I am Liking Ben Carson more each day.

This Comparison of U.S. Constitution and Sharia Law Shows Why Ben Carson Was Right When he said he could not personally support a Muslim presidential candidate unless they renounced Sharia.

http://toprightnews.com/viral-meme-comparing-u-s-constitution-and-sharia-law-shows-why-ben-carson-was-right/

Democrats must REALLY fear Trump.

It appears that the man who ask Trump the now famous “Muslim question” was a plant by the Democratic Party.

A man who looks exactly him was previously the star of a liberal anti-Tea Party campaign, Breitbart News has learned.  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/exclusive-liberal-group-publicized-trump-muslim-question-guy-years-ago/

If he was a Democrat plant, which I believe he was, his mission was a total failure because Trump handled the Question quite well.  Democrats were not able to criticize him for the way he answered the question, so they slammed him for not defending Obama when the man called him a Muslim.  Trump also handled that with ease by saying it was not his responsibility to defend the President.

Was Carson right about a Muslim President?

When Dr. Ben Carson answered the question about whether he could support a Muslim for president, his reply stirred up quite a hornet’s nest.   His reply was that he would not advocate having a Muslim as president, that Islamic beliefs are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.
The following column by Pat Buchanan addresses that controversy in some detail.

A Muslim President? Was Ben Carson Right?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Tuesday - September 25, 2015

Beliefs matter. "Ideas Have Consequences," as conservative scholar Richard Weaver wrote in his classic of that title in 1948.

Yet, for so believing, and so saying, Dr. Ben Carson has been subjected to a Rodney King-style night-sticking by the P.C. police.

Asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" whether he could support a Muslim for president, Carson replied, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Carson was not out of the studio before the airwaves were filled with denunciations. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said CAIR is calling on Carson to "withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution."

In the name of tolerance, says CAIR, we cannot tolerate Carson.

And what does the Constitution say?

"[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But Carson did not say no Muslim could serve. He said he would not advocate having a Muslim as president, that Islamic beliefs are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Is he wrong?

Or is it now impermissible to question a candidate's beliefs about God, man, and the state, and about whether his religious convictions might affect his conduct in office?

A man's religion is a part of who he is. While not an infallible guide to what he will do, it is often a reliable road map.

If Mormons still championed polygamy and declared that blacks could not be Mormons, would it be illegitimate to raise that issue?

Should a Quaker who believes in "turning the other cheek" not be pressed on whether his faith disqualifies him to be commander in chief?

If an Evangelical running for president believes the "end times" are at hand, would it be un-American to ask of the Armageddonite if his religious beliefs might affect his decision on war in the Middle East?

Islam means "submission." And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the Prophet.

That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca, and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.

Anyone recall a collective protest from the Islamic world when that Afghan convert to Christianity was facing an executioner's ax?

Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society.

Is Sharia consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject Sharia for America, i.e, apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Quran?

Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Quran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?

From the Maghreb to the Middle and Near East, in almost every society where Islam is the dominant faith, repression appears the rule.

Of the near 50 nations where Islam is the majority religion, where is the constitutional republic that resembles our own?

Carson says he would not support turning the armed forces of the United States over to a follower of a faith whose co-religionists have produced the modern Middle East. Why is that bigotry? Is Islam wholly disconnected to the horrors transpiring there?

Islam has bloody borders, observed Dr. Samuel Huntington. Of the ugliest terrorist organizations of which we daily read — Boko Haram, al-Qaida, ISIS, the al-Nusra Front, al-Shabaab — are not most of them proudly Muslim?

Given the sectarian war between the Shiites led by Iran and the Sunni led by the Saudis, would it violate the Constitution to ask our Muslim presidential candidate to which of these two he belonged?

Dr. Russell Kirk called ideology "political religion."

Atheists who embraced the political religion of Marxism-Leninism created the Stalinist Empire. Atheist Germans who embraced National Socialism as the state religion produced the Third Reich. And Islamists created Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Undeniably, Muslims have proven to be good American patriots, as did the Christians and the Jews who came before them.

But in Europe today, we see hundreds of thousands of Muslims pouring in, adding to the millions there, and they are all not assimilating.

Those elites who say they would be fine with a Muslim president are probably dissembling. Because that is the politically correct thing to say; it makes them feel superior; and no such candidate is in sight.

Indeed, the same elites who call it outrageous that Carson said a Muslim should not be president are the first and loudest to decry any suggestion that our current president is a Muslim.

Liberals like the idea of a Muslim president — in the abstract.
 

Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at Buchanan.org

   -- Sign up for Pat's email updates, follow on Twitter, FaceBook and Pat's YouTube Channel.... Plus all of his syndicated columns and more!

#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#

Mr. Bucanan failed to mention that in 1772, Founding Father Samuel Adams laid down limits to religious tolerance that also would have prevented a Muslim from being president by refusing any toleration of Islam in the first place.

In 1772, Adams wrote “The Rights of the Colonists,” which in fact set forward something of a litmus test for which religions were worthy of toleration and which ones were not.

“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind,” Adams wrote. “And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church.”

Citing the great John Locke, Adams agreed with his assertion that toleration should only be extended to those with doctrines not deemed subversive to civil society.

“The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live,” Adams concluded.

Though Adams was writing mostly in regard to the Roman Catholic church of the time, his words were also quite applicable to Muslims and Islamic Shariah law, and remain so.

Islam seeks to conquer the world and implement their own set of theocratic laws in place of whatever laws governed civil society before. This cannot be allowed to happen in America.

 

 

 

IS OBAMA A MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, OR ATHEISTS?

Why does Obama insist he is a Christian when we all know he is not?

No true Christian would speak, believe, lie and perform the circus act of hypocrisy and obnoxious, brazen lies and political speak that Obama does to appease and pacify the elements of the population he wants to deceive, insult and break down.

And don’t forget, way back in 2008 he stated that he was a Muslim.  There’s a video of it which will live in infamy on YouTube. Here is the link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Now he proclaims he is a Christian.  He even attended an all black, very racist church for several years, so what’s going on with this guy?  Well, here is the reason.  Obama as always watched the polls to keep in touch with what his voter base likes and dislikes.  He doesn’t really care what us Conservatives like, he just wants to keep his voter base.  So, he continues to pretend to be a Christian, even though he has nothing but contempt for the church.

Pew Research Center asked people to rate religions. Turns out that black Protestants take a very dim view of atheists.  In fact, only 30% of black Protestants have favorable views of atheists.  The President has needed black voters to support him.  If he goes full atheist, he’d see a dent in that support.

Obama may be the worst President this country has ever had, but he is not stupid.  He is very smart when it comes to politics, or he would never have gotten as far as he has.  If he was half as skilled at running the country as he is at political manipulations, he would have made a great President.  He has been clever enough to get everything passed, with or without the help of Congress.  Unfortunately though, everything he has done has been bad if not downright disastrous for the country.

   

WHY DON'T THEY IMPEACH HIM?

By constitutional design, impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” is a political accusation and initiates a political remedy, not a legal one.  It is pretty much up to Congress to define and apply “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and no court would second-guess it.

The next Congress could find that the president had violated his oath to “faithfully execute” the laws by refusing to enforce important provisions of the Affordable Care Act, No Child Left Behind and, now, the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The president surely has some power to withhold prosecution, but granting legal status and work permits to millions of people most likely exceeds his discretion. No judge can decide the precise scope of his discretion because no one, including Congress, has legal standing to challenge his order in court.

Of course, many lawyers at the Justice Department and elsewhere disagree, noting that prosecutorial discretion is pervasive, that there isn’t enough money to prosecute all violators, that the president will continue to prosecute criminals and illegal border crossers, and that earlier presidents have done the same thing. These are serious arguments. But as an immigration and administrative law teacher who strongly favors more legal immigration and even broader legislative relief than Mr. Obama’s order grants (and who voted for him twice), I find them unconvincing.

In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress carefully limited prosecutorial discretion by allowing the president to waive exclusions and deportations only under narrowly defined conditions. The act also granted the president broad power to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” he finds detrimental to the national interest — but, significantly, did not give him corresponding authority to legalize “any class” of undocumented people he thinks deserve it.

President Obama has cited several cases of suspended enforcement as precedent. But in those cases, Congress had authorized the immigrants in question to apply for green cards; the president merely suspended enforcement against their closest family members until they, too, could get their own cards.

Most telling, Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, once rejected the very arguments he now embraces. Last year he said that extending amnesty beyond the so-called Dreamers (the children of undocumented immigrants brought here at an early age) would be “ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.” It is hard to think of a confession more damning to his position in a court of law, in a congressional court of impeachment and in the court of public opinion.

Still, does his overreaching constitute an “impeachable offense” under the constitutional standard? History suggests that it might. In the early 1800s, two federal judges were impeached for far less: noncriminal intoxication, indecency, bias and other judicial improprieties.

Almost every president could be impeached, most multiple times, especially if we interpret misdameanors by definition as "lesser crimes." ...

True, the standard for impeaching presidents should be more demanding than for judges. Even so, in 1868 President Andrew Johnson was impeached by a deeply partisan, Radical Republican-dominated House. Johnson — a conservative Democrat who rose from the vice presidency when Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was assassinated — was impeached mainly for firing a cabinet member (which he almost certainly had the legal right to do), but also for obstructing policies that Congress enacted. (Impeachment proceedings against Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton involved criminal conduct more egregious than Mr. Obama’s policy unilateralism.)

 

But even if Congress has constitutional authority to impeach the president, that doesn’t mean it should. Quarrels between a president and Congress over the statutory limits on his authority are common, and the precise boundaries can be hard to discern. However truculent Mr. Obama’s defiance may be on this issue, Congress has other ways to stymie it — for example, barring the action by statute. Such tactics are within the normal give-and-take of interbranch disputes. Americans, including many like me who want a legislative amnesty, would support Congress’s use of them here.

Impeachment, moreover, would tend to normalize its use as a political weapon, even though the framers intended that it be used only in extreme cases that endanger the republic. Only inveterate Obama haters think that is true here.

The new Congress would accomplish nothing of consequence despite urgent national needs and voters’ demands for cooperation. This would deepen the public’s growing disgust with our government, a disgust that, properly directed, can spur needed reform, but if taken too far erodes the government’s capacity to do what only government can and must do. Perhaps most dangerous, impeachment of an already lame-duck president would further disable him for the next two years from defending American security and interests in a remorselessly turbulent, perilous world. All Americans should fervently pray that it doesn’t come to that.

#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%

The above information is an excerpt from one of the most left wing Newspapers on the planet, and one of Obama’s strongest supporters; The New York Times.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/opinion/the-impeachment-of-obama-on-immigration-may-be-legal-but-its-wrong.html?_r=2

Who is Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina may have been the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business, but she turned out to be just as bad at it as Barack Obama has been at running the country.  Despite the spin she tries to put in, Carly Fiorina was a disaster for Hewlett Packard.

Fiorina’s story is that she stormed into HP, turned the company around and was unceremoniously fired because she challenged the status quo. In actuality, she insisted on a controversial merger with Compaq, got her way and it decimated the company. Fiorina loves to talk about HP’s increase in raw numbers, but if two large computer companies merge, it’s almost a given that the revenue and the number of patents produced by both companies combined are going to increase.

 What didn’t increase was HP’s stock price. It dropped from $55 a share when Fiorina took over to a little less than $20 a share under her leadership. There is a reason Fiorina shows up on lists of the Worst CEOs Of All Time (See here, here, here, and here among others) and it’s not because the whole business world is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to portray her as an incompetent.

Let me also add that it’s not fair that Democrats will attack her for firing 30,000 workers because unfortunately, that just comes with the territory when you’re a CEO sometimes. However, if you think it wouldn’t be incredibly effective to point out that Fiorina fired 30,000 workers, tanked the price of the company’s stock, damaged Hewlett Packard so badly that it has yet to recover and STILL walked away with 100 million dollars for being one of the worst CEOs of all time, you’re kidding yourself. For all of his flaws, Mitt Romney was a gifted businessman and the Democrats managed to falsely portray him as a heartless, greedy monster for doing far less than that at Bain Capital. 

If Carly Fiorina were to say that she’d run America like she ran Hewlett Packard, it could be taken as a direct threat against the country. So, what else does she have to offer as a candidate? 

Oh, right! She’s supposedly a grassroots conservative outsider! Yeah, well about that….

Fiorina has run for office before. During the Tea Party tidal wave of 2010, there seemed to be an outside chance that Republicans might be able to knock off Barbra Boxer in California. Granted, it’s California, so it was always going to be a heavy lift, but after Scott Brown had won earlier in the year in Massachusetts, it didn’t seem impossible that a Republican could pull it off.

So, as we have often seen in these last few years, a conservative grassroots candidate squared off with a moderate candidate backed by the establishment. The grassroots conservative candidate was Chuck DeVore and the establishment candidate was Carly Fiorina. Almost every big name conservative except for Sarah Palin lined up behind DeVore (and I love Sarah, but if Fiorina had been a man, there’s not a chance in the world she would have gotten that endorsement. 

That’s why Sarah had to deal with a big backlash from her own fans over backing Fiorina). On the other hand, the NRSC, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were all supporting Fiorina. Interesting question: When have John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the NRSC EVER backed a conservative candidate over a moderate in a competitive race? Yes, that’s right; they don’t do that. Ever.

After beating DeVore by outspending him more than 3-to1, Fiorina went toe-to-toe with charisma-free Senator Barbara Boxer and got her brains beaten in. Surprise, surprise -- Fiorina’s disastrous run at Hewlett Packard turned out to be an anchor around her neck and the fact that she was such a terrible politician that she signed off on bizarre garbage like the Demon Sheep ad (IT APPEARS at 2:26) certainly didn’t help. In a year when Republicans picked up 6 Senate seats, Boxer waltzed to a 10 point victory over Fiorina.

So, Fiorina’s a failed CEO and it would be more accurate to call her an “establishment favorite” than an outsider, but at least she’s a hardcore conservative, right? Well….not so much. Here’s Redstate on Carly Fiorina back in 2010.

From her praise of Jesse Jackson, to her playing the race and gender cards against DeVore, to her support for the Wall Street bailouts, to her qualified support for the Obama stimulus, to her past support for taxation of sales on the Internet, to her waffling on immigration, to her support for Sonia Sotomayor, to her Master’s thesis advocating greater federal control of local education, to her past support for weakening California’s Proposition 13, to her statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that Roe v. Wade is “a decided issue,” Carly Fiorina’s oft-repeated claim to be a “lifelong conservative” was only plausible in the universe of NRSC staffers who recruited her in the first place.

...She endorsed Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for “extra” embyros.

She endorsed the California DREAM Act, which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

She refused to endorse California’s Proposition 23, which suspends the job-killing AB 32 climate-change law.

Fiorina also strongly supported Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan that even he claims not to back anymore, endorsed cap & trade and attacked Ted Cruz for being willing to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.

How do you trust Fiorina on immigration, small government issues, taxes, pro-life issues, global warming or to even try to kill Obamacare after that?

Although it’s very difficult to predict what’s going to happen in a primary season as crazy as this one has been, the difference between what people THINK Fiorina is and what she ACTUALLY is, is so great that we can hazard one guess: Carly Fiorina is going to follow the 2012 pattern. People will initially get excited about her, find out what her record really looks like and then she’ll quickly implode.

OBAMA HAS BEEN PUNKED...again

Two investigators who have studied the image of Mohamed’s device provided by Irving, Texas police have concluded that Mohamed did not make the clock.  Both conclude that Mohamed disassembled a manufactured clock and installed it in a large pencil box without its casing.  And both say it is possible it was done to provoke suspicion or to resemble a bomb.

SOURCE: http://www.infowars.com/hoax-exposed-muslim-student-ahmed-mohameds-briefcase-clock-is-1970s-digital-alarm-clock/

If you want more proof it was all a hoax, read this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/father-muslim-kid-arrested-clock-standout-citizen-article-1.2363466

AND THERE IS ALSO THIS:   http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/real-story-istandwithahmed/

AND THIS:   http://louderwithcrowder.com/exposed-ahmed-mohamed-never-even-built-a-clock-new-video-emerges/

 
In my opinion, the real fool in this incident is President Obama.

This kid broke the law and Obama praises him and invites him to the White House.  We all know if this had been a White Christian kid, he would have been expelled from school.

This is nothing more than the "guts" removed from an old digital clock, and put in a sort of small brief case to make it look like a bomb..

      

Big Money Democratic Donors Urge Biden to Run.

A group of prominent Democratic Party fundraisers on Friday began circulating a letter to encourage a hesitant Vice President Joe Biden to enter the 2016 race for U.S. president.
The letter, signed by nearly 50 people, calls the Obama-Biden administration a "spectacular success." It cites job creation, a lower unemployment rate, new health insurance policies for nearly 9 million Americans and the end of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"To finish the job, America needs a leader who is respected both home and abroad, and who understands the real challenges facing American families. In our opinion, the next president must be Joe Biden. If he announces he’s running, we’re all in. It’s a campaign we know he will win," the letter says.

SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/18/us-usa-election-biden-exclusive-idUSKCN0RI25F20150918

It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain that these people are either flat out lying, because there’s something in it for them.  Or they are delusional.

But, my point is; if he decides to run, and the big money of the Democrat Political machine backs him, It’s curtains for both Hillary and Berney.  At least that’s the way I see it.   All three of them are hard core socialist anyway, but Hillary is the most corrupt and despicable of the three.

          

UPDATE

http://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-edges-closer-to-joining-presidential-race-1442617215

WARNING...The Sea Levels are Rising...WARNING

I read an article the other day written by one of those wacky climate change alarmist, warning mankind to stop burning fossil fuels because the CO2 was causing global warming, which was melting the polar ice, which was causing the sea levels to rise, which was going to destroy mankind.

That may be the longest sentence I have ever written…

It is true that climate change does exist. It is also true that the sea level is rising.   It is also true that BOTH have ALWAYS been occurring and are not caused by mankind burning fossil fuels.

The main cause of rising sea levels, in my opinion is erosion, which we cannot eliminate, but we really could reduce.  If you have ever seen the Grand Canyon, you have seen the result of erosion by a single river. Where do you think all those thousands cubic yards of soil and rock ended up?  Yep, on the ocean floor which raised the sea level, and there are a bunch of rivers and streams on this planet.  There is also erosion of beaches by the surf and tides.  And let’s not forget erosion by wind.

Another cause of rising sea levels is volcanic activity, and I’m not just talking about the visible lava flow that you can actually see flowing into the ocean, like in Hawaii.  There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of under water volcanoes out there in the oceans.

Another cause of rising sea levels is space dust, or “cosmic dust” falling to earth.  I know some will be skeptical of this one, so I included a couple of links.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/150128-big-bang-universe-supernova-astrophysics-health-space-ngbooktalk/

AND: http://www.popsci.com/60-tons-cosmic-dust-fall-earth-every-day

If 60 tons of space dust fall to earth every single day, a heck of a lot surely ends up in the ocean.   

There is no Scientific Global Warming Consensus, and there never has been.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

This is Fishier than a Sardine Smoothie.

Have you heard the news that all of a sudden Iran has discovered they have a whole lot more uranium than they thought they had?   

Did you think that the timing of this “discovery” was a wee bit suspicious?  Well, I think it’s a whole lot more than a wee bit suspicious.   I think it’s fishier than a sardine smoothie.

 

I think it’s all about campaign donations for the DNC.   If you GOOGLE “Hillary Clinton + Uranium Deal” I’m pretty sure you can connect the dots.

Consider if you will, the following list of coincidences:

COINCIDENCE #1…When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State; she approved a sale to Russia.

COINCIDENCE #2…That sale was for uranium mines in America.

COINCIDENCE #3…Shortly after that sale, a bunch of rich folks in Russia paid bill Clinton 200,000.00 dollars for a half hour speech... now who in there right mind, in Russia or anywhere else, would pay bill Clinton 200,000.00 dollars for a thirty minute speech?

COINCIDENCE #4…Obama and John Kerry work their butts off to push through the infamous Iranian Nuke deal which along with a bunch of other idiotic things would remove the sanctions on Iran.

http://cyberpolyticks.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-iranian-misdeal.html

COINCIDENCE #5… Iran says they just recently found a mysterious deposit of uranium in Iran…Yeah well they had to say that or the IAEA would be asking some pretty ugly questions.

Of course none of these “coincidences” really prove ties to campaign donations to the DNC, but Obama knows how to extort money out of everyone.  With his ties to Chicago gangsters he has pros working for him.

The whole world wants in on the Iran deal to capitalize on the fortunes to be made there.   I’m sure there will be all sorts of back room deals made.    

American corporations make donations to the DNC, and in return Obama delivers the Iranian markets to their door step...That's how Chicago style politics works...

Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments.

Quit Bashing Obama!  

 By Col. Robert F. Cunningham and Patrick Rishor,  The Gilmer Mirror (Northeast Texas Newspaper)

    
Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. 

He has done more than any other President before him. 

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

    1.     First President to be photographed smoking a joint.
    2.     First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
    3.     First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
    4.     First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
    5.     First President to violate the War Powers Act.
    6.     First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
    7.     First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
    8.     First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.
    9.     First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
    10.   First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
    11.   First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
    12.   First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
    13.   First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
    14.   First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
    15.   First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
    16.   First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
    17.   First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
    18.   First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
    19.   First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
    20.   First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
    21.   First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
    22.   First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
    23.   First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
    24.   First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
    25.   First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
    26.   First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
    27.   First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.
    28.   First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
    29.   First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.
    30.   First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid     for by the taxpayers.
    31.   First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
    32.   First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
    33.   First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
    34.   First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
    35.   First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).
    36.   First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."
    37.   Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.
    
I feel much better now.   I had been under the impression he hadn't been doing ANYTHING.
    

A full-scale revolt against House Speaker Rep. John Boehner

A full-scale revolt against House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) —including a looming resolution that could come up for a vote at any time that would remove him from the speakership—has thrown into disarray the House GOP leadership’s previously carefully laid plans to push President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran through Congress without a fight.

Amid a rebellion in the House GOP conference meeting on Wednesday morning, leadership canceled a previously scheduled rule vote that would have set up the House putting through a resolution of disapproval of the president’s Iran deal under the terms of legislation previously signed into law from Sens. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).

This all happened as a result of an argument furthered by Reps. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Pete Roskam (R-IL) that Congress shouldn’t even vote on the Corker-Cardin resolution, either approving or disapproving of the Iran deal, since the president has not yet complied with the law regarding the release of text of the deal including “side deals” cut with Tehran.

READ MORE: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/09/republicans-thwart-boehner-plan-to-move-forward-on-obamas-nuclear-arms-deal-with-iran/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

    

Have you read Obama's Playbook?

Saul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today. Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about Alinsky in his books.   Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. Education: University of Chicago Spouse: Irene Alinsky  Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals  Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S. ?   All eight rules are currently in play   How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:   There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.   1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people   2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.   3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.   4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.   5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)   6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.   7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools   8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.   Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States?   Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule.  Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots."  The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control.  It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.   If people can read this and still say everything is just fine… Then they are the “useful idiots”. "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."  Abraham Lincoln