► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

President Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

by huckfunn ( 64 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Censorship, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Free Speech, government, Marxism, Military, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, Special Report, taxation, Transportation at March 18th, 2012 - 12:35 am

I’m not sure what this means, but I don’t like it one bit.  It seems to be consistent with Obama’s previous power grabs. Here is one point of view from Examiner:

On March 16th, President Obama signed a new Executive Order which expands upon a prior order issued in 1950 for Disaster Preparedness, and gives the office of the President complete control over all the resources in the United States in times of war or emergency.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security.  The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order’s functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations.

Additionally, each cabinet under the Executive Branch has been given specific powers when the order is executed, and include the absolute control over food, water, and other resource distributions.

Executive Orders created for national defense and national preparedness are not new in American history, but in each instance they brought about a Constitutional crisis that nearly led standing Presidents to hold dictatorial power over the citizenry.  During the Civil War, President Lincoln halted freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while at the same time revoking Habeas Corpus and the right to a fair trial under the sixth amendment.  During World War I, when Congress refused to grant Woodrow Wilson extended power over resources to help the war effort, he invoked an Executive Order which allowed him complete control over businesses, industry, transportation, food, and other economic policies.

In both cases, it was only after the death of each President that full Constitutional powers were restored to the citizens of the United States.

Read the whole article here.  Hat tip CynicalConservative

 

Outrageous: Obama regime gives almost one billion taxpayer dollars to repair mosques in the middle east!

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 26 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, government, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Sharia (Islamic Law), Terrorism at March 16th, 2012 - 4:51 pm

Watch the video from WSB-TV news in Atlanta. I guess the regime thought they could quietly slip this “under the radar” and no one would notice. This shouldn’t won’t surprise any of us.

The Obama regime, through the State dept.’s USAID program, has funneled almost $1 billion of our dollars to Egypt and other terror-supporting or sponsoring 7th century muzz countries hellholes to repair mosques. This is happening as the grand muffin of saudi arabia, or whatever they call the wicked, vile POS, called for the destruction of all churches in muzz countries hellholes.

And of course, the regime is doing all this in the name of “winning the hearts and minds” of the muzz scum in the middle east so they don’t commit terrorist attacks against us, which we all know is hopeless, idiotic and a waste of our tax money (See related story below).

Problem is we all know that the muzz swine’s “hearts and minds” are filled with nothing but evil and hatred for us and our way of life.

The muzz swine love killing infidels and see this “aid” as just another sign of American weakness and are laughing at us as they cash our checks and plan bigger and better ways to kill more infidels.

Here’s more proof, as if we need it, that we’ll NEVER win the “hearts and minds of these 7th century savages (a tip o’ the hat to waldensianspirit this St. Patrick’s day weekend)

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Calls For “Destruction of All Churches In The Region”

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti confirms Islamic hostility for churches.

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
March 14, 2012

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11358/saudi-mufti-destroy-churches

According to several Arabic news sources, last Monday, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

The Grand Mufti made his assertion in response to a question posed by a delegation from Kuwait, where a parliament member recently called for the “removal” of churches (he later “clarified” by saying he merely meant that no churches should be built in Kuwait): the delegation wanted to confirm Sharia’s position on churches.

Accordingly, the Grand Mufti “stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to destroy all churches in it.”

As with many grand muftis before him, the Sheikh based his proclamation on the famous tradition, or hadith, wherein the prophet of Islam declared on his deathbed that “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula,” which has always been interpreted to mean that only Islam can be practiced in the region.

While the facts of this account speak for themselves, consider further:

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah is not just some random Muslim hating on churches. He is the Grand Mufti of the nation that brought Islam to the world. Moreover, he is the President of the Supreme Council of Ulema [Islamic scholars] and Chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas. Accordingly, when it comes to what Islam teaches, his words are immensely authoritative.

Considering the hysteria that besets the West whenever non-authoritative individuals offend Islam—for instance, a fringe, unknown pastor—imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the Grand Mufti, say the Pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt, all the shrill screams of “intolerance” and “bigot,” demands for apologies if not resignation, nonstop handwringing by sensitive politicians, and worse.

Yet the Grand Mufti—the highest Islamic law authority of our “friend-and-ally” Saudi Arabia—gets a free pass when he incites Muslims to destroy churches, not that any extra incitement is needed (nary a month goes by without several churches being bombed and destroyed throughout the Islamic world). In fact, at the time of this writing, I have not seen this story, already some three days old, translated on any English news source, though “newsworthy” stories are often translated in mere hours.

Likewise, consider the Grand Mufti’s rationale for destroying churches: it is simply based on a hadith. But when non-Muslims evoke hadiths as authoritative—this one or the countless others that incite violence and intolerance against the “infidel”—they are accused of being “Islamophobes,” of intentionally slandering and misrepresenting Islam, of being obstacles on the road to “dialogue,” and so forth.

Which leads to perhaps the most important point: Islam’s teachings are so easily ascertained; there is no mystery in determining what is “right” and “wrong” in Islam. The Grand Mufti based his fatwa on a canonical hadith, which Muslims and (informed) non-Muslims know is part of Islam’s sources of jurisprudence (or usul al-fiqh). All very standard and expected. And yet the West—with all its institutions of higher learning, including governmental agencies dealing with cultural and religious questions—is still thoroughly “confused” as to what Islam teaches.

All of this is nothing short of a scandal—a reminder of just how deep the mainstream media, academia, and most politicians have their collective heads thrust in the sand.

Meanwhile, here is the latest piece of evidence of just how bad churches have it in the Muslim world, for those who care to know.

An updated list – Obama’s top ten insults against Great Britain – 2012 edition

by Mojambo ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, France, Russia, UK at March 15th, 2012 - 11:30 am

As Yael from Boker Tov, Boulder points out – Obama hates Britain almost as much as he hates Israel. If I were Romney I would mention to America and to Obama in any debate that the first thing I would do as president would be to request the return of the bust of Winston Churchill.  How sad that Britons (according to polls) so wanted Obama to win in 2008.

hat tip – Boker Tov, Boulder

by Nile Gardiner

For the past two years I have published a list of Barack Obama’s biggest insults against America’s foremost ally, Great Britain, during his time in office. Here is an updated list to accompany President Obama’s hosting this week of an official visit to the White House by the British Prime Minister, as a reminder that a basketball trip to Ohio and a bells and whistles state dinner do not erase a track record of major insults by the Obama administration since it took office.

Mr Obama has been by far the most anti-British president in modern American history, kicking off his presidency with the removal of a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, and continuing today with a policy of knifing Britain in the back over the Falklands. He will be all smiles and full of platitudes this week when he greets Mr Cameron in Washington, but the fact remains that for President Obama the Special Relationship has been largely a blip on his teleprompter screen, in his eyes an anachronism of a bygone era, rather than the engine of the free world.

Here are the 2012 rankings:

1. Siding with Argentina over the Falkland Islands

This has remained the top insult for three years running. For sheer offensiveness it’s hard to beat the Obama administration’s brazen support for Argentina’s call for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982. In a March 2010 press conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a huge propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the Péronist regime.

In June 2011, Mrs Clinton slapped Britain in face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the Argentine term “Malvinas” to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires.

In 2012, against a backdrop of growing aggression by Argentina, including efforts to blockade international vessels fishing in Falkland waters, the Obama administration continued to undercut Britain. In January and February the State Department again supported direct negotiations between Argentina and Britain, parroting the line taken by Buenos Aires.

2. Calling France America’s strongest ally

In January last year, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, literally gushing with praise for Washington’s new-found Gallic friends, declaring: “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.” As I noted at the time:

Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.

These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in modern times has described France as America’s closest ally, and such a remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq.

3. Lecturing Britain on a federal Europe and undercutting British sovereignty

The Obama administration’s relentless and wrongheaded support for the creation of a federal Europe, from backing the Treaty of Lisbon to the EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), is a slap in the face for the principle of national sovereignty in Europe. While the Bush Administration was divided over Europe, the Obama team has been ardently euro-federalist. Hillary Clinton called the Lisbon Treaty “a major milestone in our world’s history”, and in an interview with The Irish Times in 2009 stated: “I believe [political integration is] in Europe’s interest and I believe that is in the United States’ interest because we want a strong Europe.” And Vice President Joe Biden has described Brussels as the “capital of the free world.”

Most insultingly, the Obama administration has sought to intervene in British policy towards the European project. The US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, has warned Britain that “all key issues must run through Europe.” According to a report by The Parliament.com, in a private meeting with British MEPs at an event in the European Parliament in January 2011, Susman called for a stronger British commitment to the EU, emphatically warning against British withdrawal:

[…….]

4. Betraying Britain to appease Moscow over the New START Treaty

In February 2011, The Daily Telegraphbroke a major story with damaging implications for the Special Relationship, revealing that Washington “secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty.” According to The Telegraph report:

[……]

5. Airbrushing Britain from Europe

A striking feature of Obama administration speeches on Europe is the frequent omission altogether of Great Britain, as if it doesn’t even exist. A major recent example of this was an address in January 2012 by Philip H. Gordon, US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, on “the state of transatlantic relations”, which completely left the British out of the discussion of the role of US allies in the Afghanistan and Libya operations, as well as the Iranian nuclear crisis. As I noted at the time:

It is a sad day when the most senior US official on Europe cannot even bring himself to acknowledge the vital role and huge sacrifices made by America’s closest partner on the battlefields of Afghanistan, while much of Europe barely lifts a finger in the war against the Taliban.

6. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office

It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy – not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense. Three years on, the Churchill bust incident continues to embarrass the Obama White House, and remains a sad symbol of this administration’s contempt for the Special Relationship as well as one of the greatest figures in British history.

7. Placing a “boot on the throat” of BP

The Obama administration’s relentless campaign against Britain’s largest company in the wake of Gulf oil spill was one of the most damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britons agreeing at the time that the president’s handling of the issue had harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a YouGov poll. The White House’s aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a “boot on the throat” of the oil giant, helped wipe out about half its share value, directly impacting the pensions of 18 million Britons. This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling”.

[…….]9. Insulting words from the State Department

The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown’s embarrassing reception at the White House in March 2010 says it all:

There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.

10.  Confusing England with Great Britain

Perhaps less of an insult than an embarrassing indictment of Barack Obama’s Columbia and Harvard education, the president’s extraordinarily ignorant response to the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran last November, dubbing it the “English” Embassy, was the kind of elementary mistake that would have had America’s liberal press howling with derision had it been made a few years earlier by George W. Bush. As I wrote soon after the president’s gaffe:

It would be nice if the leader of the free world bothered to look at a map once in a while, or even paid a visit to the British Embassy in Washington, currently housing the Churchill bust that Mr. Obama unceremoniously threw out of the Oval Office soon after his inauguration… The White House will no doubt dismiss this latest faux pas by the president as a slip of the tongue, but it cannot disguise the fact that it has on many occasions treated Britain and other key allies with an air of disdain, and even contempt.

Read the rest – Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain – 2012 edition

How About That Smart Diplomacy!

by Flyovercountry ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Politics at March 13th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

During the campaign of 2008, we heard all about how George W. Bush’s, “cowboy style,” of diplomacy was causing massive problems for us abroad.  The world, at least in terms of the tales told by leftists, hated even the slightest mention of anything American.  We no longer had any friends, and no one wanted to play with us any longer.  Even though there was not a single shred of actual evidence to substantiate this ridiculous claim, a compliant and totally in the tank media repeated it so often that our diplomatic corps started chanting that annoying 7 year old’s refrain, “nobody likes me, everybody hates me.”  So, here we are a scant 40 months later, and how has the new diplomatic strategy, post Hillary’s famous, and by the way not well received reset button, done?  Is the world a safer place for America and our interests?  Is the security of Israel stronger and in better shape today than it was in the ancient date of 2008?  Is America respected around the globe suddenly?  Are American interests and America’s citizens suddenly enjoying a more secure journey when traveling abroad?  Did Iran respond in the manner we would have preferred to those toothless and idiotic U.N. sanctions?  Did, “smart diplomacy,” which turned out to be nothing more than Barack Obama wagging his finger at foreign heads of state and later apologizing for past American leaders, all with that flair of condescension he has mastered all to well, lead to the results 52% of Americans believed they would when voting for this man?  I must say that they led to the results that I expected, which is precisely the world we live in today.

Here, my gentle little snowflakes, are the results of, “smart diplomacy, the finger wagging condescension of an American President, no longer backed by a viable military he has seen fit to destroy.  The article is quite lengthy, and in German, but if you open the link using Google Chrome, you will be able to translate it into English, or cut and paste it into Yahoo Babelfish.  If not, I’ll summarize it for you.  The Iranians have successfully tested a nuclear device.  Two things to bear in mind about this test.  One, they did not do it themselves.  They had the North Koreans looking over their shoulders.  What extent of the North Korean participation actually was, is unclear.  That is different from actually detonating a bomb by themselves.  This step however is a heck of a lot closer than anyone thought previously.  It also represents a direct contradiction to two important pieces of liberal bilge which has been promulgated upon us in the past.  One, the Iranians are clearly not developing nuclear capabilities for the purposes of supplying their country with electricity.  Two, the National Intelligence Estimate which Barack Obama and Joe Biden were parroting from the roof tops in 2007 has been proven laughably wrong.  Once again, these two clowns who are now our President and Vice President find themselves on the wrong side of a foreign policy issue, and dangerously so.  They used this estimate during the 2008 general election campaign to argue that we needn’t worry about those rascally Iranian darlings developing a nuclear device, and that appeasement would work far better when dealing with bad guys anyhow.

A challenge for my liberal friends, (or progressives, or no labels, or what ever in the heck you call yourselves these days.)  When, in the course of all of human history has appeasement worked?  Has a lasting peace, ever in human history, ever been negotiated through only diplomatic means?  There are three events so far which stand as the only three conditions that have led to a lasting peace.  One, a decisive military victory of one side over another.  Two, a huge imbalance of power which made war unpalatable for one side and a waste of time and resources for the other.  Three, the free trade of goods and services across the borders in dispute.  All three of these conditions are possible without a single diplomat being employed, and in fact have happened repeatedly throughout human history.  While diplomacy may help to foster an environment which avoids unnecessary misunderstanding, by itself, it has never accomplished anything near the accolades claimed in the stuff of Hollywood movies or television.

This latest version of appeasement is even more egregious than most other instances. We are attempting to coerce Iran through economic sanctions, which thanks to the corruption inherent in the U.N., have never been successful.  Iran has announced loudly, and often that her only goal is to eradicate Israel and kill every Jew on the planet.  Team Obama insists that we must seek to understand the plight of the Iranian Street, and seek to gain knowledge of why it is that they are suffering so greatly that they would seek to attain the ultimate killing weapon.  One quick perusal of  their religious text, and it should be obvious to anyone beyond the age of five that yes, what they are screaming that they want to do is really what they intend on doing.  Their motivation is not to improve upon their lot in life, but to actually, just like they are claiming, kill every person of Jewish faith on Earth.

Thomas Jefferson and John Jay purchased a copy of the Q’ran in 1788.  After having read their copy on a return voyage from England, both men wrote forwards in this book, which became the White House copy. Unless Barack Obama has done something to deface these words, they still exist today.  The forwards admonish every future President to consider the Muslim Faith America’s scariest enemy and predict that future warfare would be waged against them almost exclusively.  While it can be argued that these dire predictions did not hold up to the judge of history, they did prove somewhat correct in identifying the complete incompatibility of Islam and the principles of Freedom upon which our nation was founded.  When Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President, his very first act as Commander in Chief was to declare war on the Muslims who inhabited Libya.  This action was largely based on his reading and understanding of the Q’ran.  He recognized that diplomacy would be a waste of time, and that more American lives would be unnecessarily forfeit should he indulge that particular course of action.  The resulting lasting peace won by Thomas Jefferson’s methodology lasted until 1904.  Morocco became the next flash point of Muslim terror to be waged against the United States. The assassination of an American Ambassador and the kidnapping of his family led to another non diplomatic solution enacted by Theodore Roosevelt.  This action, a decisive military intervention, produced another period of Muslims leaving us alone which lasted almost another century.

The record of appeasement is also very clear.  It has led, always to some very horrific results.  It enables bad guys to get stronger, so that when dealing with them becomes a matter of survival and not just choice, they have improved resources, increased alliances, and have already achieved some of the more heinous parts of their objectives.  Today, Iran is much closer to achieving a nuclear weapons capability, and their intentions have been spelled out since their revolution in 1978.  The clock on this one is nearing an end, and we can not afford 4 more years of Smart Diplomacy.  Israel certainly can not afford 4 more years of America employing, “smart diplomacy.”

Exit Questions:  Why have our own media sources in this country completely ignored this ominous event?  Is there anyone left in America dumb enough to believe that our Main Stream Media is objective?

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.