German asylum seekers refuse to work: ‘We are Merkel’s guests’| Jihad Watch

JIHAD WATCH

August 18, 2016 11:47 pm By

Decisions on Muslim migration made by leftist politicians have become a scourge on the German people and other European citizens, who have witnessed the slow metamorphosis of their peaceful communities while they pay with their tax dollars for the recklessness of their leaders such as Angela Merkel. Tens of thousands of crimes and assaults have been committed by Muslim migrants in Germany, but these are less of a concern to the politicians who walk with their security detail and their bank accounts intact.

Even in the midst of the Muslim migrant crisis in Germany, Mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, where the asylum seekers refused to accept work, stated his concern about this latest piece of news playing “into the hands of those opposing the mass migration,” evincing yet again the all too familiar stench of political posturing and a cruel disregard for those who cast their votes in trust.

Merkel-701556

“German asylum seekers refuse to work insisting ‘We are Merkel’s GUESTS’”, by Siobhan McFadyen and Monika Pallenberg, UK Express, August 18, 2016:

ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom – using Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generous hospitality as an excuse.

According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.

The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were “guests of Angela Merkel”.

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.

However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community.

In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.

But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany.

The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home.

Mayor Pohlers said: “It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work.

“Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg.”

Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work.

Mayor Pohlers added: “In a specially convened meeting with an interpreter the authorities explained the rules again.

“Unfortunately, no agreement could be reached on the continuation of the measure.”

Now all seven of the jobs have been scrapped.

The mayor spoke out in a bid to highlight the issue of the asylum crisis in Germany.

He said he is aware his statements could play into the hands of those opposing the mass migration.

However after having raised money from the local community to help aid the asylum seeker’s transition into the community, he felt compelled to speak out…..

Source : Jihad Watch


America at War

Featured Image -- 1045

    I Would like to point out that the current administration would like nothing more than to flood our streets with these same “Guests“. And when/if they are allowed to do so, American tax payers will bear the burden. Our “guests” will insist on housing of course, and surely a free college education will be expected for adults and children alike. (most likely in atomic energy or piloting aircraft.)

Featured Image -- 1117

    And what good is an education if our guests don’t have healthcare? And unlike any poor American who must catch the bus or walk, our guests will expect and demand transportation. Next they will be whining about Denny’s serving bacon on the breakfast menu, and demanding the local butcher remove all pork from his shop.

bacon-muslims-1024x536

   Your local school will certainly have to remove any pork from the lunch and breakfast menu, if they haven’t already. American prisoners are already being denied pork in many prisons because of this now, the one source of “meat” a prisoner gets, removed because of…… someone else’s religion???

The complaints about Christian Symbols and Crosses will never cease, but will barely be audible over the “Call to Prayer” blasting from loudspeakers all over town, multiple times daily. (Like can be heard in Michigan today) As the Churches across America fall victim to fire and explosions.

burnt-church

 

   Every non-Muslim who wishes to protect his or her freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution will suddenly become some sort of “Hate-Monger” or “Islamaphobe” because they wish to protect their right to free speech. Because there is no such thing as “free speech” in Islam. If you disagree with Islam then you are killed under Sharia Law.

jd-672x372

    Muslims believe that non-Muslims exist only to serve them. A non-Muslim is viewed as “Unclean, Dirty, Less than Human.” They believe themselves to be superior to you and I, and view us as nothing more than “something to be used for their own benefit.” This is why women Worldwide are raped, tortured, and murdered EVERY SINGLE DAY all across the planet by Muslims. You have NO RIGHTS as a non-Muslim in a Muslim controlled country. You are nothing more than an object. They feel they are superior to you in every way

     When their numbers are great enough, and the murders and the daily beheadings have you afraid, they may allow your family to live as  “Dhimmis” and graciously allow you to contribute to their cause by paying  the “Jizya”, which is a tax levied against non-Muslims in  Muslim countries. If you have never heard of this you should do some research, since it may well be in your future if this Administration has it’s way.

isis-ethiopian-beheading-2-christian-april-2015

     So you’ll be paying for them to come here. Then you’ll pay for their housing, electricity, water, phone, internet, and education. And then you can pay them their “Jizya” tax on Infidels. Then you’ll be expected to clean their house as well…. Just like in Europe today. They won’t work, because they are “guests”. And besides….. You’ll be their little “Dhimmi”, and as such you’ll be required to pay the “Jizya” or be beheaded.

011

    Sounds like good times don’t it?

sharia

Well the fun has not even started yet!!!

    The rapes will begin on day one, and will NEVER end! Women will become nothing more than “meat” like in every other Muslim country across the world. If your wife or daughter gets attacked, raped, and beaten…… Most likely SHE will be put in jail for the crime, or maybe stoned to death. And you’ll be left to suck on it. Because under Sharia Law that’s how it works! Muslim men apparently cannot help themselves, and it is the woman’s fault he rapes her like an animal, because she “tempted” him in some way.  If you don’t believe me, research it for yourself!

11002

Sharia Law is coming soon to a town near YOU!

sweden-rape11

 

So next time you hear a politician (with 15 armed secret service agents) talking about restricting YOUR second amendment right to own a firearm, just remember where we are heading. And then give some serious thought as to why they’d want you disarmed. Then give some serious thought to why we have not locked that scumbag politician up as a traitor, and thrown him in a cell with a 300 pound lonely fella named “Bubba”.

holder_obama_prison_butt_buddy_fudge_packers


  I’d rather die on my feet, than to live on my knees!!!

The right to self-defense is one given to you by Almighty God himself, and no man or government has the authority to strip you of that right!

14352313610615

Protect your Second Amendment Rights!!! Join the NRA TODAY!!!

Join the NRA now for $30 or 5 years for $100

 

Give it some thought, I’m gonna go make a bacon sandwich and clean my gun, maybe read a couple verses in my Bible. Unlike our enemies, I feel safer knowing my neighbors are armed! So ARM YOURSELVES!!!

 

Conservative Thinker

 

 

Obama Decree Targets Gunsmiths and Online Firearm Information

The New American

Wednesday, 17 August 2016 09:19

Obama Decree Targets Gunsmiths and Online Firearm Information

Written by

When Obama vowed to use his “pen and phone” to circumvent Congress and impose his will on America, he was actually telling the truth for once. In the latest example of lawless decrees coming from the executive branch, the Obama administration is taking aim at gunsmiths and free speech. Basically, if a recent “regulation” disguised as “guidance” is not stopped, gunsmithing — an American tradition stretching back centuries that was crucial in the War for Independence — will be effectively made illegal, experts say.

Another controversial element of the decree would purport to unconstitutionally criminalize many forms of gun-related speech on the Internet. If not withdrawn, the illegal Obama decree would purport to shred the rights protected by the Constitution’s First and Second Amendments by making it illegal to post any “how-to” information about guns online. It would also effectively make all gun-related information on the Internet a crime because it could be accessed by foreigners.

However, as has happened with virtually all of Obama’s power grabs, opposition to the newest illegal edict is surging — this time among Second Amendment activists, gun owners, industry, and proponents of constitutional government. Grassroots organizations have called on the Obama administration to immediately withdraw the “unconstitutional power grab.” If it refuses, critics of the scheme said they would work with Congress to defund it.

The controversial decree came just weeks after the United Nations once again demanded that the U.S. government impose “robust gun control” on Americans. As part of an accelerating trend, the dictator-dominated UN increasingly exploits every possible incident to push unconstitutional attacks on gun rights under the guise of protecting what it misleadingly refers to as “human rights.”

The latest anti-gun Obama regulation also appears to be in line with the illegal UN Arms Trade Treaty. The radical treaty, which has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate despite the administration’s pleas, seeks to ultimately create a monopoly on firearms in the hands of government, dictators, and international organizations such as the UN itself — institutions that have killed hundreds of millions of people just in the last century alone.

The new decree, released on July 22 with little media fanfare and without even following the standard procedures for imposing new regulations, came from the increasingly radical John Kerry-controlled State Department. Specifically, the regulation was issued by the “Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC),” a rogue bureaucracy supposedly charged with enforcing the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Incredibly, under the new rules, gunsmiths — even people who simply thread a barrel or make a small part for an older firearm, according to experts — will be classified as a weapons “manufacturer” subject to regulation as an exporter of military material. (Apparently the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious efforts to arm Mexican drug cartels are exempt.) That new classification will subject the small-time gunsmiths to onerous federal regulation, in addition to requiring them to register with Kerry’s DDTC and pay thousands of dollars in “fees” for the privilege.

Anyone who does not obey the new decree would be subject to extreme criminal penalties, said analysts who investigated the new regulation. Even minor violations of the complex regulatory maze — designed to prevent the export of advanced military weaponry and technology to terror groups and dictators — could result in criminal prosecution. Countless small gunsmiths will be put out of business, experts said.

The illegal State Department edict purporting to reinterpret legislation passed by Congress makes a number of previously legal activities illegal without federal registration, regulation, and permission. Among other things, the rule bans any “machining, cutting, or drilling” on a firearm, or the use of any equipment on it without complying with the maze of licensing, regulation, and more applied to exporters of military equipment.

The scheme also bans reloading, except possibly on a round-by-round basis, according to analysts. It also prohibits the production of any firearm part whatsoever without the newly required federal licenses. Even assembling firearms kits could be illegal if done more than on an “occasional” basis, with the term occasional not even being defined in the new “guidance.”

A similarly illegal decree issued by Obama’s ATF also uses vague, undefined language to threaten anyone who dares to privately sell a firearm with potential criminal prosecution — despite the fact that private sales are specifically exempt under the (already unconstitutional) laws passed by Congress. Separately, other Obama decrees are being used to disarm veterans and millions of elderly Americans receiving Social Security. And with Congress continuing to enable Obama, more illegal attacks on gun rights are expected before he leaves office.

In addition to the full-blown attack on gunsmiths, Obama is also targeting gun-related speech. Under the guise of prohibiting anyone from “assisting a foreign person in the design, development, and repair of a firearm,” the Obama administration’s “guidance” apparently criminalizes the posting of any how-to information about guns on the Internet.

So if you answer a question on an Internet forum about how to fix some gun problem, or make a Youtube video on how to fix a gun, you could end up facing federal felony charges. “This is unconstitutional under both the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution,” explained Gun Owners of America, the nation’s fiercest, most uncompromising defender of Americans’ gun rights.

“If the State Department hated ISIS as much as it hates the Second Amendment, perhaps American foreign policy would be in better shape,” the group also said in comments about the illegal Obama decrees. “It’s not surprising that two Leftist politicians, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have produced a bureaucracy which is as consumed by political correctness as it is incapable of performing its core functions. No one is fooled by the fraudulent representations of this administration. And no one is puzzled by why the administration illegally circumvented the regulatory process in order to issue this diktat.”

As such, GOA is demanding that the Obama-Clinton-Kerry State Department immediately withdraw the schemes. “Alternatively, we will ask legislative appropriators in Congress to withdraw it,” the group said.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is also fighting back. “DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy,” the group’s legislative analysts said, comparing the new regulations to the ATF’s lawless and confusing attempt to intimidate private sellers with threats of arbitrary prosecution.

“The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce,” the NRA-ILA concluded. “That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November.”

Unfortunately, it will take either Congress, the courts, the new president, or some combination of those branches of government a great deal of time to undo all of the lawlessness imposed on America by Obama and his GOP enablers. However, the Republican leadership in Congress could very easily nip all of the anti-gun rights extremism in the bud by refusing to appropriate a single penny for its implementation. That way, no matter who becomes president, and no matter what the increasingly rogue federal courts say, the illegal orders issued by Obama and Kerry will be rendered harmless and meaningless.

The fact that Congress even has to consider retroactively defunding the executive branch’s illegal extremism, though, shows how far America has fallen from its roots in lawful, constitutional, self-government and the protection of God-given rights. The whole process is backwards. Long term, the only way to keep such extremism and tyranny at bay is to create an informed electorate that understands the Constitution, as well as the moral, philosophical, and religious foundations upon which America was founded.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com

Related articles:

Obama Pushes More Gun Control; Most Americans Don’t Want It

Obama Executive Orders on Guns Would Spark Mass Resistance

Obama Task Force Plotting Extreme Assault on Gun Rights

Obama Hides Executive Abuses by Calling Decrees “Memoranda”

White House Boasts of Obama Power Grabs as Congress Funds Them

Obama Versus Obama on the Use of Executive Orders

Obama to Prevent “Dangerous” People From Owning Guns

Many Challenges Face Obama’s Gun Control Executive Orders

Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014

Obama Admin Seeks to Curtail Gun Rights of Those on Disability Benefits

UN Demands “Robust Gun Control” After Orlando Terror

Global Gun Control Advocates to Meet in NYC to Set UN Disarmament Agenda

Obama’s Executive Order Authorizes Peacetime Martial Law

Obama Poised to Use Executive Orders to Attack Gun Rights

3D Printed Guns: More Freedom, Less Government


Source : The New American

Global Gun Control Advocates to Meet in NYC to Set UN Disarmament Agenda

28d51747fd5fd83522efa694064d799c_xl

Written by 

Anti-gun globalists will meet in New York City this week discuss ways to confiscate small arms and ammunition from civilians and to consolidate monopoly control over those weapons in the hands of the governments of United Nations (UN) member states. The convention is part of a UN-controlled process of disarmament called the Programme of Action (PoA).

From June 6-10 delegates from around the world will attend the Sixth Biennial Meeting of States (BMS6) of the PoA. This latest planning meeting will give delegates an opportunity to move the ball closer to the goal of ridding the world’s civilian population of the small arms and ammunition that could challenge the ability of UN-approved governments to carry out the will of the world body.

Serving as an agenda for the deliberations will be the Chair’s Summary published after the last meeting in 2015. For Americans, then, it will be instructive to examine this document and identify all of the proposals that would violate the Constitution, specifically the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. To this end, I will highlight a few of the provisions of the Chair’s Summary that represent the most clear and present danger to liberty.

First, the plan as put forth in the Chair’s Summary calls for the UN’s member states to eliminate the threat of technologically advanced weapons, including so-called polymer firearms and 3D printed guns, as well as the tracking of materials used in the “craft-production of small arms and light weapons.”

Not surprisingly, the representative from China called for increased UN-mandated regulations on 3D printers and the weapons they produce.

Specifically, the Chair’s Summary calls for “strengthening 3D printing regulations in the context of 3D weapon printing,” for “ensuring export licenses [are] in place for 3D printers,” for drawing global attention to “the need to pay attention to the resale of such printers,” and for “strengthening controls over 3D printing technology.”

No one is shocked, of course, that the globalists at the UN want to draw up comprehensive plans to take guns — any and every variety of gun — out of the hands of civilians.

After discussing similar strategies to lock down the manufacture, purchase, sale, and transfer of polymer weapons and modular weapons, the next item on the agenda warrants an immediate withdrawal of the United States from the world body.

Paragraph 33 of the Chair’s Summary of the meeting calls for urgent tracking of civilian-owned firearms, recommending that manufacturers be forced by the UN to install “RFID and biometric technologies in limiting the access to the weapon to authorized users only,” with authorized users defined as state actors (UN member nations).

That’s right. As part of the Programme of Action (the foundation upon which the Arms Trade Treaty is built — a treaty nearly half of the U.S. Senate supports), the United States has committed to passing legislation that will require domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers to equip their products with RFID chips and biometric technologies that will help the government slowly but surely disarm civilians.

That’s not all. At the end of that paragraph, the UN suggests governments look into combining RFID chips, biometrics, with GPS tracking technologies to be sure to prevent regular people from getting their hands on guns.

So, at this week’s meeting, the UN will not only set out the schedule of domestic gun regulations, but it will instruct third-world regimes where to look for the money to help pay for the implementation of these new disarmament policies: increased foreign aid from the United States.

Specifically, the unelected, unaccountable UN globocrats call for greater “international cooperation and assistance” (read: American taxpayer dollars) to offset the massive cost of the “transfer of technology and knowledge” necessary to make the proposed gun grab a reality.

It should be noted that Paragraph 42 of the summary proposes funding this fascism “through the UN regular budget,” 22 percent of which is paid by the United States, through a process that can be described as nothing less than legalized theft of the wealth of the American worker.

Next, the document calls for the cultivating of a “culture of peace,” which is certainly shorthand for flooding the United States with UN-created propaganda linking the civilian ownership of firearms with homicide and other violent crimes.

Given the fact that both major party presidential candidates endorse some level of federal restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t take too much foresight to predict a panoply of renewed calls for controlling and regulating civilian access to firearms.

Additionally, according to the text of the Chair’s Summary that will serve as the to-do list for the world’s international cadre of gun confiscators, the POA will serve as an “international instrument to enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner,” the small arms and light weapons that are the subject of the scheme.

In practice, this means that the governments of member nations (including the United States) will soon create a massive, all-inclusive database of all parties that manufacture, own, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition.

If recent history is a reliable indicator of how such data would be used, after the catalog is complete, Congress could pass a law (or the president could issue an executive order) compelling “voluntary” surrender of privately-owned weapons, ammo, parts, and components (including reloading equipment). If, after a statutorily-set window, citizens don’t turn in these items to their local law enforcement, then officers will be sent to remind violators of their responsibility under the law to disarm.

How will this worldwide tracking of weapons, ammo, and component parts be carried out?

Paragraph 32 of the Chair’s Summary lays out the plan for “real-time tracking” of firearms and ammunition “from manufacturer to storage and from storage up to the individual users.”

Once the governments of the member nations begin tracking and confiscating weapons from civilians, the Programme of Action (paragraphs 30 and 31) mandates that member governments take “direct control over transfers of small arms and light weapons.”

This control will require the federal government to begin stockpiling these items and making a database of the recently impounded guns, bullets, 3D printers, plastics, polymers, and component parts.

This database must include “the marking, record-keeping and tracing of weapons, and in this regard considered barcodes, radio frequency identification (RFID) and biometrics for purposes of electronically identifying stored items, collecting data on them and enabling the data to be entered automatically into record-keeping systems.”

It is evident from a reading of this latest UN disarmament publication that despite the rhetoric related to ”promotion of a culture of peace,” there are only two reasons the UN is making every effort to disarm the population of the United States: to weaken our sovereignty, and to take from our people their ability to resist those despots (at home and abroad) who would place us under the boot of tyranny and demote us to the ranks of slaves on a “sustainable” global plantation.

Finally, the upcoming confiscation confab will demand member states confirm their commitment to achieving the climate and sustainability goals set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was adopted in September 2015. The startling complexity and comprehensiveness of these goals were examined by The New American’s Alex Newman in an article published earlier this year. Newman writes:

Perhaps the single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

Americans committed to preserving their natural right to protect their liberty from those who would threaten it through the implementation of international agreements requiring the de facto repeal of the Second Amendment are encouraged to stand together in this urgent fight for freedom.

There is no organization better positioned to prepare Americans with the resources necessary to defeat the forces of disarmament in the UN and in our own government than The John Birch Society (JBS). For more than five decades, the JBS has worked to “Get U.S. out of the UN.” The strength that results from this unmatched record of results makes the JBS uniquely able to increase the awareness of the American people for the fight to retain the right to keep and bear arms.

Source : The New American


America at War would like to add That there are things in this world worth dying over, and I would have to classify the ability to defend myself as one of those things!!! So you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand

Federal Judge Oversteps

From Kris Anne Hall and OregonLive.com

#‎ActionAlert‬:

We must protest this federal court judge! Federal courts act with virtually NO accountability, that’s why they act like kings and queens. It is time for We The People to hold them accountable and a simple phone call can make a difference!

Every red-blooded, liberty loving American should be outraged by t Federal Judge, Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones’, destruction of the 1st and 6th Amendments.

Contact the judge’s chambers: (503) 326-8340

Now we can even contact this judge’s boss!
Chief District Judge Michael W. Mosman (503) 326-8330

***Tell them we will not tolerate federal destruction of our Rights!***

Once again this federal court judge believes that he can arbitrarily give and take away the Rights of the people. This is so repugnant to Liberty we should not sit quiet!

Defendant Shawna Cox was “admonished” by this judicial tyrant to be silent on not only the charges against her, but ALL ISSUES surrounding her protests against the federal government. When a federal judge, in a federal court, presiding over federal criminal charges, can tell an American to be silent, how can we possibly have fair trials?

Must we remind Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones about the 1st and 6th Amendments?

Do we now live in an America where an agent of the federal government can declare an American’s Rights to freedom of speech, press, and protest are revoked?

Benjamin Franklin said this:
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.”

Franklin continues by explaining the character of men who would deny us these Rights:

“This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.”

And there you have it: Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones has classified himself as a “Publick Traytor.”

The 1st Amendment is not the only Right infringed by this judicial supremacist; what about the 6th Amendment?

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”

Public Trial? How do you have a Public Trial when the government’s agent is imposing gag orders at the threat of force?

We should seriously contemplate WHY our framers would insist on a “Public Trial.” Consider the following:

In the federal system…
1. Laws are written by the federal government;
2. Laws are enforced by federal agents;
3. Laws are prosecuted by federal prosecutors;
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, your liberties will be defended by a federal defense attorney;
5. Once you get to court, your case will be decided by a federal judge.

How can anyone have any hope of a fair trial when the federal government writes the laws, enforces the laws, prosecutes and defends, and finally sits in judgement of you in regard to its own laws?

That is why we MUST have speedy and PUBLIC trials, with a jury of our peers. Without a public trial, the government controls all the facts, dictates the narrative, and the only information received by the public is that which the government approves! That is a court of Kings, not one of the people of a Constitutional Republic.

The actions of Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones ought to outrage every red blooded American. The dictates of this judicial tyrants ought to be offensive to all who love America and the Liberties our Constitution attempts to secure.

Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones needs to be SHAMED for his complete disregard for the Rights and Liberties of generations of Americans. If this judge can get away with this without public condemnation, may God have mercy on our Posterity for the federal government WE created in silence.

Let us be silent no more!

Let’s prove to this judge that he cannot order silence. Let’s be Shawna’s voice in defiance of this enemy to Liberty!

Contact the judge’s chambers: (503) 326-8340

Contact his Boss! Chief District Judge Michael W. Mosman (503) 326-8330

Contact the judge’s assistant: Judicial Assistant/Courtroom Deputy: Becky Peer (503) 326-8341

Print out this post and mail it to:
Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse
Room 1007
1000 Southwest Third Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204-2946

Read the Oregon Live article: http://goo.gl/BkWzrV

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmond Burke

KrisAnne Hall's photo.

Source : Kris Anne Hall

The Income Tax is Immoral and Unconstitutional – and Not (Just) for the Reason You Think

irs

Before you read the story I want to point out that Ted Cruz has promised to abolish the IRS and get America on a much more sensible Flat tax system.


taxes

Guest Post by Robin Koerner

I have just paid my biggest bill of the year. The invoice was for a cool 9% of my entire annual income – or my “Adjusted Gross Income” (AGI) as it appears on my tax returns, which have just been filed. And that invoice was from my accountant who just filed them for me.

I have a pretty modest income – so modest, in fact, that my AGI is of the order of a half of the median household income across the United States – the kind of income that triggers significant subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Even the “top line” of my income falls short of that median: so it’s not as if I’m earning loads and deducting huge amounts.

My financial life last year was pretty simple: my earnings derived from a modest real estate portfolio and some freelance/consulting work. My income is earned through my small business, which, for those who know about these things, is an S-corporation. I have no employees. I do no payroll.

Yet, I have just paid my accountant more than a month’s worth of income to complete my tax returns.

How many pages of tax returns do you think that I, a single individual, and my S-corporation (a small business) had to file, bearing in mind the small amount of income in question?

Frankly, there’s no good reason the answer is not one or two. But you already know the answer is more than that, don’t you?

Ten? Try again.

Twenty? Keep going.

Surely not 50?

You’re still not close.

Did I hear you say 100 – you’re going for three digits now? Wow.

Still not there.

The answer, my fellow American tax victims, is 149.

Just take a moment to absorb that. A sub median-earning American taxpayer, engaged in simple business activities, has a 149 page tax return. And if he doesn’t get it right, his error is punishable. Of that 149, about 100 go to the Feds.Business Woman Climbing a Pile of Files

Completing 149 pages of tax forms/schedules/supporting statements is a lot of work. And I know exactly how much it is, because of that big invoice from the accountant that I already mentioned.

It’s $2000 of work – my aforementioned largest bill of the year. And it’s $2000 of work I in no way could have done myself.

I’m no high school drop-out. I have a first class degree in physics from one of the best universities in the world. I like numbers. I like logic. I like intellectual rigor. I even have a nerdy love of spreadsheets (which tells me, for example, exactly how much I spent on groceries this month five years ago ($173.41, as it happens. I’m low-maintenance)).

But I could not reverse engineer those 149 pages of tax returns if my life depended on it. And I would defy anyone without a CPA qualification to be able to do so.

I have no complaint about my accountant, who provided very good service this year, but even he couldn’t get it right first time. As I type this article, I am awaiting “corrected” state returns (which are no shorter).

Moreover, as any small businessman knows, my accountant can only generate those 149 pages of returns after I have compiled all the necessary numbers and data in neat spreadsheets, nicely itemized and comprehensively annotated (two or three days’ work, right there, perhaps?). I know for sure that most tax payers are not as proficient with Excel as I am – so my accountants have an easy time of it with me. (He even told me so.)

Here’s the reality of the American tax system for modestly earning individuals who run small businesses:

My government has put me in a position where I must either pay 9% of my income to a professional just to enable me to avoid punishment, asset garnishment and even imprisonment. Supposedly, I can “do my own taxes”, but that is a joke. No one who has not gone to school for it could accurately complete those 149 pages with any honest degree of confidence – and I don’t care what software he’s using. Moreover, even if it were do-able, the time taken lots of benjaminsto learn how to do it and then do it properly would be measured in weeks, not hours. And we don’t get to invoice the IRS for our time.

Look in wonder, America, at the most regressive aspect of any taxation system in the world – its utter complexity to the point of Kafkaesque absurdity. And if you think it must be like that, literally a few days ago, the British chancellor announced the abolition of the annual tax return in the United Kingdom.

Can anyone, conservative or progressive, justify the need for self-employed individual to spend 9 percent of his income just to remain a free citizen in good standing or, should he not have the money to spare, to go to school to navigate his way through whichever of the 74,000 pages of the tax code apply to him?

If the tax code were sufficiently sensible that I could do my own taxes (which, as someone who likes money, spreadsheets and math, I’d be very happy to do), I could have paid the Feds double my actual tax bill – and still have been a thousand dollars better off on the money I’d have saved on tax preparation. Relative to the current situation, both I and the country would have been significantly better off.

It is established Constitutional Law (by Supreme Court precedent), basic morality and simple common sense that the government may not place an undue burden on a fundamental right – such as the right to stay out of prison even if one doesn’t have an accounting degree and the right not be forced to expend one’s property on anything other than actual taxes owed.

To quantify the absurdity, here’s a comparison I’ve never seen made before.

In the course of a year, my assets and non-business activities generate nine times as much tax (in the form chiefly of property taxes and sales taxes), as my end-of-year check to the IRS. The cost to me of compliance on that first nine-tenths of my tax burden is zero, while the cost to me of compliance with the other one tenth is about double the amount I actually owe.

You really can’t make it up.

Let me offer these thoughts, then, not as an article, but as an open letter to our government, the IRS and any Constitutional attorneys out there.

To the government, I am notifying you of the undue burden that you are placing on law-abiding citizens whose income, it happens, is deemed by recent legislation to be sufficiently modest that it wishes to subsidize my healthcare: the cost of this undue burden more than cancels out all such subsidies.

To the IRS, I ask this question. What will you do if I save my $2000 in preparation fees, pay you 50% more than I did this year, and I don’t complete those forms? A bonus to me of doing this would be that I don’t have to lie any more. Because we all know that you are forcing me to lie when I sign that paper saying “I declare that I have examined a copy of my electronic individual income tax return and accompanying schedules and statements for the tax year ending December 31, 2014, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete.”

end irs2… The real truth is that, “to the best of my knowledge and belief”, no person who is not trained, certified and engaged in daily work in the business of tax preparation, could possibly expect that he could generate a correct 149 pages of this stuff – regardless of how well he tried. And, moreover, the fact that he cannot is exactly why he can’t be expected to vouch for the work of the accountants whom he’d not have to hire if he did understand what on earth was going on in the first place.

Finally, and most importantly – to any Constitutional attorney: I can’t pay you (see above), but I have a tax return that will make your eyes bleed. Get me in front of a jury or, better yet, the Supreme Court, and let us ask 12 or nine reasonable people if the burden of completing this particular tax return – a requirement I must meet to retain my liberty and my property – is reasonable or not. And if just one of the jury or bench believes that a reasonably educated person could accurately complete my tax return in a reasonable period, I’ll be happily defeated – as long as he shows me how.

Otherwise, use me as a legal guinea pig to pull down this entire rotten structure that turns good people into unwilling law breakers or liars of both, reserving its very worst for those of us on modest means who wish to rise in the spirit of the American Dream, which our government and its agents seem all too willing to crush.

Our tax code is so complex that people our government deems too poor to buy their own health insurance must fork over nearly a tenth of their income just to comply with it. I cannot be the only one.
If I could reasonably compute my own tax – and it’s a matter of common law, surely, that a typical citizen must reasonably be able to meet all impositions of the state by his own means – I’d willingly pay double my current income tax because of all the money I’d save on compliance: I’d save enough to visit my family in England twice in a year; I’d save almost my entire year’s grocery bill; I’d save the cost of the roof over my head for two months.

I can afford my tax bill. I just cannot afford to calculate it. And as you can see from my short list, the complexity of this calculation has a very real impact on my life.

This complexity of our Federal tax system is crushingly regressive; it is impoverishing, and it is morally indefensible.

Simplifying the tax code would be simply the most immediately effective, progressive and moral low-hanging fruit Congress could pick. More importantly, the Constitutional requirement of not attaching undue burdens to our fundamental rights – whose protection, according to our Declaration of Independence, is the very justification of the existence of the state – legally and morally demands it.

 

robinwsRobin Koerner is a political and economic commentator for the Huffington Post, Ben Swann, the Daily Paul, and other sites. He is best known for coining the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012. His article launched the biggest coalition for Ron Paul and a movement that outlived his candidacy, which now focuses on winning supporters for liberty (rather than just arguments), by finding common ground among Americans of various political persuasions. He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, where 300 volunteers translate opinion about the US from all over the world.

Source : KrisAnneHall.com


I want to urge everyone to vote for Ted Cruz in the Primary and for President. He is the only non-establishment Republican in the race. He has the Constitution memorized, he also stands strong for religious freedom, the 2nd amendment, and abolishing the IRS.

Donald Trump is running as a Republican, when all available evidence says he is a liberal. Don’t let America fall under the control of another liberal America!

Vote Ted Cruz!!!

 

 

Obama, Islam, and History

This article gives many examples of what I spoke about in my last article! Obama twists history to suit his agenda. Inserts fictitious events into American History and tries to tie them to our founders in a strange web of lies and deceit of his very own. I call it   History version 2.0 Beta


 

Posted from Jihad Watch

thomas-jefferson

“‘Thomas Jefferson’s opponents tried to stir things up by suggesting he was a Muslim. So I was not the first,’ Obama said, sparking laughter. ‘No, it’s true. Look it up. I’m in good company.’” — From USA Today on Barack Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, February 3, 2016

Barack Obama paid a visit — his first — to an American mosque today. He did so in the same feelgood spirit with which he held his first “Annual Iftar Dinner” in 2010. That dinner prompted a Jihad Watch post which, considerably modified and enlarged, is reprinted below.

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim mind and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

“I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ. which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” (Applause.)

And  Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams,, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba  and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Musim invention and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or “bida,” is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.”

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply  involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunkie who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

When Obama quotes that single phrase from John Adams, made at the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat from the marauding Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean that attacked Christian shipping at will (and when America became independent, it could no longer count on the Royal Navy to protect its ships) he wants us to think that our second president was approving of Islam.  But that is to misinterpret his statement, clearly meant to be taken to have this meaning: we in the United States, have a priori nothing against Islam. Rhetoric designed to diplomatically please. But based on his subsequent experiences with the North African Muslims, including his experiences with them after various treaties were made and then broken, Adams came to a different and negative view of Islam, a view that  was shared by all those Americans who, whether diplomats or seized seamen, had any direct dealings  with Muslims.  America’s first encounter with Muslims was that with the Barbary Pirates, from Morocco to Algiers to Tunis to Tripoli, and their behavior rendered Adams’s initial “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” null and void. And it was not John Adams himself, but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who studied Islam in depth, and it was he to whom Obama ought to have turned to find out more about Islam. For he would have found, among other piercing and accurate remarks by J. Q. Adams, the following:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Isn’t it amazing that not a single American official — and not just Obama — has ever alluded to the study of Islam that one of our most illustrious presidents produced?

Again, Obama, with a jumble of Jefferson, Ellison, and Holy Koran:

 “And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.”

When Obama notes that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his “personal” library, he is subtly implying that Jefferson approved of its contents. Keith Ellison did much the same when he ostentatiously used that very copy of the Qur’an for his own swearing-in as the first Muslim Congressman. But Jefferson, a curious and cultivated man, with a large library, had a copy of the Qur’an for the same reason you or I might possess a copy, that is simply to find out what was in it. And we might note in passing that it was not the “Holy Koran” that Jefferson possessed and Ellison borrowed, but an English translation by George Sales of the “Koran.” According to Muslims, the epithet “Holy” can only be attached to a Koran written and read in the original Arabic. White House, for the next time, take note.

There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam once he had studied it, or had had dealings with Muslims or had travelled to their countries. Look high, look low, consult whatever records you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that an American President would someday praise Islam to the skies in Obama’s fulsome manner would have astounded them all.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance” 

Also sprach Obama. But Islam is based on an uncompromising division of humanity into Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Unbelievers, and Unbelievers, at best, can be allowed to live in a Muslim polity — be “tolerated” — only if they accept a position of permanent and humiliating inferiority.  It would be fascinating if Obama could name even one example of Islam demonstrating through words and deeds “the possibilities of religious tolerance.”

But let’s return to Obama’s assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House, way back in 1805.

Here is the background to that meal in 1805 which not Jefferson, but Obama, calls an “Iftar Dinner”:

“In the Mediterranean, American ships, now deprived of the protection formerly offered by the Royal Navy, suffered constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates acting alone but were officially encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey. Under Jefferson, America took a more aggressive line:’

“Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute.

“The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli [Sidi Soliman Mellimelli] to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.”

Mellimelli was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States”—there was no official exchange of ambassadors – but a temporary envoy with a single limited task: to get an agreement that would set free the Tunisian vessels and come to an agreement about future payment – if any — of tribute by, or to Tripoli. At the end of six months that envoy was to return home.

The Muslim envoy made some unexpected personal demands in Washington:

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.”

Some readers will no doubt be reminded by this request for “concubines” of how the State Department has supplied female companions to much more recent Arab visitors, including the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Mellimelli proved to be the exotic cynosure of all eyes, with his American hosts not really understanding some of his reactions, as his “surprise” at the “social freedom women enjoyed in America” and his belief that only Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were acceptable “prophets” to follow, for they lacked the understanding of Islam that would have explained such reactions:

Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.

Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Spirit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”

So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab including, very likely, that for the requested “concubines.” He cut a dashing figure:

The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.”

“Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.”

During the time Mellimelli was here, Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. The dinner was not meant to be an “Iftar dinner” but just a dinner, albeit at the White House; it was originally set for three thirty in the afternoon (our founding fathers dined early in the pre-Edison days of their existence). Mellimelli said he could not come at that appointed hour of three thirty p.m. but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else, he did not see himself as offering an “Iftar Dinner” and there are no records to hint that he did. Barack Obama, 200 years later, is trying to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests. But he is misrepresenting American history to Americans, including schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, in newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably depict Islam, and present it as so integral a part of American life.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks a few days before at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

“In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.”

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition of Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, did not think he thi not providing what he thought of as an “Iftar Dinner” but simply a dinner, at a time his guest requested. And to describe as a “White House tradition” wou first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically.”

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their orthodox understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims rely on for authority. It was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did what he set out to, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is that, ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our learned Presidents, who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — unless we were to count as an “iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his exotic guest.

George Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” He and Obama agree on that. And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the long “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, referred to, began. It’s all of nine years old, having survived and thrived through the differently-disastrous presidencies of Bush and of Obama.

I have a request for The New York Times. It’s a most modest one. All I ask is that the editors of The New York Times apologize for that paper’s misapplication of the adjective “sporadic” in the front-page story by Sheryl Stolberg on the “Annual Iftar” dinner.

Put up, or shut up, dear newspaper of record. Tell us when that “tradition” of “Iftar Dinners” truly began. Cite those Presidents who held dinners that they considered to be “Iftar Dinners.” Give us chapter, give us verse. And if, as I believe, that hollow and recent and transparently determined-to-win-Muslim-hearts-and-minds “tradition” began only in 2001, then tell us. And since your story was on the front page, do what the lawyers do when they have to make legal announcements, and put your retraction, eat your humble pie, right on the same front page.

A failure to do so will be further, and for some the final confirmation, of the sorry record of The New York Times in its coverage of Islam. Most readers with some sense of what Islam is all about are now ready to take any coverage of the matter in The New York Times with a grain – a Pinch – of salt.

Clio, Muse of History, is a stern mistress. Subscribers to stories that live and die between editions may forget or forgive, but Mnemosyne does neither. If I were the “newspaper of record,” I’d want to propitiate not the gods, but the most vigilant and meticulous of muses. If I were Pinch Sulzberger, I’d be mortally embarrassed, and determined to make amends. But then, I have standards.

Which brings us up to today, and the glad news that. President Obama will be paying his first visit to a mosque on American soil. There will be some sort of feelgood exchange, and perhaps even a reference to the “long tradition” of Iftar dinners, or to the great contribution Muslims have made since the very beginning to our American story. No one will have the bad taste to bring up what is actually to be found in the Qur’an and Hadith. Someone may quote 2:256 and 5:32 (but not 5:33). John Quincy Adams will be passed over in silence. I can’t wait. Can you?

Indoctrinating America’s Children

Obama speaks from a Mosque, his Administration refuses to utter the words “radical Islam”, while schools across America force children to recite the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

America at War  02/04/2016

obama-mosque-visit-640

All of this while children are no longer reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it simply mentions God.

I do not support the term “radical Islam” myself. Because it implies Islam itself is not radical. If you read the Q’uran you’ll find that what ISIS practices is Islam. Right out of the pages of their Holy book. A “radical” is nothing more than a devout Muslim. And to tell you the truth, if anyone hashijacked” the religion it is those who DO NOT support the violence. That may make Barry boil over with frustration, but the facts don’t lie.

Islam has been a source of violence and oppression for over 1400 years. Islamic invaders have destroyed priceless artifacts, temples, and writings of other religions for that entire 1400 year time span. Don’t take my word for it, do some research. Even people that think they are educated in the subject of Islam will be surprised at the sheer volume of destruction through the centuries.

Our children are not hearing about that though. They are being taught the “Unicorn milk and Rainbows” version of Islam. For years and years now Liberals have been trying to remove the mention of Jesus Christ or God from schools. But in the last couple of years they have decided it’s absolutely necessary to teach kids about Allah. This is the most wide scale manipulation of young minds I’ve ever seen.

The government is literally fabricating history and  facts and selling it to the next generation as The Religion of Peace. They tossed God from the school house, and in their very next motion welcomed Allah with open arms.

I learned something about America that went in the face of everything that I thought I knew. I always thought that if an American President ever lied to the citizens of this country that they’d be drummed out of office, like Nixon. I always thought if the government ever tried to oust God and replace Him with Allah that they’d all lose their jobs and be run out of town.

I always thought that if the media ever started fabricating and weaving stories instead of reporting the actual news that American citizens would, and could force their networks out of business. Normal Americans have become impotent. Unable to stop the onslaught of insanity.

America has spiraled out of control further than I ever imagined it could! We have been on auto pilot for too long, and they have caught us sleeping. Even if we make a course correction now, how long can we maintain it with generations of Americans being taught lies in school? I’m not just referencing this subject either. Everything from common core to the liberal philosophies being taught to our children in schools today.

The kids of today are not learning the same “History” lessons that we learned. History did not change, but those writing it did. Your children do not know the same history as you were taught. They have “history version 2.0 beta” which is an alter reality version pushing an agenda, a Liberal Muslim agenda.

Here is a story I was reading today.

From The Clarion Project

Lawsuit Filed Against Maryland HS for Islamic Indoctrination

Mon, February 1, 2016

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of parents of a Maryland teenager who say their daughter was forced to profess and write out the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

Recitation of the statement is sufficient to convert a non-Muslim to Islam. In addition, the latter half of the statement  signifies the person has accepted Mohammed as their prophet.

According to lawsuit, the teenager, a student at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland, was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. The Thomas More Law Center, attorneys for the case, charges that Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its students that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The high school also taught:

  • “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
  • “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
  • The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and
  • “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

You can read the course material by clicking here.

The teenager’s father, John Kevin Wood, a former Marine and a veteran of the Iraq War, became concerned when he saw that his daughter and other students were taught extensively about Islam and required to list the benefits of the religion but were not taught about Islam in the context of current events.

One homework assignment, obtained by a news outlet asked questions including, “How did Muslim conquerors treat those they conquered?” The correct answer was, “With tolerance, kindness and respect.”

Students were not allowed to opt out of the curriculum.

The lawsuit contends the school is violating his daughter’s “constitutional rights.”

Source : The Clarion Project