Tag Archives: 2016 Election

No, Islam Is Not Consistent With Freedom Or The Constitution

Obama appoints Hamas supporter to Commission on Religious Freedom

James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute, and curiously enough, Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, took Ben Carson’s statement to task, by denying what Islam is about and, calling his comment stupid and bigoted. Saying that Carson is “playing to the base of the Republican Party.” Did I mention Zogby is part of the Obama administration?

Can you say ‘Sharia Law’ Mr. Zogby? The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation, like oh say, State and Federal government as guided by the Constitution.

Carson made himself perfectly clear that one’s religion does not matter as long as it is consistent with American principles and values. He also said that if a Muslim were to uphold American values and principles then that would be fine. And Muslims trying to institute Sharia Law in the United States is fact, not playing. But you’re not hearing that from the media, are you? Ben Carson is more right than anyone on the Left cares to admit. And he doesn’t do PC either.

For Zogby to deny Sharia is to deny the inseparable nature of Islam and governance. In this respect, Islam and a secular government is incompatible. Islam is the religion and the controlling governance of its believers. It’s what one says and does that matters. Obama can say he’s a Christian. He can say he’s a Witch for all I care. It’s what he does that matters. Trading a traitor for the release of 5 Muslim terrorists should tell you all you need to know.

In fact, if James Zogby wants to call out bigoted and hateful comments from politicians, he should look at Hillary Clinton who has made ‘Muslim’ the new N-word.

Link: Muslims Try to Pass SHARIA LAW in Alabama… But Citizens Say HELL NO! (WATCH)

Is ‘Muslim’ The New N-word?

In the latest media attempt to derail the Trump campaign, it only shows who the real ‘racists’ are. Forget for a moment that Islam is not a race, but a religion. But remember that in this country, there is a First Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion for everyone. Even politicians.

So, if I may borrow a phrase from a loser of a Secretary of State who is running for president on her record, on whether Obama is a Muslim, what difference, at this point, does it make? He could be a Christian, a Muslim, or a frigging Witch. That’s all protected by the First Amendment and as such, is irrelevant.

The faux controversy is about why Donald Trump did not defend Obama at a press conference (something Hillary does not do without pre-screened reporters, attendees, and questions) from a member of the public who said he believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim, leading up to his question which was, what are we going to do about terrorist cells having training camps in this country? Trump laughed at his opening shot, and otherwise ignored it. But did answer the question (which no media outlet has bothered to mention) by saying he’s heard about that kind of stuff and would look into it if elected president. In short, it was a pretty generic answer without any controversy.

So from that, Hillary Clinton, the slavish media, and the DNC are going bonkers attacking Trump for something he did not do and did not say. Hillary calls that not acting presidential. Debbie was-a-man Shultz called Trump a racist.

What did Hillary say about the (probably planted) incident? She said that Trump should apologize. As though it is everyone’s duty to defend Barack Obama when anyone says something, true or untrue, about him. And because he didn’t do that, she retorts that Trump “should start behaving like a president.”

You know what the real dialog was. Now this is NBC’s interpretation. The meme . . .

A man at Trump’s event in Rochester, New Hampshire, asked the Republican presidential frontrunner how the U.S. can “get rid” of Muslims and asserted that Obama was a Muslim who was not born in this country.

Suffice it to say, this is not the first time that NBC has cut-n-pasted an event to change its meaning. (Zimmerman case comes to mind.)

Here is CNN’s reporting of the same event . . .

At a Trump event in New Hampshire on Thursday, an unidentified man said, “We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. You know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American. … That’s my question: When can we get rid of them?”

Cool. You have a pretty good idea of the meme over this fake controversy from the mainstream media and the struggling (for ratings) Cable News Network. Now notice those three little dots that precede “That’s my question.” Here’s what they failed to mention with those three little dots and, as you might expect, it changes the entire context of the dialog.

“Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us,” the man, wearing a “Trump” T-shirt, continued. “That’s my question: When can we get rid of them?”

From Hillary’s reaction, you would think that being Muslim, or accused of being a Muslim, is like calling someone an illegal alien, or the N-word. She was “appalled” of all the “hatefulness.”

“I was appalled,” Clinton told reporters here. “He should have from the beginning repudiated that kind of rhetoric, that level of hatefulness in a questioner in an audience that he was appearing before.”

0225_obamaturban_460x276Is being called a Muslim, or being a Muslim, something all that appalling? It should be instructive to note who the bigots, racists, really are. The media also conveniently forgot to mention who started the whole birther thing on Obama. It was Hillary’s own 2008 campaign.

If anything, it’s Muslims who should feel offended by Hillary’s reaction. Why, she’s not acting very presidential is she?

DNC Chair Comes Out, Planned Parenthood

Debbie Was-a-man Shultz comes out. In her fear campaign to raise money, Debbie says she is “pissed off.” “I’m going to be frank,” she says. (Could have been an uppercase F.)

Willing to shut down the government for preserving $500,000,000 of taxpayer money to 700 Planned Parenthood butcher shops instead of giving it to 13,540 federally qualified women’s health clinics that don’t kill babies and sell their remains, Shultz demonstrates how abortion, not women’s health, is the Holy Sacrament of the Democrat Party.

In her DNC fundraising letter, she also bemoans how those evil republicans want to repeal Obamacare. The program that was forced down America’s collective throat. The program that is so bad that it won’t even be fully implemented (if not repealed first) until Obama is out of office. Obama doesn’t want to be around to face the mess he made.

Fund Women’s Clinics, Not Planned Parenthood

If you want to see how ridiculous Hillary Clinton and her party’s response to Planned Parenthood critics are, just look at the numbers. When you do, it becomes obvious that Planned Parenthood is merely a political special interest of the Democrat Party. And as such, the $500,000,000 is the quid pro quo,  a political investment.

If serving women’s health issues were the object, then the pols in Washington would have no hesitation in pulling the half-billion dollars from the 700 Planned Parenthood Clinics, and instead divvy it up to the over 13,000 other women’s clinics in the country. Clinics that do not kill babies and sell their remains.

Doing so will not shut down Planned Parenthood. They’ll get along just fine, if they don’t get shut down for the actions of their abortion department. And doing so will help more women than Planned Parenthood ever could.

Links: Health Clinics Nationwide Compared to Planned Parenthood Centers |  State maps of Women’s Health Centers v Planned Parenthood


Jeb Bush Off By Hundreds Of Billions

Jeb Bush criticizes Donald Trump’s plan to build a great big wall with a beautiful door as something that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. He’s on the campaign trail saying that doing so is ridiculously unaffordable and hopelessly unrealistic.

Well, he’s only off by hundreds of billions of dollars. Not only that, but when you consider the cost of an illegal alien to the United States, it would reach a break-even point after 8,500 illegals are prevented from crossing.

The 245-mile security fence in Israel cost $450 million, averaging $1.8 million per mile. Assuming the completion of our security fence would cost the same amount, the total tab would come in at just under $2 billion. Even if we use higher estimates of 9 million per mile, as estimated by DHS for the cost of the San Diego fence, that would amount to roughly $6 billion for the project. 

Af far cry from hundreds of billions of dollars Jeb. The more Jeb speaks, the more he demagogues, the more he sounds like Obama. Bush is not the one for The White House because like Obama, he does not have America’s, and American’s, best interest in mind.

h/t Mark Levin

Link: The Case for the Border Fence

On Immigration, Trump Owns Media

There’s one guy just tickled to death that Donald Trump is dominating the news on the subject of immigration. President Barack Obama. Anything to draw attention from participating in nuclear proliferation and providing funding to a terrorist-supporting country. And from trying to cripple the energy industry, coal specifically, and drive up the cost of electricity. But I digress . . .

Were it not for Donald Trump, what would the candidates be talking about?

Trump held a press conference yesterday. It was broadcast on two cable news channels. (Are any other candidates talking to the media? Or, is any media talking to other candidates?) At the start, Jorge Ramos from Univision, failed at imitating a BlackLivesMatter antagonist and got the spanking he deserved. Not because Univision and Trump are involved in a lawsuit, but because Ramos was acting like a spoiled child. After Ramos returned, Trump gave him more time than any other candidate would at answering and taking questions from a single reporter. Trump came out the winner in that exchange.

Later on FNC’s The Kelly File, Megyn Kelly asked Ted Cruz if he would deport an American citizen if his parents were illegals? She was speaking of an anchor baby. Instead of answering that question, Cruz gave his own answer which included words to the effect of “I’m not playing that game.”

I’ll answer your question Megyn Kelly. The answer is YES. That’s because, obviously, the family should be kept together. And if the parents would refuse to take their child with them, abandoning the child, then the kid should be taken from them as unfit parents, put in foster care, and the parents sent back to wherever they came from. And the anchor baby problem will cure itself.

Also yesterday, speaking in McAllen, Texas, Jeb Bush said, in Spanish, “I, as President, I would go to congress and change the law to give them not a residency but citizenship.” It is Bush’s belief that illegals (he and Obama call them Dreamers) deserve it. Like so many other candidates, Jeb is on that “the immigration system is broken” bandwagon.

It’s that whole “deserve” thing that troubles me. The other thing that troubles me is when people/politicians say the immigration system is broken. The only way to determine that is to enforce the immigration laws. They are pretty clear. We need a leader to demand that the laws, all of them, be enforced. No sanctuary cities, no anchor babies, no anything for illegals, except a ride back to the border.

Aside from Trump pretty much owning the media, the media is doing a great disservice to the folks by ignoring all but a select few of the other candidates. One such candidate has filed a complaint to the FEC over the media’s totally biased reporting on the field of candidates. And, he’s the only candidate so far who can show you his plan in writing. That would be Kerry Bowers.

The Buck Stops In The Oval Office

So how’s the 2016 Clinton campaign going? Not very well. The fact that people do not trust her was brought on by her own actions.

From the start of her position as Secretary of State, we now learn that she was allowed to have her own private mail server to conduct official business, instead of the required secure government servers.

True to form, for Hillary Clinton, her mission was to keep her activities out of public view and out of the reach of any Congressional oversight. Can you say Benghazi?

So why is it that the most obvious questions about Sec. Clinton’s mail server activity still has not been asked of her boss, President Obama?

Like these two . . .

Mr. President, the Cabinet officials work under you and for you.  Confidential and Top Secret emails are normal business for our Embassies around the world. Not only between our Ambassadors and the Sec. of State, but between the Sec. of State and yourself. How is it possible that you never noticed that email communications to and from your Cabinet Secretary were not going through a government-secured mail server? Will you agree to an investigation to verify that you also do not, and did not, have a private server and private email account of your own, that was not part of a government-controlled secure environment, for official business?

Hillary Clinton’s Resume

Got a letter from Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, the nation’s government watchdog that took over when the media watchdog died. Since Hillary Clinton is making a second go at her husband’s last job, there are some things Tom reminds us voters of. Things that speak to the character of Hillary Clinton, the person who is asking expecting Americans to vote for her.

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s resume and, what you could expect of her in the future.  She acts as if the laws that apply to other Americans like you and me do not apply to her.

Whether it was . . .

  • Obstructing the release of records about the Whitewater land deal when her husband was running for president in 1992 (her Rose Law Firm billing records were mysteriously lost for two years and then turned up in the White House residence); or
  • Keeping her “Health Care Task Force” proceedings secret when she was First Lady in 1993 (her task force wouldn’t even give the names of all the consultants it brought in for advice); or
  • Refusing to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State in 2012; or
  • Violating and avoiding accountability by using secret email accounts as Secretary of State; or
  • Abusing her public office to funnel money to her personal accounts — with corporate money, foreign money, foreign government money . , , gobs of money, much of which is now sloshing around her vanity “charity” that could be renamed “The Clinton Corruption Family Foundation.”

All throughout her political career, Hillary Clinton has shown chronic contempt for the law and for the American people’s “right to know.”

Special Treatment, Clinton, Special Prosecutor

From the start of Secretary Clinton’s term, her email activities were contrary to government requirements and in violation of espionage laws. And from the start, her boss (that would be President Obama) is ultimately responsible for the activities of those under him.

Ask yourself, had this been any other federal employee carrying on official business, much of which is confidential, secret, and top secret, on a non-secured government mail server, how many days (or hours) would pass before the FBI would be in their house, taking their computers, cell phones, and computers and cell phones of their family?

Over six months have passed since it was publicly known that Obama and Clinton have broken the law. The fact that it is also Obama’s Justice Department stonewalling what would otherwise be  an automatic investigation, should also be obvious to everyone by now.

hillary clinton delete emailIt’s long past time for a Grand Jury to be impaneled if not a Special Prosecutor to begin looking into the special email server, why it was allowed, who authorized it, the deleting of evidence (the emails and server) while under subpoena, and most importantly, all the communications between Secretary Clinton before, during, and after the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi. None of which have, so far, been provided.

It’s not like special prosecutors are not called for and used in cases of national security, and much less. Especially if the subject had an R after their name.

How’s that go again? “No Justice, No Peace.”

Link: Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

Anchor Babies

Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It’s bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of “anchor babies,” America is being governed by Brennan’s 1982 footnote.


The above graciously lifted from Ann Coulter. Because I bet you didn’t know.