Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of Obama’s Latest Big Brother Plan

Bradley Blakeman
Fox News
December 12, 2009

The Obama administration seeks to empower a very powerful government agency you have probably never heard of with new and expanded powers that will have a direct consequence on every American if they are successful in their efforts to implement national health care reforms.

The Obama White House is also drunk with power and is seeking to expand the powers of government agencies to oversee and act out to affect Americans in ways that this country has never seen before.

What is the Office of Personnel and Management and why should you care?

The Office of Personnel Management, (OPM), is suppose to be an independent government agency that is charged with managing the civil service system of the federal government. If you are a federal employee then civil service laws, rules and regulations that are managed by OPM govern you. One of the main charges of OPM is to administer and oversee federal health care provided to all federal employees.

Read entire article

Obama’s Holiday Bribes

The Post & E-Mail

News Analysis by Brigitte de Maubec

Obama will enjoy a 13 day Hawaiian Holiday repleat with a corps of jouralists, payed for with your tax-dollars.

(Dec. 11, 2009) — Just after the aftermath of yet another insult to our allies via the refusal to participate to the traditional events surrounding the award of the Nobel Prize including a dinner with the King, on the pretenses that the recipient was a very busy, sitting “President,” responsible for not one, but two, wars and facing the worst economic crisis “EVAHHH!”, the White House is quietly organizing yet another vacation-time for the Obamas.

They would have you believe that nothing has been decided yet, when in fact the logistics of booking their 13 day vacations in Hawaii, from December 23 to January 3, are in full swing!

And the invitations for the entourage are out!

Yesterday, December 10, Laurence Haim, the only French-Press-accredited, White House correspondent — but for the AFP — revealed that she had received an email inviting her and a guest to stay for the duration of Obama’s trip to Hawaii, at a Hotel next to the Obamas’ vacations spot.  Her revelations were aired on the French TV leading evening news program.

To listen to the program in French, go to the 20:00 mark in the broad cast at http://www.zataz.com/news/17388/canal-plus–regarder-gratuitement.html

According to Haim, the entire corps of White House correspondents, domestic and international has been invited (with a guest of their choice), to follow the Obamas under the sun at the American taxpayer expense.

In times when the American people are facing a bleak and sobering Christmas, when millions have lost their jobs and homes, the Obama Court is relocating to a Hawaiian paradise on the public dime.  And to insure the cooperative silence of the Main Stream Media, it is bribing the lackeys of the press, with lavishing and outrageous favors.

This would be cause enough to raise eyebrows, but since when is 13 day vacation outside of the mainland U.S.A.  accpetable the “President” of a nation at war?

I guess Christmas at home in Chicago or New Year at Camp David does not fit the standards of the Grandiose Obamas.

Probably not Historic enough!

Arguing With “Global Warming” Idiots

Canada Free Press

By Jim O’Neill  Sunday, December 13, 2009

“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration [scam] in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.”— Al Gore

“As public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.” —Sarah Palin

GeoCraft posted a simple ten-question test online, concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).  If you familiarize yourself with the correct answers to this quiz, then you will have the “ammo” to deal with the deceitful criminals behind the global warming racket.

It’s your money—don’t let them continue to steal it.

For the sake of those who don’t have the time, or inclination, to take the quiz, I have supplied an abbreviated version of the test questions and answers below.

(1) Question True or False.  “Global warming” is a real phenomenon: Earth’s temperature is increasing.

Answer True.  “Global warming” is a real phenomenon: Earth’s temperature is increasing.  From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an “interglacial phase,” or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.  If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying!  It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age.

(2) Question True or false.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is real and contributes to global warming.

Answer True.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is real.  The “greenhouse effect” helps to moderate temperatures—especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C (around zero degrees Fahrenheit).

(3) Question Multiple choice.  The main cause of Global Warming is:

Answer Orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.  Global Warming occurs in cycles caused mainly by changes in the sun’s energy output, and the sun’s relative position to the earth.  [NOT industrial pollution, automobiles, airplanes, and CO2].

(4) Question Multiple choice:  The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:

Answer Water vapor.  The world’s natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.  [That’s worth re-reading].

(5) Question Multiple choice.  Which most accurately describes the effects of Global Warming in the United States over the last 100 years?

Answer Temperatures have risen less then 1° C during the past 100 years.  During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1980 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930’s.  Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain—maybe 1/3° C

(6) Question Multiple choice.  How much carbon dioxide (CO2) is in Earth’s atmosphere today?

Answer Less than 1/10th of 1%.  Most CO2 comes from natural terrestrial and ocean biologic activity, and compared to former geologic times, Earth’s atmosphere today is arguably “CO2 impoverished.”  There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

(7) Question True or false.  Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests.

Answer False.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require.  Carbon dioxide is invisible.  The fat, curvy towers that look like they are belching white smoke are really only emitting pure water vapor. They are in effect making clouds.

(8) Question Multiple choice.  Which answer below provides the best explanation for the temperature record [over the past 1,000 years]?

Answer Natural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cycles.  The primary cause of variations in global temperature is due to the cycles of the sun and Earth’s orbit about the sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 500-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:

• 21,000 year cycle: Elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun
• 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth’s orbit
• 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit

(9) Question Multiple choice.  Which of the following is not true about an increasing greenhouse effect?

Answer The idea that most scientists think that “global warming” warrants drastic action—is false.  President Clinton and others [e.g. Al Gore—see above] cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these “scientists” know anything about climate. Among the signers are: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

Over 17,000 [real] scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

(10) Question Which temperature measuring method most accurately measures global warming?

Answer Orbiting weather satellites provide the most accurate temperature measurements.  The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperatures in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up.  Interestingly, in the 5 years leading up to 2007, the temperature of the mid troposphere actually decreased slightly and surface temperatures ceased warming—even as CO2 concentrations continued to increase. This should not have happened if CO2 increases to the atmosphere are the primary driver of global warming.

So there you have it.  You are now armed with sufficient knowledge to insulate yourself from The Big Lie, and defend yourself against its vociferous, duplicitous proponents.

Don’t expect them to back off, simply because intelligent, sane people prefer the truth to their b.s.  They will continue to lie—more stridently than ever—and their propaganda arm, the liberal press, will continue to trumpet their falsehoods.

But we are hip to the con.  Time to start suing yet?

Obama approval in free fall – reaches minus 19

Dec. 13, 2009

Red State

Rasmussen reports Sunday’s Obama’s Presidential Approval Index, fell to -19. Only yesterday, we noted Obama’s approval index fell to -16.

There is no good news, but lots of bad news, for Obama in the collapse of his approval numbers:

• Among those who consider fiscal policy issues the most important, only 1% Strongly Approve and 81% Strongly Disapprove.

• Among those who consider the economy to be the most important issue, just 26% Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 39% Strongly Disapprove.

• Among young voters Obama’s Approval Index rating is -2.

• Among senior citizens Obama’s Approval Index rating is -29.

• Obama’s 23% Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of Obama enthusiasm yet recorded.

• Only 41% of Democrats and 21% of Independents now Strongly Approve of Obama.

Yesterday’s numbers were also nothing but bad news for Obama:

• Obama’s falling popularity is partly the result of declining enthusiasm among Democrats – only 43% of whom strongly approved of Obama’s performance.

• Only 36% of all voters believe that the Obama is doing a good or an excellent job handling the economy, while 45% rate his economic performance as poor.

• On national security matters, only 39% rate the Obama’s performance as good or excellent while, 36% say poor.

Rasmussen’s presidential job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters, rather than samples of all adults. Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters because some of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

It’s not just Rasmussen that finds Obama has lost support, a week ago even CNN found Obama’s job approval rating fell 48%, confirming similar results from Gallup, Quinnipiac, and Hawkeye a week earlier.

Billboard Warns: “Prepare For War”

Dec. 13, 2009

The Obama File

The European Union Times reports on a new billboard off of Interstate 70 in Missouri provides a short “citizens guide to REVOLUTION of a corrupt government” and issues a call to “PREPARE FOR WAR.”

This billboard replaces one that warned that the socialist “Obama-Nation” is “coming for you.”  It’s unclear who the owner of the billboard is, but the first one was the work of a “Missouri businessman.”

While it’s unclear who owns it, the Lafayette County Republican Central Committee seems to endorse it.

From the comments:  Dale Caruso writes, “It is just getting more and more interesting — or perhaps ominous would be a better word.  Since the beginning of this year, it has been like watching a faucet drip — now it is becoming more like watching a small steady stream.  IF people continue to think of this in terms of “Libs” and “Conservatives” —  “Democrats” or “Republicans” — then they won’t see it until it smacks them in the face.  I think this is more the PEOPLE of the United States wanting their country back.”

Bachmann warns of imminent takeover of entire economy

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

You can read more about Congresswoman Bachman at her website: http://bachmann.house.gov/

(Dec. 11, 2009) — The Socialist Juggernaut lurches forward to snatch further power and deprive Americans of further liberties in what is, without exaggeration, the proposed destruction of the free market and the free economy in the United States.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced a massive bill to give the executive branch authority to bail out any corporation, as often as it wants without Congressional control.

Congresswoman Michele Bachman (R-MN) issued the warning today in an editorial which she penned for the Minnesota Star Tribue:

Star Tribune: Giving more power where power is not due

Wall Street and bureaucracy would benefit from pending reform.

Washington, D.C., Dec 11

The majority of Americans last fall were united against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout known as TARP. Proponents of the bill urged immediate action, claiming that a failure to act quickly would send the financial industry over the brink. They promised to examine the root cause of the crisis once financial markets were secure. One year later, the House is considering legislation that will result in the most far-reaching reforms of the financial services industry in our nation’s history.

But instead of addressing the real causes of the financial collapse and fixing bad government policies that led to the crisis, congressional Democrats want to codify the fiscally irresponsible bailout mania. Their bill would make taxpayer bailouts the permanent solution for dealing with reckless financial institutions in the future.

The 1,300-plus-page bill the House is scheduled to vote on today creates a “systemic risk regulator” tasked with determining which firms meet an undefined “too big to fail” test. It allows the government to tap a multibillion-dollar bailout fund to save troubled firms whenever it wants. This fund will be initially financed by a massive new tax on financial institutions and is expected to take $55 billion out of the hands of small businesses and job creators, leading to a loss of as many as 450,000 jobs. Should that fund run dry, taxpayers are on the hook to replenish it. And unlike TARP, this bill authorizes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to completely bypass congressional approval and directly provide such lifelines to flailing firms.

The moral hazard this bill creates will ripple through the entire financial marketplace. Providing banks with a bailout guarantee will perpetuate a cycle of irresponsibility, shielding creditors from taking the fall for making risky decisions and forcing taxpayers to ante up again and again.

Rather than increasing transparency within the Federal Reserve and directing it to focus on the nation’s monetary policy, this bill drastically expands the powers of the Fed to intervene in the private marketplace. But the Federal Reserve has already proven its inability to preemptively catch systemic risks as demonstrated by the financial crisis that occurred under its watch. Giving more power to government bureaucracies that have failed in the past will do nothing to stabilize our markets.

I support an alternative plan that addresses both the core problems in our financial system and promises American taxpayers that they will not be on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes ever again. Three key principles guide this proposal: 1) It ends government bailouts of financial institutions; 2) It stops allowing the government to pick winners and losers in the financial industry; and 3) It reinstates market discipline by removing moral hazards that exist today.

Minnesotans know when Washington is trying to pull a fast one. While the government takeover of health care and total lack of job growth is at the forefront of everyone’s minds, we cannot let this permanent bailout legislation slip through Congress without a fight.

Freedom doesn’t have to ask the government for permission

Canada Free Press

By Henry Lamb  Sunday, December 13, 2009

The federal government was created by people who were sick and tired of a king’s government that controlled every facet of life.  They wrote a Constitution that explicitly limited the power of the new government.  Under this new government, individuals were free to pursue happiness as they chose.  In 200 years, this new nation of free people created prosperity unmatched in all of history.

While free people were busy pursuing their happiness, others were free to pursue political power.  Throughout the 20th century, a cancer grew in the very fabric of freedom.  The idea that the role of government is to provide for its citizens is a return to the dark ages when the prevailing thought was that without the protection of a benevolent government (king), man’s life was, as Thomas Hobbes put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

The people who share Hobbes’ philosophy have been called by many labels over the years, but they all fit rather nicely into the ideas expressed most eloquently in modern times by Karl Marx.
It matters not what labels are pinned on the people who want to put government in charge of individual lives; what matters is that freedom cannot exist when it requires the permission of government.

Freedom cannot co-exist with a government that insists on controlling its citizens

The people who have found life to be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” are eager for government to take control of their lives, and the lives – and fortunes – of those people whose pursuit of happiness has produced prosperity.  When government assumes control it can “spread the wealth around.”

The war in Washington is far more than a battle between political parties; it is a war for the survival of America.  Forget the labels; forget the political affiliation.  Focus on the people who believe that America must remain a nation that honors its’ Constitution and cherishes the freedom of every individual.  These are the people who must be elected.  People who want to transform the foundation of America must be rejected.  Freedom cannot co-exist with a government that insists on controlling its citizens.

For generations, government has been moving away from the idea of Constitutional limitations.  Now, Congress no longer even pays lip-service to the Article 1, Section 8 Congressional limitations of power.  Now, led by a devout, admitted, “wealth-spreader,” the federal government is moving rapidly to bury all traces of individual freedom.  The new government now under construction will require that the pursuit of happiness begin at the desk of a federal bureaucrat, and follow only the path prescribed by government.

The federal government has already imposed, or is imposing, what is called Sustainable Development.  This “sound-good” label obscures the control that government exercises over where an individual may live, what type of transportation must be used, and even the kind of materials that may be used in his home.  This is not freedom; this is tyranny.

Government has taken control of land use through wetland, critical habitat, urban boundary zones, and other control mechanisms.  Government is attempting to take control over all water in the United States, as well as the activities that may affect water (S-787).

Government ignored its Constitutional limitation when it used its citizens’ money to bail out those financial institutions it favored, while allowing others to go broke.  Government didn’t even consider the Constitution when it fired the CEO of General Motors, reorganized a private corporation and used tax dollars to buy a controlling interest.

Government is taking control over energy use by declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and allowing the EPA to regulate it.  Government is attempting to create a “cap & trade” program that will not only control the energy available to individuals, but will also produce windfall profits for the government at the expense of the individual.

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the government to take control of the health care industry.  Nevertheless, legislation now pending will create more than 100 new bureaucracies to take control of virtually every facet of health care.

The federal government has become the tyrannical king that our forefathers fought so hard to cast off.

The next two elections will determine whether the great American experiment succeeds – or not.

The current majority in Washington, which obviously rejects the idea of limited government and individual freedom, must be removed, or at least significantly reduced, in 2010.  In 2012, a whole new regime must capture the Capitol.

Support those who support the Constitution

Only candidates who demonstrate their reverence for the Constitution by pledging to vote only for legislation that cites its Constitutional authority should be elected.

The people who must be removed from Washington are those who vote for government’s takeover of all water, energy use, or health care.  There is no way a politician can “preserve, protect, and defend” the U.S. Constitution while allowing the government to ignore the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution.

Patriots must look beyond party affiliation to see how individual politicians vote.  Support those who support the Constitution and its principles of freedom. Reject all others

The Obama team is covering up voter-intimidation evidence

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Could it be that President Obama’s legal team is imploding due to a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party? So many new developments regarding the Black Panther case occurred in the latter half of last week that it is hard keeping up with them all. But none of them look good for the Obama administration or for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department.

The case involves paramilitary-garbed Panthers caught on videotape (which was backed by copious testimony) engaged in what observers say were intimidating and racially charged activities outside a Philadelphia polling booth on presidential Election Day in 2008. Even though a judge was ready to enter a default judgment against the Black Panthers, based on a case brought by career attorneys at the Justice Department, the Obama administration suddenly decided last spring to drop three of the four cases and punish the final one with an incredibly weak injunction.

Controversy, accompanied by continued administration stonewalling, has ensued ever since.

The new developments last week were as follows:

First, a Web site called “Main Justice” reported on Wednesday (and we have since confirmed) that the Justice Department has, for now, ordered two key career attorneys not to comply with a subpoena about the case issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The commission, by law, has explicit power to issue subpoenas, and the law mandates that “all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission.” The Justice Department, however, is citing internal regulations stemming from a 1951 case to support its order to ignore the subpoena.

One of the attorneys, J. Christian Adams, has been advised by his personal attorney, former South Carolina Secretary of State Jim Miles, that failure to comply with the subpoena could put him at risk of prosecution. “I can’t imagine,” Mr. Miles told The Washington Times, “that a statute that gives rise to the power of a subpoena would be subjugated to some internal procedural personnel rule being promulgated by DoJ.” In short, the department is stiffing the commission and unfairly putting its own employee in a legal bind.

Second, that same day, the two Republican House members with top-ranking jurisdiction over the Justice Department, Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, issued a joint statement calling Justice Department delays “a cover-up,” and “a pretense to ignore inquiries from Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.” At a hearing on Thursday, Mr. Smith said that “continued silence by the Justice Department is an implied admission of guilt that the case was dropped for purely political reasons.”

Third, at the same hearing, Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, accused Justice Department Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez of not being “truthful” while under oath, to such an extent that “there are people who have gone to jail” for such a level of purported “dishonest[y].”

The disputed statement, from what appeared to be prepared remarks by Mr. Perez that he later repeated insistently, was that “the maximum penalty was sought and obtained” against the one Black Panther for whom the charges were not entirely dropped. The bizarrely weak penalty consisted of a mere injunction for the Black Panther not to brandish a weapon near a polling place, within Philadelphia, through Nov. 15, 2012. In short, he is prohibited, only within Philadelphia and only for four years, from doing something that is illegal anyway.

Such a slap on the wrist is far from the “maximum penalty” allowable for such voter intimidation. Most directly, the injunction could be far broader, not just limited to Philadelphia for four years. Also, harsher penalties than mere injunctions could conceivably be available. If the Justice Department sought a criminal indictment, for instance, Title 18, Section 245 of the U.S. Code provides that those found guilty of voter intimidation “shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

As all of this was going on, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, the No. 2 man in the whole department, was announcing that very morning that he will resign after less than 10 months in office. Mr. Ogden – whose possible involvement in the Black Panther case had been specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Commission’s subpoena – became the third high-ranking Obama legal official to announce a resignation in the last month. He was preceded by White House counsel Gregory Craig and deputy White House counsel Cassandra Butts.

“Holder and them have done a terrible job on this,” Mr. Wolf told The Washington Times. “This has just been handled so poorly…. You can’t hide these things. There is something wrong here. There is something very wrong. When it all comes out, I think it will be very bad.”

The congressman is probably right

Obamas Won’t Celebrate Christmas – However (He Is A Devout Follower Of The Self-Proclaimed Prophet Of Islam)

Dec. 12, 2009

The Betrayal

A survey of adult Americans finds that an overwhelming majority prefer the seasonal expression “Merry Christmas.”  More than seven out of ten, in fact.  Twenty-two percent, according to Rasmussen Reports, go for “Happy Holidays.”

However, the Obamas, who won’t spend their first December holidays in the White House, apparently don’t like either one.

The Obamas have just mailed thousands of greeting cards that say simply, “Season’s Greetings.” They’re cream-colored, maroon-bordered cards showing a gold wreath wrapped around the presidential coat of arms.

The Obamas’ card, paid for by the Democratic National Committee, makes no religious reference whatsoever.  “May your family have a joyous holiday season,” says the Obamas’ greeting, “and a new year blessed with hope and happiness.”  This comes after reports that, initially anyway, the Obama White House planned its first Christmas to be a “non-religious” one, kind of like a non-sports Super Bowl Sunday.

HOWEVER

Barack Obama doesn’t want to offend the sensibilities of folks who aren’t Christian by celebrating Christmas, and avoids any reference to the birth of Christ — even though it’s a federal holiday — at least that’s his excuse.

But the “alleged” Christian, who rarely, if ever, attends Christian services, has no problem offending Christians by attending services in a mosque.

The photo above (left) was taken in a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.  It shows Obama preparing for an Islamic service taking place in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque.

And in the right photo, Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan remove their shoes as they visit the Blue Mosque with Muslim clerics Emrullah Hatipoglu (R) and Mustafa Cagrici (L) in Istanbul, Turkey.

[David Crockett Notice; It was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who said: “…The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” Well what that means is that the faithful Muslim Obama is a Soldier of Islam hence the usurper occupying and defiling the Whitehouse should be considered an enemy combatant.]

These photos were taken during Obama’s trip to Turkey, last Spring, when Obama said, that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…”  Obama has made similar statements in the past. In June 2007, he told CBS, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just.

But that’s not what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled when, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 437 (1892), they held that “this is a Christian nation.” They meant that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian biblical principles, and that those who brought these biblical principles to this land and who implemented those principles in our system of government were for the most part professing Christians who were actively involved with Christian churches — 51 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were members of Christian churches, and that leading American political figures in the founding era quoted the Bible far more than any other source.

And the ideals on which they framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — that man is subject to the laws of nature and of nature’s God, that God created man equal and endowed him with basic unalienable rights, that human nature is sinful and therefore government power must be carefully restrained by the Constitution — are ideals that they derived, directly or indirectly, from the Bible.  Some of these ideals may be shared by those of other religious traditions.  But the Founding Fathers, with few exceptions, did not read the Koran, or the Upanishads, or the Bagavigita.  They read the Bible, and they heard the Bible preached on Sunday mornings.

Besides denying that America is a Christian nation in his April 6 news conference in Turkey, President Obama told the Turkish Parliament on the same day: ” We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

The suggestion that Islam has shaped America in any substantial way is ludicrious. As Robert Spencer asks:

Were there Muslims along Paul Revere’s ride, or standing next to Patrick Henry when he proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death”?  Where there Muslims among the framers or signers of the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men — not just Muslims, as Islamic law would have it — are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Were there Muslims among those who drafted the Constitution and vigorously debated its provisions, or among those who enumerated the Bill of Rights, which guarantees — again in contradiction to the tenets of Islamic law — that there should be no established national religion, and that the freedom of speech should not be infringed?

The primary contact our Founding Fathers had with Islam occurred during their struggles with the Barbary pirates, who from 1500-1800 carried over a million European Christians — including some Americans — into Muslim slavery.  For centuries the Knights of Malta protected Europe from the Barbary pirates, but after their demise the European powers decided that paying tribute to the Barbary rulers in exchange for protection was easier and cheaper than fighting them.  (Hello Somali pirates!!).  But this galled the Americans.  In 1786, while Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were in Europe, they asked the ambassador from Tripoli by what right Tripoli could claim tribute from nations which had done his country no injury.  Jefferson and Adams reported the ambassador’s response:

It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet [Mohammed] were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful [Muslims] to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

When Jefferson became president in 1801, he refused to pay tribute to the Barbary states, and Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis declared war on the United States.  The American Navy blockaded the coast of North Africa, and American marines stormed “the shores of Tripoli” and captured the city, forcing the Barbary rulers to agree to terms of peace.  The Barbary states soon broke the treaty and demanded tribute again, and President James Madison again sent the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean, forcing the Barbary states to again sign a treaty of peace.

Clearly, Islamic influence on the United States was minimal, and what little influence there was, was mostly negative.

Much of the Muslim world has a negative view of the United States.  Sadly, Obama seems to think the Muslim world will warm up to our country if he shares their negative view.

Glenn Beck: Robert Creamer Strikes Back

Dec. 12, 2009

Glen Beck

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the left is lining up to support convicted felon Robert Creamer, the patron saint of progressivism, who was recently crowned a lifetime achievement award for his wonderful work pushing the progressive agenda.

The Huffington Post, where Creamer blogs, called me a loser while in the same breath saying that all Creamer did was “float checks to keep a great progressive public interest organization alive that he was running at the time.”

Oh, that’s it? He only stole $2.3 million from banks? Geez, why am I so upset that this guy attended the White House state dinner and wrote the book that David Axelrod says is the “blueprint” for progressives?

And yes, progressives, as much as you try to excuse it: Taking money from a bank that isn’t yours — even if you intend to someday pay it back or achieve social justice with it — is stealing.

Amazingly, this thief, who used his own trial as some kind of twisted PR campaign to glorify himself, now says this about me: “This is a man who lies about everything. He frames things in a conspiratorial, surreal light.”

Let’s get this straight: The man who swindled banks out of $2.3 million and cheated on his taxes says that I lie about everything?

What have I lied, about, Robert? Please, show me.

I’d love hear another explanation on the things we talk about. That’s why I have a phone line just for the White House — because I want them to call! Maybe I’ll give you the number and you can specify these “lies” of mine.

One of my big “lies” — according to the convicted felon whom the state of Illinois has deemed an official liar — is that influential people are being influenced by his book. Creamer doesn’t agree, calling the claim “laughable” and saying: “I wish I had that much influence over the White House, but I don’t.”

Laughable? Let’s see:

Creamer is married to a congresswoman from Illinois; he’s a powerful Democratic lobbyist and well-known Democratic consultant, including at one time for the George Soros’ funded Open Society Institute. He is so non-influential, his book gets rave marks as a “blueprint” for progressives from people with zero influence on American policy — including but not limited to:

• Senator Dick Durbin

• Senator Sherrod Brown

• John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress

• Former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder

• Reverend Jesse Jackson

• Congressman Lloyd Doggett

• Congressman Jim McGovern

• Congressman John Lewis

• SEIU President Andy Stern

• Top Obama adviser, David Axelrod, who calls the book a “blueprint” for progressive victories

I am pretty sure Axelrod has the ear of the president. And isn’t Andy Stern leading the way in visits to the White House?

So clearly Creamer has no connections — none. He’s not so politically connected that even the judge in his trial considered recusing himself because he was well-connected in the Democratic Party in Illinois and his son-in-law worked for him.

No, Creamer is a regular Joe. So of course no one was paying attention when he laid out plans to achieve health care reform back in 2008.