Americans Are Wimps When It Comes To Muslims. If Things Don't Change America Will Be A Muslim Country In Less Than 50 Years

Boston University Caves to Islamic Supremacist Demands

MOSQUEING THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MOSQUEING THE PUBLIC SQUARE 

95 Comments

    

Check out how Boston University officials turn themselves inside out to accommodate Muslim demands. Muslim supremacists said that taking down the US from within would be easy – they were right. Remember this is Boston, as in the Boston Marathon bombing — Anne works at Boston University (thanks to Inba):

I work at a university library in Boston, Mass., and books are shelved according to the Dewey Decimal System, not by title or “importance”. Muslim students (most of them from abroad) told administrators that they were offended because the Koran wasn’t given a place of honor on a top shelf, as dictated by Islamic law and custom.

Library staff were then ordered to shift entire sections of books in the stacks so that the Koran could be “honored” appropriately.

This is absurd; we do not live in a Muslim country, nor is ours a religious school. We treat the Koran, the Bible, Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, etc. with the same respect we show to all our books, yet Muslim students miss the point. Non-Muslims are expected to follow local custom when visiting Muslim countries, which is fine, yet many Muslims insist that their ways be followed in non-Muslim countries too.

Why is it that Muslims in Western countries wail and complain about everything ….. except Islamic terrorism?

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/02/boston-university-caves-islamic-supremacist-demands.html/#sthash.ig3qWUku.dpuf

Rand Paul And Conservative Tom Agree--Republicans Will Have To Reform Their Message If They Are To Win Any More Elections Including 2014.

Rand Paul’s Prediction About Future Presidential Elections May Frighten Half the Country

Feb. 13, 2014 7:15pm Erica Ritz

7.5K

SHARES

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made a bold prediction about the remaining presidential elections in his lifetime during an interview with Glenn Beck that aired Thursday.

“I think Republicans will not win again in my lifetime … unless they become a new GOP, a new Republican Party,” Paul said evenly. “And it has to be a transformation. Not a little tweaking at the edges.”

Paul remained noncommittal about his own speculated presidential ambitions, but said he believes people “from both parties” would rally to a candidate that said “we just need to turn over on all this” and advocated issues like term limits, reading the bills, and single-purpose bills.

The senator expressed little interest in the formation of a third party.

“I think that … you can transform a party,” he maintained. “…I’ve worked for a third party candidate, a guy that was my dad. It’s very difficult. The laws are set against you.”

The two also discussed the Republican Party’s reported issues with conveying its message to voters.

“You have to take your message to people in a way they can understand it,” Paul asserted.

The senator said, for example, that if he is speaking with 1,000 young people, he doesn’t focus on taxes and regulation, but about the government looking at your cellphone.

He added that Republicans have failed to speak with African American and Hispanic communities about how the war on drugs and our legal system has disproportionately affected them.

The primary goal, Paul said, is to present the “ideas of liberty” to everyone.

“There are many people who are open among all these disaffected groups, who really aren’t steadfast supporters of Obama or an ideology,” Paul asserted. “I think they’re open to listening, but we have to have a better message and a better presentation of it.”

“There is a struggle going on within the Republican Party,” Paul admitted. “I tell people it’s not new, and I’m not ashamed of it. I’m proud of the fact that there is a struggle. And I will struggle to make the Republican Party a different party, a bigger party, a more diverse party, and a party that can win national elections again.”

Paul recalled being a “13-year-old kid” at the 1976 convention when Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford, saying there is a successful precedent of conservatives taking on the “establishment.”

“Everybody told Reagan to sit back and shut up,” Paul remarked. “They told him it wasn’t his time, and it wasn’t going to be his time. The establishment wanted Ford … It was bitterly fought, but in the end, Reagan won and the party became a better place, at least for a while. We need to have that debate again, and we need to be a bigger, stronger party.”

Congress Gets In The Way Of Obama, So Is Going To Go Around Them And That's A Promise! More Unilateral Actions On Their Way!

We understand everything that Obama has promised. He will go it alone and take all actions necessary to move the country into a dictatorship. He will take these executive orders into areas never seen by any US President.

The areas of importance he emphasized:

"...Obama and the Democrats are increasingly emphasizing their economic agenda – not only a universal minimum wage hike but other policies like unemployment benefits, retirement security and comprehensive immigration reform, which they say will help the working classes do better in an economic recovery where a large bulk of the gains have gone to the wealthy."

We understand many of the things about which he was talking except  "retirement security."  We do not understand that comment, however, our fear is that it means that everyone will be guaranteed a retirement--whatever that could be interpreted.  Does it mean that the government will give you a mid-six figure retirement? Does it mean that Social Security will be increased? Or does it mean that anyone with over $500,000 (an arbitrary number) in IRAs, 401 (K)s or 403 (b)s would have to turn them over to the government? Or does it mean rolling over your retirement vehicles into Social Security, regardless of the amount you have in the accounts? 

Heck, everyone wants a retirement but is it the job of the government to provide it for you or should you have been thinking about that throughout your working years? Hasn't the government given you enough opportunities (IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k), 403(b), 457, Simple Plans, Pension Plans to name just a few)  to put money away both pre and post tax? 

Many will respond that most people have not been able to save because they needed that new TV, big house, new car or cell phone.  Sometimes people are the grasshopper (who doesn't save anything during the summer and dies in the cold) and sometimes they are the ant who puts away food for the winter all during the summer and lives. We need to teach people to be ants!


The last question we should be asking is--how is this going to be paid for? Yes, we know that is negative thing to be considering when people just want to retire and get something from the government!  However, don't you think in the time of $17 trillion dollar (declared) debt we should be considering how we will pay for it?

We fear we will find out very soon what Obama means by "retirement security" and how he plans to accomplish it. We believe it will entail significantly more government spending, be means tested and leave less to individual decision making. In other words, it will be take more control over our lives. That is the Obama way.

Hold on the next three years are going to be a remarkably depressing ride.

Conservative Tom





February 14, 2014, 11:49 am

Obama promises more executive action

By Mike Lillis

Share on facebook1Share on twitter0Share on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing Services0Share on email

 2

CAMBRIDGE, Md. – President Obama vowed Friday to do everything in his power to help the middle class – with or without Congress.

Speaking to House Democrats attending their annual issues conference on Maryland's Eastern Shore, the president doubled down on his State of the Union promise to use his executive authority at every turn to advance policies benefiting working people.

ADVERTISEMENT

"The single most important thing we have to do, not just as a party, but as a country, is make sure that there is opportunity for every single person, that we are focused every single day … making sure that if you are willing to work hard and take responsibility that you can get ahead," Obama told his fellow Democrats.

"I want to work with Congress to make that happen. But, I'm not going to wait, because there's too much to do. And America does not believe in standing still," the president said.

Obama highlighted several steps he's taken already on that front, including a recent executive order to hike the minimum wage for government contractors.

"These aren't teenagers," Obama said, pushing back against a common criticism of the minimum wage hike. "These are folks who are looking after families and trying to raise kids."

The remarks came as leaders in both political parties are settling into campaign mode ahead of this year's mid-term elections. As part of that transition, Obama and the Democrats are increasingly emphasizing their economic agenda – not only a universal minimum wage hike but other policies like unemployment benefits, retirement security and comprehensive immigration reform, which they say will help the working classes do better in an economic recovery where a large bulk of the gains have gone to the wealthy.

Obama was quick to concede there are limitations to his executive powers, though. 

"Across the board, we're moving," Obama said. "But … we can get a whole lot more done if we've got Congress working with us."

He urged Congress to enact an immigration bill, calling it "a top priority." The president acknowledged the political thicket that surrounds that issue, particularly for Republicans, but asked lawmakers to transcend their political concerns and focus on the practical effects of such reform. 

"I believe, frankly, that there are folks on the other side of the aisle who genuinely want to see this done. But they're worried and they're scared about the political blowback," Obama said.

"Look, everybody here is an elected official and we can all appreciate the maneuverings that take place, particularly in an election year," he added. "But when it comes to immigration reform, we have to remind ourselves that there are people behind the statistics."

No Is Telling Us How Many Paying Customers That ObamaCrapCare Has. Could It Be That Few Are Paying? Another Administration Lie?

Even Casual Interest In Browsing Obamacare Plans Is Waning

February 14, 2014 by Ben Bullard

 8 1

 0 19

According to figures updated Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Obamacare has now managed to “enroll” 3.3 million people via online health exchanges established under the law.

But, as has been the case since the Affordable Care Act went into effect last October, that number doesn’t reflect the amount of paying customers — just the total number of people who went fantasy shopping. It reflects shopping carts, not checkouts.

According to HHS, 1.15 million people went Obamacare shopping in January, compared with 1.8 million who browsed a health exchange in December of 2013. That’s a drop-off of more than 600,000.

Because HHS continues to refuse divulging the number of people who’ve actually signed on the dotted line (actually, the department spuriously claims it doesn’t know the number), the new statistics are as meaningless as the old ones.

But one thing the numbers do tell us is that people are losing interest in even taking the first steps toward enrolling in plans that are typically overpriced, undervalued, exposed to fraud and — thanks to unreliable websites and shifting information from an incompetent deployment staff — unpredictable in their promise of coverage or rate stability.

The Obama Administration had projected 7 million paid enrollees by March 31, the nationwide enrollment deadline for Obamacare’s inaugural year. At this rate, the President and HHS will be lucky if it exceeds half of that.

Don’t forget: A substantial portion of HHS’ numbers reflect people who signed up for free insurance under Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid rule. That’s great for them (and HHS is certainly eager to count them), but they add not 1 cent to the pool of money that’s supposed to subsidize the entire program. They’re “taking” customers, not paying ones.

Expect talk of massive government bailouts for insurers… once the Congressional midterm elections have passed.

Supreme Court To Rule On Religious Freedom

February 14, 2014, 10:00 am

Constitution protects religion, ObamaCare notwithstanding

By Dorinda Bordlee

Share on facebook2Share on twitter2Share on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing Services0Share on email

 0

In the upcoming religious freedom challenges to Obamacare, Supreme Court reporters are giving extraordinary attention to an argument by law professor Marci Hamilton, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is entirely unconstitutional.

But some court watchers have an extremely short attention span. Hamilton has presented this same argument unsuccessfully for 15 years.

ADVERTISEMENT

RFRA exempts people from government coercion, but Hamilton argues that doing so violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It’s an ironic argument: even though the Constitution enshrines religious freedom, somehow it prohibits religious freedom, too.

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog calls this “a bold new” idea. But Hamilton has repeated this same argument many times, including in 1996 as counsel for the petitioner in City of Boerne v. Flores. The Supreme Court didn’t agree, leaving RFRA in force against the federal government.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post nevertheless asserts that in Boerne the court had “not confronted the question of [RFRA’s] constitutionality.” He may be unaware of Hamilton’s own brief in that case. She explicitly raised her Establishment Clause argument against RFRA as a “question presented” and explained at length that “RFRA violates the Establishment Clause.” It didn’t work.

Nine years later, in the O Centro Espirita case, Hamilton filed an amicus brief again insisting that RFRA violates the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court passed over that argument and ruled in favor of the RFRA plaintiffs. That same year, Hamilton filed an amicus brief arguing that RFRA’s companion statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, violates the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court disagreed a third time.

In short, Hamilton’s latest Obamacare brief is more recycled than the paper it is printed on. Hamilton’s website, RFRAfolly.com, documents 20 years of trying to eliminate RFRA. Each subsequent failure to strike down religious freedom has made her argument less and less significant.

At a deeper level, Hamilton contends the Constitution should not give specific protection to religion because some religious people have committed terrible crimes like sexual abuse. While rhetorically provocative, her argument is ad hominem. It has nothing to do with the good families coerced by Obamacare.

Nor is it clear that Hamilton would apply this same idea to her side of the case. In the Obamacare lawsuits, the government is coercing religious people. If Hamilton is right that the sins of “religion” somehow prove religious believers are wrong, what do the sins of “government” do to the Obama administration’s case?

Religious freedom is a shield against tyranny. Governments have committed immeasurable crimes and trampled upon fundamental rights, especially when the executive branch places itself above the rule of law. Would Hamilton or her supporters sign an amicus brief arguing that the government should lose in the Obamacare cases because of Tuskegee, Abu Ghraib, White House drone strikes, and worse?

The idea that RFRA is unconstitutional is ultimately a distraction. The Obama administration is refusing to follow a clear religious freedom law that was passed by a nearly unanimous Congress and signed by President Clinton. The Supreme Court has upheld and applied RFRA and RLUIPA many times in the past 20 years. RFRA applies to Obamacare and protects religious freedom for all Americans, including families in business.

The administration is disregarding RFRA so it can force citizens to buy early abortion pills and birth control for other citizens. It’s not the only statutory command the White House has been willing to violate, inside and outside Obamacare. Laws do not become unconstitutional just because the executive branch wants to impose its will “with or without Congress.”

Dorinda C. Bordlee is senior counsel with Bioethics Defense Fund, which filed a Supreme Court amicus brief supporting Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby.

King Obama Knows He Can Do Whatever He Wants And We Won't Do Anything To Stop Him

Obama: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want'

5:29 PM, FEB 10, 2014 • BY DANIEL HALPER

       

Send to Kindle

Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts

President Obama "quipped" today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want." 

Via the pool report:

Monticello

At 4:45 POTUS and president Hollande walked out from a portico and strolled in Front of your pool with Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation. Looking at a terrace she said that Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there. POTUS said that he'd like to take a look and seemed delighted to "break the protocol".
"That's the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want" he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman. Pool now in the mansion as the leaders will come and visit Jefferson's study.

The comment came around the time the White House announced it would be delaying the Obamacare mandate for some businesses unilaterally.

The French president is here in the U.S. on a state visit.

More notes from the pool:

Monticello
POTUS and pres Hollande paid a short visit to the study as your pool was looking through an alcove over president Jefferson's bed. They admired contraptions invented by Jefferson to read and write more efficiently such as a lectern and a "polygraph". Hollande noticed that one of the books was written in French.

Monticello

At 5:15 your pool squeezed itself into Monticello's basement kitchen where POTUS and pres Hollande we're listening to Ms Bowman's explanations on the estate featuring the same plants than the ones used in French cooking. The kitchen featured a clock for precision, unheard of back in the day. POTUS and Hollande kept a low voice so it was hard to understand what they were saying. Photo op was over after two minutes. Now holding for statements. They'll happen in the foyer, near two busts of Turgot and Voltaire
.

Bad News--Obama Can Spend All He Wants For The Next Year. There Is No Spending Limit--A Recipe For Disaster. Is This The Beginning Of The End?

The Dirty Deal For A ‘Clean’ Debt Bill

February 14, 2014 by Chip Wood 

 288 13

 

 2 346

PHOTOS.COM

Well, the Republican leadership has done it again. In the battle over government spending, they waved the white flag of unconditional surrender. Believe it or not, they gave Barack Obama permission to spend as much money as he wants over the next year — with absolutely no strings attached.

The media are reporting that the House and Senate passed a “clean” bill to raise the debt ceiling. Actually, they did no such thing. They didn’t set a new limit on government borrowing. Instead, they abolished any debt ceiling for the next 14 months.

It’s incredible how this deal will work. By suspending the debt ceiling, your friendly Federal government can spend all the money it wants — or rather, all the money that Congress will allow – between now and March 16, 2015. By an amazing coincidence, that gets everyone past the elections this November.

Then, when this temporary measure expires, the new debt ceiling will be the present debt — which is an absolutely appalling $17.2 trillion (yes, that’s “trillion” with a “t”) — plus however much more debt is created between now and next March. That will be another trillion dollars in red ink added to the total by the profligate politicos in Washington.

In just six years of his Presidency, Obama will have increased the national debt by more than $7 trillion. And what’s most amazing of all is that our so-called leaders in Washington are actually claiming that this latest vote means that they were being “responsible.” Isn’t that incredible?

The Republican surrender began in the House of Representatives when Speaker John Boehner told a startled group of Republican Congressmen that he finally agreed not to attach any spending restrictions to the debt-ceiling measure. That is exactly what the Obama Administration had been demanding all along.

As hard as it is to believe, when Boehner announced his new plan at a closed-door meeting of Republican Congressmen, he actually expected to be applauded for it. When he was greeted by silence at the end of his remarks, he said rather petulantly: “I got this monkey off your back and you’re not even going to applaud?” The docile lawmakers took the hint and gave him a less than robust round of applause.

That was all it took for 28 Republicans, including Boehner, to vote for the measure. All but two Democrats in the House also said “aye,” so the no-debt-ceiling bill passed the House on Tuesday by a vote of 221-201.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was absolutely delighted with the result. “A few reasonable House Republicans were willing to join Democrats to avert a catastrophic default on this nation’s obligations,” he said.

Reid wanted to rush the bill through on a straight majority vote. But that didn’t happen. Instead, an interesting fight developed when Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) refused to go along. The Tea Party favorite forced the Senate to vote to end debate on the matter.

But ending debate can’t be done by a simple majority; cloture requires 60 votes, and there are only 55 Democrats in the Senate (counting two independents who usually vote with them). Unless five Republicans could be found to join them, Reid wouldn’t be able to bring the measure to a vote.

That’s when Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Republicans’ ostensible leader in the Senate and a guy who insisted all of last year that he would never vote to raise the debt ceiling unless some spending restrictions were part of the deal, agreed to switch sides. So did John Cronyn (R-Texas), the Minority Whip in the Senate, and 10 other turncoats.

So Reid had the super-majority he needed to end the debate. The final tally on that one was 67-31, with a dozen Republicans joining all of the members of the Democratic caucus.

Now that the debt bill could be approved by a simple majority, it was safe for the Dirty Dozen to switch back. So every single Republican, including McConnell, pressed the “no” button. The bill to suspend the debt ceiling passed on a straight party-line vote, 55-43.

This means that McConnell will be able to assure the voters in Kentucky that he voted against suspending the debt ceiling. If you live there (or have any friends there), I hope you won’t let him get away with this charade. Please remind everyone you know that McConnell was instrumental in getting the measure approved.

If it sounds like there was an unseemly rush to get the dirty deed done, you’re absolutely right. That’s because the House and Senate had already scheduled a recess from now until Feb. 24. But the Treasury Department said it was close to exhausting all of the “extraordinary measures” it was using to continue spending money. Unless it received new authority to borrow funds, it would begin defaulting on some payments on Feb. 27. Now, that won’t happen.

So now what? In How To Stop More Republican Betrayals, I said that one of the best things conservatives could do was send McConnell packing. I urged you to support Matt Bevins, his opponent in the Republican primary in Kentucky this June.

Many conservative leaders agree with me on this. Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, said that her group will work to defeat McConnell and other Republican leaders this year. “Leadership needs to go — they need to be completely changed,” she said.

Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, says the choices are clear: “Do you stand with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell or do you stand for fiscal responsibility?” He says the move to suspend the debt ceiling will encourage his members to work even harder. “It heightens activists’ desire to bring in new blood to Washington, D.C.”

Let’s hope they’re right. In fact, let’s do more than just hope. Let’s work to make sure they are.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.