeles resident Kathy Greiner explained that when her DIRECTV receiver stopped working, she ordered a new one, which triggered a new contract without her knowledge. The new receiver experienced problems, but DIRECTV would not resolve them, and even suggested that Greiner climb onto her roof to “reset” the equipment. So Greiner, a six-year customer of the company, cancelled her service and returned the equipment. DIRECTV subsequently levied a $237 “early cancellation” penalty on Greiner, which the company took directly from her bank account without her knowledge or permission.

According to Greiner, “DIRECTV reached into my bank account without my permission and took an early termination fee which I never agreed to and didn’t know about until I checked my bank balance.”

Another customer, Mary Cox, said she canceled DIRECTV after seven years due to equipment problems and “terrible” customer service. DIRECTV deducted the cancellation penalty from her bank account without notice. “This fee caused my account to go into overdraft, resulting in my bank charging me overdraft fees. I spent countless hours trying to get the charges reversed with my bank. This is money I need to pay for my groceries and other bills.”

Greiner’s complaint was consolidated with another lawsuit brought by Amy Imburgia, also a California resident, and subsequently certified as a class action in April 2011. The class action lawsuit, Imburgia, et. al, v. DIRECTV, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC398295 challenges DIRECTV’s assessment of early cancellation penalties (ECPs) to subscribers of DIRECTV satellite television services in California pursuant to a uniform “liquidated damages” clause buried in a form contract to which all subscribers were subjected. According to the lawsuit: “the [ECP] penalties imposed by DIRECTV are unlawful liquidated damages because they are not designed to compensate DIRECTV for any damages arising from [customers’] cancellation, but rather are designed to lock in [customers] and serve as a disincentive to prevent [customers] from switching to competing services in the event they become dissatisfied with the service provided by DIRECTV or can no longer access DIRECTV’s service.”

Along with Consumer Watchdog attorneys, Greiner is represented by the Law Offices of F. Edie Mermelstein, based in Huntington Beach, and Paul Stevens and Shireen Mohsenzadegan of the Santa Monica-based firm of Milstein, Adelman LLP. Plaintiff Imburgia is represented by Ingrid Evans of the San Francisco office of The Evans Law Firm.

A copy of the joint amended complaint can be found here: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/DirecTVSuitComplaint.pdf

Consumer Watchdog, formerly The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Speaker Gingrich gets Pres Ronald Reagan economist endorsement


See below…from my FNC colleague:

Newt Gingrich Endorsed by Architect of Reagan Economic Plan, Economist Arthur Laffer

Dyersville, IA – Renowned economist, father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics, and architect of the Ronald Reagan economic plan, Arthur Laffer, announced his endorsement today of Newt Gingrich for President of the United States.

“Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field,” said Laffer.

“Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as Speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.”

Mr. Laffer will join Newt Gingrich in Storm Lake, IA Thursday for a formal press conference announcing the endorsement.

“Rebuilding the America we love requires returning to job creation and economic growth. We need big changes to fix the economy, and I am ready to stand up to Barack Obama’s class warfare rhetoric to make the case that letting the American people keep more of what they earn is the best way to create jobs.”

Dr. Laffer received his B.A. in economics from Yale, his MBA and Ph. D. in economics at Stanford. Laffer is the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an economic research firm focusing on interconnecting macroeconomics, political and demographic changes affecting global financial markets.

Joy Lin
FNC Producer

Friday, December 23, 2011

Peace on Earth

Thursday, December 22, 2011

What NC General Statute(s) “empowers” Union County to “supersede” NCGS Agricultural legislation?

What NC General Statute(s) “empowers” Union County to “supersede” NCGS Agricultural legislation? 

As a personal response to: Union County Manager Cynthia Coto, Senior Staff Attorney Jeff Crook and County Attorney Ligon Bundy. 

It is in order to congratulate Superior Court Judge Chris Bragg for “following the law” in granting Jay Brown an injunction against Union County’s out-of-control, escalating legislated Board of Adjustments and Planning Department and in allowing Jay Brown to host a rodeo on his Wingate farm. Judge Chris Bragg’s judgment was an overdue decision. 

NCGS 106-581.1. clearly defines “agriculture” http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_106/GS_106-581.1.html.  This statute exemplifies exactly as the NC legislators intended. 

NCGS 99E 30. Clearly defines “agritourism” http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_99E/GS_99E-30.html. There is no logic to enhance or eliminate any other judgments to this statute. 

The Dictionary defines “agritourism” as a noun: “tourism in which tourists take part in farm or village activities, as animal and crop care, cooking and cleaning, handicrafts, and entertainments” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agritourism. 

SESSION LAW 2011-363 - SECTION 1.  G.S. 153A340(b)(2) reads as rewritten: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/sessionlaws/html/2011-2012/sl2011-363.html 

For three (3) simple responses to Union County’s “illegal” local legislation: 

1)    Union County response: “In the response to Brown’s lawsuit, county officials denied Cross Creek is a bona fide farm according to state law. In Wednesday’s statement, county officials explained that a new state law allowed farmers to prove they operate bona fide farms using five different pieces of proof. Among those were the farm’s Schedule F income tax return from the previous year. “Brown’s attorney faxed the Schedule F to the County Attorney, but upon receipt, it was found that the Schedule F made no mention of the rodeo operation,” the statement said. “The statute provides a “safe harbor” from county zoning by listing five methods that a property owner can use to establish that his property is a bona-fide farm, and is therefore not subject to county regulation.” 

1)    My Response: Jay Brown has, through listing five methods by NC statute, and along with his Schedule F, has proven that he has a bona-fide working farm. It may not be necessary to list his rodeo operation separately. Does Union County plan to reject Jay Brown as a bona-fide farm if he is required to, chooses to, or allowed to, acquire other employees with tractors, combines, cotton pickers/strippers, or other equipment in his agricultural  operation?  

2)    Union County response: “Brown told the zoning officer that the horses and bulls that are involved in the rodeo events are not owned by Brown or kept on his property; they are brought onto the property by third persons, and the persons who participate in the rodeo events are not affiliated or connected with his farming operations.” 

2)    My Response: Based on Union County’s opinion/definition, if an individual did not own a tractor, a combine, cotton pickers/strippers, or any other pieces of farm equipment, the farmer may/could not qualify his farm as a bona-fide farm. If the individual chose and/or needs to employ other individuals to plow his/her land, combine his/her crops, bail his/her hay, etc., would/could Union County’s position declare this as non-farm uses of bona-fide farm property?  

3)    Union County response: “The North Carolina Legislature has delegated to the 100 counties in North Carolina the authority to regulate land, through zoning. In doing so, the Legislature limited counties’ zoning power by providing that counties may not regulate property used for bona-fide farm purposes. However, the Legislature further provided that counties may regulate farm property that is being used for non-farm purposes. Thus, the Legislature has declared that it is the policy of this state for counties to regulate non-farm uses of farm property.” 

3)    My Response:  Union County’s opinion/definition is misrepresenting and/or ignoring NCGS 106-581.1., NCGS 99E 30., and SESSION LAW 2011-363. as recently purified. When the NC General Assembly declares that “counties may regulate non-farm uses of farm property”, it should be clear that the General Assembly’s implications were intended to disallow otherwise, illegal businesses such as illegal gambling, dog fighting, houses of prostitution, etc.

In summary, Union County’s Board of Adjustments and Planning Department have expanded regulations beyond NC law that were never intended by the NC General Assembly and/or NC General Statutes. 

Union County’s citizens must become aware of potential frightening amendments of extending amendments beyond NC General Statutes. 

For example, there is a move to prevent homeowners from having a garden in their own backyard to eat and sale the produce unless it may be tested under federal health testing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Auprw8f74 

The EPA is considering a crackdown on “farm dust”. Can you even imagine consumers food cost with the farmers’ cost to prevent dust on their farms http://www.news9.com/story/12899662/epa-to-crack-down-on-farm-dust?redirected=true? 

What may be next?  Will Union County’s Board of Adjustments and Planning Department make it mandatory for you to install the cost of a fire sprinkler system in your home or some other building? How much will that project cost? 

Will Union County’s Board of Adjustments and Planning Department require all residents to build an “explosion proof” building outside and away from your residence just to allow storage of a gasoline can, motor oil and/or additional lubricants, a spray paint can, or other burning/explosive items? Who would police this bloated government proposal? 

Finally, what section(s) of the NC General Statutes “empowers” Union County’s Board of Adjustments and Planning Department to “supersede” the agriculture legislation as referenced by the NC General Statutes? Please show me the NC General Statues. North Carolina law does not provide Union County government for this “magnified” local legislation! Union County government cannot mix a misrepresentation into law. 

It appears some of Union County’s government may be out-of-control  with their ownescalating legislated” initiatives. NC General Statutes does not authorize Union County’s government these radical actions. 

Superior Court Judge Chris Bragg is “right” on the NC law and his order will correct a wrong http://enquirerjournal.com/view/full_story/16865309/article-County-disagrees-with-judge-s-injunction-ruling?instance=homeleftmain3 

For the record, I have “never” met, seen, or even talked to Jay Brown. Protecting (y)our US and North Carolina Constitutional freedoms, US Code, and our NC General Statues are of most importance to all.   

Oscar Y. Harward

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

NC Gov. Beverly Perdue is out of touch with North Carolinians

NC Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoes and rejects the “super majority” of North Carolinas’ District Attorneys findings and denies 64% of NC citizens’ opinions support of the death penalty as required by law http://www.nccivitas.org/2009/nc-poll-support-death-penalty-remains-strong/.  Racial Justice Act of year 2009 has made it all but impossible for NC Courts to enforce death penalty laws. 

NC Gov. Beverly Perdue and many other members of the Democrat Party support the NAACP who asserts that the 2009 year Racial Justice Act as well as “Voter ID” is racial.  Not true at all. 

Polls show that 69% support “Voter ID” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2011/69_say_photo_id_voting_laws_are_not_discriminatory, NC Gov. Beverly Perdue is opposed to “Voter ID”, a law that requires official identification to vote in elections.   Voter ID is required to visit some local County Court Houses, the Governors’ offices,  (y)our Capitol Hill office buildings, and the White House.  We must show photo ID to drive a car, fly on a plane, cash a check, open a bank account, collect social security benefits, receive food stamps, collect welfare, rent a car, check into a hotel room, pickup tickets, and the list goes on. Voter ID would be provided to those who cannot afford to purchase one.  SCOTUS just approved “Voter ID” in the State of Indiana http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/?mid=55.  

A super majority of North Carolinas got over racism many years ago.  It would be more pleasant if the Democrats could/would argue facts and get over “racism”; then practice the same. 

Oscar Y. Harward

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Is Newt like Churchill?

The two have much in common
Newt 2012
As one of the most polarizing figures in modern American politics, Newt Gingrich has racked up a huge inventory of pungent criticism of both his ideas and his character — much of it from his fellow conservatives. National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, notes Newt’s “erratic behavior, lack of discipline and self-absorption” and “need to justify his every petty move by reference to some grand theory.”

But before becoming prime minister, Winston Churchill was often dismissed in similar terms by members of his own party, who complained that “his planning is all wishing and guessing,” that he was “a genius without judgment,” and that he had been “on every side of every question.” His many non-fiction books were even characterized as “autobiographies disguised as history of the universe.” This is not to suggest that Newt is the next Churchill, which would indeed feed Newt’s grandiosity. Rather, it is to prompt us to recognize one important fact and to ask two questions that have heretofore not been asked.

"The example of Churchill (and also Reagan to some extent) shows that we cannot prospectively identify those whom we will later come to laud as great statesmen." --Steven HaywardThe important fact is this: The example of Churchill (and also Reagan to some extent) shows that we cannot prospectively identify those whom we will later come to laud as great statesmen. Very few leading Republicans thought Reagan would be Reagan, even after the 1980 election, just as Churchill was not a popular choice of his own party in 1940. One of the best studies of Churchill’s pre-1940 career could almost be adapted for Newt, Robert Rhodes James’s Churchill: A Study in Failure.

Two questions must be asked in order to judge whether Newt might have Churchillian qualities (both good and bad) once in office, or whether Romney’s predictable managerial qualities are more suited to the present moment.

The first question is whether we require someone utterly unconventional to match up to the circumstances of the moment. The same negative qualities that kept Churchill from high office in the 1930s — his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness — paradoxically made him the best person to lead the nation when it reached the point of extreme crisis in May 1940. But the crisis had to reach the extreme before the Churchill option became thinkable.

Even the outbreak of war in 1939 didn’t immediately lead to the thought that Churchill should become prime minister. And even after the invasion of France, it wasn’t clear that his mixed qualities would prove a source of reassurance to the nation, or a formula for success in the war. Is Newt’s long-time embrace of “radical change” what is necessary to address the fiscal crisis of our time? One reason a large portion of the Tea Party has embraced Newt, his mixed record notwithstanding, is that he appears to be the only candidate who will both argue for and attempt to implement the large changes necessary to right our listing ship of state.

“The Conservatives have never liked nor trusted me,” Churchill wrote in the 1920s.

According to King George VI’s biographer biographer, the king was “bitterly opposed” to Churchill’s becoming prime minister. He remained a figure of suspicion within his own party even after he became prime minister in 1940. The description of cabinet secretary John Colville sounds like much of the Newt-angst of conservatives right now: “In May 1940 the mere thought of Churchill as Prime Minister send a cold chill down the spines of the staff working at 10 Downing Street. . . . Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment . . . so dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts justified.”

“This is not the last war administration by a long way,” a leading member of Churchill’s own party remarked. Another Tory MP, Peter Eckersley, wrote: “Winston won’t last five months! Opposition from Tories is already beginning.” MP David Kier wrote in his diary a month after Churchill took office: “The more I think of the position, the more uncertain the future of Winston’s present Government is.” One Conservative-party grandee wrote that “I regard this [Churchill as PM] as a greater disaster than the invasion of the Low Countries.”

"Newt has a chance to prove conservative skeptics wrong about his constancy — the chance to win over skeptics in the face of so much evidence against him." --Steven HaywardThis leads to the second question. While Churchill never shed his weaknesses and defects, he did bring with him to office important lessons of his earlier failures in World War I, along with his serious study of history during his wilderness years. Though Newt wrote a book called “Lessons Learned the Hard Way,” it is not clear whether he’s matured in the necessary ways. Newt once told me an instructive story about Reagan, involving an Oval Office meeting he attended late in Reagan’s second term. Newt was among many conservatives who were unhappy with Reagan at the time, and Newt said he complained about things that had been left undone, or that had been done badly. Displaying the patience that was crucial to Reagan’s success, Reagan put his arm around Newt as he walked him out of the Oval Office and said, “Newt — there are some things you all are going to have to do after I’m gone.”

Does Newt understand the lesson of this story, or would he as president attempt to fix every problem at once, chair every meeting and working group in the White House, and move on to the next shiny thing that pops into the idea quadrant of his hyper-driven cerebral cortex?

Does he have the patience to focus at length on the two or three most important things to the exclusion of all others, and the discipline to persuade Americans by giving the same speech over and over again?

The next couple of months may well prove out the unplanned logic of our long campaign process. The debates, Newt’s strong suit so far, are about to give way to real voting, and to the week-by-week ground game that requires focus and consistency. Newt has a chance to prove conservative skeptics wrong about his constancy — the chance to win over skeptics in the face of so much evidence against him. The course of John Colville’s evolving assessment of Churchill in the 1940s is suggestive. Colville wrote in his diary the night Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1940: “He may, of course, be the man of drive and energy the country believes him to be and he may be able to speed up our creaking military and industrial machinery; but it is a terrible risk, it involves the danger of rash and spectacular exploits, and I cannot help fearing that this country may be maneuvered into the most dangerous position it has ever been in.”

Over the next decade, the skeptical Colville was completely won over. He left one other judgment of Churchill that is worth recalling in connection with Newt: “Finally, in politics and indeed all his life, he was as strange a mixture of radical and traditionalist as could anywhere be found. He was certainly not a conservative by temperament, nor indeed by conviction a supporter of the Conservative Party.”

There may be more to Newt’s fascination with Churchill than just grandiosity.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Government & Banks

National Review Editor Praises Gingrich, Slams Editorial

National Review contributing editor and columnist Andrew C. McCarthy recognizes Newt Gingrich as the GOP Conservative candidate in an American awakening to lead in restoring fiscal, social, and national security issues. – Oscar Y. Harward

Sunday, 18 Dec 2011 10:21 AM

By Newsmax Wires

National Review contributing editor and columnist Andrew C. McCarthy says Newt Gingrich is a strong conservative with a significant track record — and countered his own publication's editorial criticizing the former House speaker.

In McCarthy's online column posted Saturday, he wrote: "I respectfully dissent from National Review's Wednesday evening editorial."

He writes further that he has been advised that the editorial’s timing “was driven by its inclusion in the last edition of the magazine to be published this year."

McCarthy continued: "Regarding former Speaker Gingrich, I have no objection to the cataloguing of any candidate’s failings, and Newt has certainly made his share of mistakes. But there ought to be balance — balance between a candidate’s failings and his strengths, balance between the treatment of that candidate and of his rivals. The editorial fails on both scores."

In his own column, entitled "Gingrich's Virtues," McCarthy seeks to offer that balance.

"Gingrich’s virtues are shortchanged," McCarthy argues, "His great accomplishment in balancing the federal budget is not even mentioned, an odd omission in an election that is primarily about astronomical spending."

He added that National Review had not offered similar critiques of other GOP candidates with liberal records.

"Nevertheless, if the Editors were enterprising enough, they could just as easily write a similar editorial, with the same tone of alarm, about, say, Governor Romney or Governor Huntsman," McCarthy said.

McCarthy recounted some of Gingrich's spectacular conservative successes:
  • "Gingrich is the candidate who can say he actually wrestled the federal budget into balance . . . "
  • “In an election about the imperative to repeal Obamacare, Gingrich is the candidate who helped defeat Hillarycare — by comparison, Governor Romney ushered in a health-care system that became a model for Obamacare (and he stubbornly continues to insist that it was a great achievement — the main reason he can’t crack the 25 percent ceiling in most polls)."
  • "Gingrich is the candidate who reformed welfare — which, the Editors acknowledge, is 'the most successful social policy of recent decades.'”
At the same that the National Review dismissed Gingrich, an incredulous McCarthy said, the publication was heaping praise on Gov. Jon Hunstman.

McCarthy says Huntsman doesn't pass the conservative sniff test: He was appointed ambassador to China by President Barack Obama; he was a big spender as Utah governor; and he has been a "global-warming alarmist who was lax on illegal immigration and favored a government mandate that citizens purchase health insurance."

McCarthy questioned the editorial’s negative treatment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann at the same time it embraced former Obama administration official Huntsman.

The editorial said Perry would spend much of his time untying his own tongue and added that Bachmann has exhibited a "casual repetition of false anti-vaccine rumors."

In pointing out that, like many other voters, he has not decided which of the Republican presidential candidates to support, McCarthy rails, "What I want at this very early stage is information about the candidates so I can consider them, not a presumptuous and premature pronouncement that good conservatives do not even rate consideration."

McCarthy writes that he is not against anyone’s listing Gingrich's faults, but he emphasizes that he believes the former House speaker's accomplishments in Washington are being "shortchanged."

The former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York points to Gingrich's balancing the federal budget not being mentioned in the Review editorial, adding that "his downsides are exaggerated."

McCarthy concludes his dissenting opinion saying, "If the editors were enterprising enough, they could just as easily write, with the same tone of alarm, about say, Governor Romney or Governor Huntsman."

"Their heresies too are notorious and their explanations no more satisfying," McCarthy states.

He adds that he is not suggesting that such editorials about Romney and Huntsman be done; rather he is just pointing out that they could be done.

"For the editors to single out Gingrich, for this kind of raking, particularly when his accomplishments in government dwarf anything his rivals have managed to achieve — fails the test of judgment conservatives expect from National Review," McCarthy concludes.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Islam in a Nutshell

Thursday, December 8, 2011

This, not the Chinese or the Russians represent the greatest threat to the world and might be the fulfillment of the book of Revelation in the Holy Bible.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53..1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses.
They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse.
The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make the US ' homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago?

Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression... Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation. ... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a Muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Soldier's Silent Night.wmv

Merry Christmas to our Heroes around the world!

Rick Perry is a daily “gaffe” who is not ready for “big-time”

By Oscar Y. Harward 

Presidential candidates debating are required in all campaigns. Winning “debates” require a “sharp” mind with “intense” concentration. 

“Illegal immigration”; food, housing, healthcare, a public education, etc. at taxpayers’ expense is a major issue http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2705560/posts. 

In a CNN debate, Rick Perry was asked a question after others answered a previous question. Perry responded to the previous question. CNN moderator asked Perry to respond to the current question. Perry responded, “You get to ask the questions, and I get to answer the way I want to”. Perry may lack the ability to immediately respond to responsible questioning. 

In an Obama/Perry debate when Perry is expected to immediately respond to a question, it may be a “guess” as to whose words and/or whose phrases belonged to; President Obama or Rick Perry. Obama will eat Perry alive in a debate. 

After switching his registration in 1990 from Democrat Party to the Republican Party, Rick Perry supported “HillaryCareIn 1993 http://the-classic-liberal.com/rick-perry-praised-hillary-clintons-health-care-scheme/. 

On December 9, 2011, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said there are eight Supreme Court justices, not nine, and, then, couldn't remember SCOTUS Sonia Sotomayor's name with the Des Moines Register newspaper http://news.yahoo.com/perry-flubs-name-number-supreme-court-justices-212451050.html?mid=54. 

in Café Diem in Ames, Iowa, Rick Perry said: "No greater example of it than this administration sending millions of dollars into the solar industry, and we lost that money. I want to say it was over $500 million that went to the country Solyndra." http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/blogs/rick-perry-human-gaffe-machine-calls-solar-manufacturer-solyndra-a-coun

Rick Perry refers to President Wilson’s Sixteenth Amendment and  income taxes of a “decade” ago rather than a “century” ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ9X0bq0T_M

In another debate, Perry couldn’t remember 3 departments for his listed closings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_Ady87qO4.  

Rick Perry plans to make Congress a part-time job.  President Obama and Rick Perry may be the only ones who believe they can overrun our Constitution to downgrade Congress.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-17/New-Hampshire-Rick-Perry-part-time-Congress/51276094/1  

Perry’s gaffe in NH on voting age at 21 years of age rather than the legal age of 18 years old. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV7fwOUMows&context=C2ab92UDOEgsToPDskJUL_kqS122bV9pMUPRhGGK.  

Perry’s irrational senseless speech alleged under the influence of alcohol http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=YSJv-2qfDNc&feature=endscreen.  

Gov. Rick Perry and Texas may currently have 600,000 “Illegal immigrants” “registered to vote”. http://citizensreport.info/2011/10/13/as-many-as-600000-illegal-aliens-may-be-registered-to-vote-in-texas/?mid=51. 

And the “gaffes” continue! America needs a “new” President who has the ability to speak distinctly to Americans, as well as world leaders, without endless, damaging errors. 

“Illegal immigration” is against the law http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325. More than 600,000 soldiers have died on the battlefield in protecting our American flag, and Constitution and freedoms within. Why have Rick Perry and many other elected and/or appointed public officials chose to ignore our Constitutional law and US Code?  

Rick Perry is a daily “gaffe” who is not ready for “big-time”.