The World turmoil and America’s involvement

The thing that kept the lid on things in the mid-east for so many years, was the fact that most of the countries there were ruled by a King or Dictator or whatever you wish to call them.  Most of these countries were NOT under an Islamic government, and most had a powerful military to discourage an invasion.

Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of Muslims is world wide domination.  They seriously want to rule the world.   The first non-Islamic country to fall was Iran.  This was during the Carter administration, and he did nothing to help the Shah remain in control.  It then became an Islamic republic under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The second problem to arise in the Middle East was when the dictator of Iraq became hungry for more power and more oil money.  His solution was to invade Kuwait; a small country which had a LOT of oil but no military.  This was when George HW Bush was President, and the United States intervened to stop the invasion and drive the Iraq forces out of Kuwait.   Once that was accomplished we ceased all military action against Iraq.

The third problem, in my opinion, was the election of Bill Clinton as President.  He used the Middle East to divert media attention away from all his many scandals.  If the news of the day was one of his scandals, a simple solution was to bomb something in the Middle East, like an aspirin factory for example.

When Clinton was elected, we basically had two enemies in the Middle East; Iran and Iraq.  By the end of Clinton’s eight years of blundering, I doubt that we had a single friend left over there, except perhaps Israel. 

On September 11, 2001, at 8:45 a.m. just eight months after George Bush became President, Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations attacked the World Trade Center.  Reportedly, they were financed by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization.   It was the popular assumption that they were acting in retaliation for America’s support of Israel, our involvement in the Persian Gulf War.  

This attack had been in the planning stage for at least three or four years because some of the terrorists had lived in the United States for several years, and had been taking flying lessons at American commercial flight schools.

Bush responded to this attack by launching the War on Terror, an international military campaign which included the war in Afghanistan, launched in 2001 and the war in Iraq, launched in 2003.  At the conclusion of the war in Iraq, President Bush left an ample number of troops there to keep the piece until Iraq had a strong enough Government and strong enough Military to do so.

In January of 2009 the disaster of all disasters happened.  A Muslim by the name of Barack Hussein Obama II became President of The United States.  Obama knew Many Americans were tired of the war, and one of his campaign promises was “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,”

In his book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

This was going to be a very long post pointing out the fact that most if not all of the turmoil in the world today is a direct result of American Foreign Policy.  However, I just discovered a recent column by Pat Buchanan which sums it up very nicely.  Here is the link…Please read:  http://buchanan.org/blog/the-mind-of-mr-putin-124130

Here are Examples of America’s Current Foreign Policy…

US STRIKE IN AFGHANISTAN KILLS DOCTORS AND OTHER STAFF IN CHARITY'S HOSPITAL...

Medics frantically phoned NATO and Washington...

19+ dead...

'War crime'...

'Patients burning in their beds'...

VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE:

https://theblacksphere.net/2015/10/obama-pushing-us-world-war-iii/

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.