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 If not withdrawn, the illegal Obama decree would purport to shred the rights protected by the Constitution’s First and Second Amendments by making it illegal to post any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

Advertisements

Voting Trump amounts to voting for “Hillary by Proxy” | CFP has lost me

 

11903759_947353878661624_3313527740210820127_nI agree with everything Trump SAYS about immigration and Islam and putting political correctness on hold etc…. The problem I have with the man is this : He’s a lifelong ‪#‎Democrat‬ who just decided to turn ‪#‎Republican‬ since Obama was elected. Trump voted for Obama, he’ll tell you himself that he was “Obama’s biggest cheerleader”. He’s good friends with Bill and ‪#‎Hillary‬ ‪#‎Clinton‬. He’s one of the largest contributors to the corrupt Clinton Foundation. He has no problem morally with using eminent domain to steal a little old ladies lifetime home to build a parking lot for a casino. The bottom line is that Trump is a spoiler candidate supported by BOTH ‪#‎Democrats‬ AND ‪#‎Establishment‬ Republicans, the people we are trying to rid ourselves of!!! A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for ‪#‎HillaryByProxy‬ !!! WHY would you vote for ANYONE but Ted Cruz??? The one candidate FEARED by Democrats and establishment Republicans!!! Trump is CHEERED by Democrats and establishment Republicans (Even Jimmy Carter) And Ted Cruz is FEARED by these same groups!!! A vote for Trump is a vote for more of the same…..SOS different day. Use your head for more than a hat rack and VOTE TED CRUZ!!!

I don’t think CFP is going to post my comment on their story, so I’m posting it here also. At one time I was a big fan of Canada Free Press, but the blind following of Trump has led me away from their posts.

USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE!!! The man is a life long #Democrat who says things you want to hear.

But he is supported by EVERYONE we want to throw out of government!!! Does that not tell you something???

Ted Cruz is the guy FEARED by the ‪#‎WashingtonCartel‬!!! #Democrats and ‪#‎Republicans‬ who have been stealing you blind for 30 or 40 years ALL FEAR ‪#‎CRUZ‬!!! But they SUPPORT ‪#‎TRUMP‬!!!

DID YOU HEAR ME??? They support ‪#‎DonaldTrump‬!!! Vote ‪#‎TedCruz‬!!!

Wake up America!!! ‪#‎CruzCrew‬‪#‎CruzCountry‬‪#‎CruzControl‬‪#‎CruzUSA‬‪#‎CruzToVictory‬‪#‎CruzMissile‬‪#‎Cruz2016‬

11234046_930681340328878_8314496133532781122_n

This is the story that set me off, found on Canada Free Press which historically has been one of my favorites, but they lost me when they went Trump. Have you ever heard the saying “A Zebra don’t change it’s stripes”??? Well folks the Trumpra has been a Democrat most of his life, and even voted for Obama!!! Do you know why the saying about the zebra and it’s stripes is so popular??? BECAUSE IT’S TRUE!!! THEY DON’T CHANGE!!!

Here is the story (And ones like it) responsible for my ending my subscription to Canada Free Press

Why a Rock-Ribbed Conservative Like Me Supports Donald Trump 100% 

A zebra (or Trumpra) just don’t change their stripes. The man was Obama’s BIGGEST CHEERLEADER and EVERY CAREER POLITICIAN BACKS HIM!!! The Democrats back him, the establishment backs him, Jimmy Carter even backs him!!!

Use the sense God gave you, and stop being manipulated by the press (Who ALSO promoted Trump from day 1)    and vote for Ted Cruz!!!

trump_infog_v2_3

 

 

 

Obama at Baltimore mosque quoted Muhammad from speech endorsing caliphate and beheading | Jihad Watch

From Jihad Watch

Obama at Baltimore mosque quoted Muhammad from speech endorsing caliphate and beheading

Obama said: “Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, ‘let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.’”

That saying comes from this hadith:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka’ba who said:

I entered the mosque when ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As was sitting in the shade of the Ka’ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge [sic] of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him (‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu’awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:” O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and diqobey [sic] him in matters involving disobedience to God.

Immediately following the passage Obama quoted comes an exhortation to obey the caliph and to behead rival claimants. So embedded within the very same passage that Obama was using are endorsements of ideas that Obama would probably reject as having nothing to do with authentic Islam. It is extremely unlikely, of course, that Obama has seen this passage, but his (i.e., his speechwriters’) use of this quotation follows the same pattern as his use of Qur’an 5:32: he quotes selectively (although no Muslims are accusing him of “cherry-picking”!), ignoring inconveniently violent passages that are right next to the passage he quotes.

Is it not extremely telling that Barack Obama, in making the case that Islam teaches peace, can’t find even a few passages that are unequivocally peaceful, and instead has to grab his peaceful passages from amid exhortations to violence? Doesn’t that tell us something about Islam as a whole — something that Obama and the Western political and media establishment will never tell us?

Obama at Islamic Society of Baltimore, Allah

From Obama’s speech last Wednesday at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:

So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace. The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you. And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.” (Applause.) For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar. (Laughter.)

 Source : Jihad Watch

A note from America at War :

I’m assuming that laughter was directed at Obama’s claim to be a Christian! How many Christians do you know that cite the Q’uran? I don’t know any personally, and only know of ONE person that does it myself. That person being Barrack Hussein Obama. And you can keep your doctor too.

Obama Profits from his anti-gun Agenda

Just like he and his friends profit from his “green agenda”

 

165084_316448845126823_556150433_n-600x450

America at War 02/08/2016

I have always known there was a “method to the madness”. You know that when Democrats press their “green agenda” down your throat it is because their friends have businesses that profit from it. They have always portrayed big business as the thieves, when in reality big business makes it’s money the old fashioned way, it Earns it!!!

By creating or managing products or sales and marketing of products or services, hiring of employees to help them in that endeavor. Big business is nothing more than a successful group of entrepreneurs who are good for the economy because they Hire people and spend money.

What about those people who continuously badmouth big business, what do they do for the economy??? Who have they given a job to lately??? Let there be no mistake, opponents of big business are generally collecting salaries from an anti-American, anti big business Billionaire like George Soros.

Why does he finance these things you ask??? Because he makes his money by destroying economies. He makes money by destroying the worth of a country’s currency. So he hires agents to help him do that. Hurt existing companies, while pushing regulations helping “green” companies owned by him and his friends, promising big pay days to politicians who help him.

Obama gave Solyndra and many other “green energy” companies millions and millions of American tax dollars. Just afterwards those companies put our money in their pockets, and closed the doors. Profiting from failure. All of this was planned from day one.

They achieved their objective. Thinking their agenda and yours is the same is where you are mistaken. Go back and look at how much taxpayer money was lost by Obama and his “green energy” friends.

Here is another example of the Obama business model. He gets on television and promotes his anti-gun agenda in front of the world, while in the background he’s invested in firearm and ammo companies. You see he creates a situation causing the sales and price of firearms to soar, while betting on the gun company. Check out the full story from The New American. And subscribe for more great 2nd Amendment stuff !!!

The New American :

Sunday, 07 February 2016

Obama Owns Stock in Gun and Ammo Manufacturers, Profiting From His Policies

Written by 

While with his infamous “pen and … phone” President Barack Obama has acted to limit the availability of guns and ammunition; with his investments he profits from the purchase of both these objects which have “taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country.

A special report published by Reuters on February 5 reveals that President Obama owns stock in a couple of manufacturers of guns and ammunition.

From Reuters:

From his days in the Illinois General Assembly, President Obama has up to $100,000 invested in a nearly $16 billion state pension plan, which has about $5 million invested directly in several gun and ammo makers. The retirement plan, which covers state employees, judges and the general assembly, also holds shares in a small-cap mutual fund with a $9.5 million stake in Smith & Wesson.

While this is admittedly a minuscule amount of money for one a man of the president’s net worth ($7 million as of 2014), the inconsistency between his advocacy of tighter gun controls and his increase in personal prosperity from the increased demand for weapons and ammunition is noteworthy.

As The New American has reported, President Obama has signed numerous executive orders (edicts masquerading as valid law) restricting the right of Americans to purchase, sell, trade, and own firearms and the ammunition that make them useful.

Such a seizure of power is inarguably tyrannical. While there may be millions who depend on the tyranny for their living and millions of others who support the tyrant’s usurpation as something good, there can be no doubt that for a president to issue fiats from the White House effectively repealing the Second Amendment is the act of a tyrant.

As with most of the notorious tyrants of history, President Obama draws near to the people with his lips, but his heart is set on lining his own pockets. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more evident than in the revelation of his ownership of stock in manufacturers of firearms and ammunition.

The effect on the bottom line of these companies since Barack Obama settled in the Oval Office is remarkable. Again, as reported by Reuters:

Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million from $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufacturers with publicly traded shares, Smith & Wesson Corp and Sturm, Ruger & Co. That means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans.

The influx has helped to boost both companies’ shares by more than 750 percent during the Obama presidency; each now has a market value of about $1 billion.

To many, this double dealing may seem inexplicable. When analyzed economically rather than morally, the problem is solved very easily.

According to principles of supply and demand, when the supply of a good decreases and the demand for that good simultaneously increases, the price ascends proportionally.

That is to say, President Obama’s attack on the gun and ammo industries serves not only to advance his agenda on the Constitution, but to manipulate the price of those two items in a way that favors his personal fortunes.

He can have his cake of decreasing public liberty while eating the cake of increasing personal wealth.

Later in the story of the seeming discrepancy between public policy and personal investment, Reuters painted a clear and condemning picture of the favorable economic developments in the firearm sector that followed Obama’s 2008 election:

By the end of 2015, more than 150 mutual funds owned Smith & Wesson shares, up from 53 at the end of 2008, and nearly 130 held stock in Ruger, up from 52, according to data from Morningstar Inc.

It would have taken investors “minimal due diligence” to see massive profit potential in Ruger stock when Obama was first elected, said Ruger Chief Executive Mike Fifer. Shares hit a low of $4.50 the Friday after that Tuesday election; the stock was changing hands today at $61.61.

“Orders at every level of the distribution channel exploded” the week of Obama’s election, Fifer recalled. “And continued to do so for months afterward.”

And, later in the article, the benefit to the president’s portfolio created by his drive to disarm civilians is reported:

“Let’s just say he’s been good for business,” Jack Lesher, manager of Chuck’s Firearms in Atlanta, said of Obama.

Gun sales jumped again recently after the president blasted congressional inaction on gun control and vowed to use executive powers to expand background checks for buyers and bolster licensing requirements for dealers. His announcement followed yet another mass shooting, on Dec. 2 in San Bernardino, California, where a couple pledging allegiance to Islamic State killed 14 people.

For the week that ended Dec. 20, firearms background checks – a proxy for guns sales – totaled 839,109, the second-highest week since 1998. Only the week after the Sandy Hook shootings was higher, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Vista’s main factories have churned out bullets 24 hours, seven days a week for at least two years, Vista Chief Financial Officer Stephen Nolan told investors in November.

Now the industry is ready for an election-year surge.

“The politics of gun control could stay in the headlines, which we believe could lead to a record year,” wrote Chris Krueger, senior research analyst at Lake Street Capital Markets, in a note to investors in January.

Ruger is boosting inventories to prepare, after learning a costly lesson going into the last presidential election. Demand peaked that year, based on the number of FBI background checks sought for new gun purchases. The surge followed Obama’s re-election and the Sandy Hook shooting.

“When we went into late 2011, we got cleaned out of inventory … even though we increased production dramatically,” company CEO Fifer told investors during a November conference call.

Regardless, there will be those who will defend the president’s profiting from the companies whose wares have contributed to the crisis of public safety in which “more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence.”

These advocates will point out that the president’s percent of ownership in these industries is indirect and insignificant. Both of those adjectives are apt, but they do not accurately describe the bigger picture.

“Obama and his tiny stake are typical of most Americans with holdings in firearms investments: They are invested in funds that buy shares of the relatively small part of the firearms industry that is publicly traded. But collectively, their investments are a boon to the gun industry and amount to a sizable stake in major gun and ammo makers,” Tim McLaughlin and Peter Eisler write in the Reuters story.

Not surprisingly, Reuters notes that “The White House declined to comment on Obama’s holdings in the Illinois General Assembly’s pension plan, which he earned while serving in that state’s senate.”

 

Source :

The New American

More Racist Politics from the Obama Gang

From The New American newsletter
Wednesday, 03 February 2016

New Obama Regulations Will Make It Harder to Hire and Promote White Men

Written by 

The Obama administration is obsessed with race and sex. Many know about the administration’s scheme to collect information on the racial composition of American communities in an effort to force neighborhoods to “diversify.” Now the government is applying the same philosophy to businesses in order to “equalize” wages. It’s an effort, critics point out, that will make it harder for white men to find jobs. Writes the New York Post’s Betsy McCaughey:

Claiming women aren’t getting paid enough, President Obama wants to make it easier to accuse employers of gender discrimination and hit them with class-action lawsuits. A new regulation proposed on Friday will require all employers with 100 or more workers to report how much their workforce is paid, broken down by race and [sex].

The rule, slated to go into effect in September 2017, will cause headaches for employers and anyone — man or woman — who works hard and expects to get ahead based on merit. The winners are federal bean counters, class-action lawyers and the Democratic Party, which is playing up the [inter-sex] “wage gap” as usual during this election year.

McCaughey points out that this regulation will hit white men the hardest, and this is echoed by American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson:

Your employer will have to lump workers into 12 salary bands. If you’re a white male up for a raise, but the band above yours already includes too many while males, tough luck. Your boss will be pressured to give the raise to a woman or minority to avoid triggering EEOC scrutiny.

This data collection is a godsend for EEOC regulators looking for targets, and it hands class-action lawyers the statistics they need on a silver platter.

Even worse: the presumption is that the employer discriminates, unless proven otherwise.

The “guilty until proven innocent” standard Lifson refers to seems to reflect “disparate impact” theory; this principle states that if a group cannot measure up to a standard as well as another group, that standard is by definition considered unjustly discriminatory. Applied by the government for decades, it has been used to compel police departments and other entities to scrap qualification exams because women and minorities underperformed on them. As an example, the Obama administration sued the Pennsylvania State Police in 2014 for treating women equally — because doing so yielded unequal outcomes.

As for different salary outcomes in business, McCaughey explains the consequences of the new regulations:

Employers will have to change their policies to avoid these differences — for example, not preferring the job applicant who has a college degree over the applicant who doesn’t, unless the job can be shown to require college skills. The burden is on employers. It’s assumed they’re discriminating, in other words, and they have to prove they’re not.

Jenny Yang, chairwoman of Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, defends the massive fishing expedition, saying, “pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid.”

Of course, it’s impossible not to discover pay “discrimination.” All that term refers to is the process of choosing one or some from between/among two or many. And since meritocracy dictates we discriminate between the intelligent and the stupid, the educated and the ignorant, and the qualified and the unqualified — and since groups have different proclivities and interests — it follows that Yang cannot fail in her mission. But she clearly isn’t interested in the real question: Are inter-group pay gaps actually caused by prejudice?

Demagogues love the slogan “Women make only 79 cents on a man’s dollar!” Yet the same data-collection entities reporting that fact also tell us why — and it has nothing to do with unfair discrimination. I explained this in the 2014 New American piece “Equal Pay for Equal Work: Means Paying Men More,” but female commentators such as Carrie Lukas have made the same points. Here are some of the main factors influencing the inter-sex pay gap:

Men tend to choose more lucrative fields than women do (e.g., the hard sciences as opposed to the soft ones).

Related to the above, women avoid the most dangerous and dirtiest jobs — such as iron-working and commercial fishing — which often bring great compensation.

Full-time men work more hours on average than “full-time” women.

When climbing the corporate ladder, women are six times more likely than men to change positions and career tracks; consequently, men generally have more seniority and experience.

Women are more likely to decline promotions and “tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do,” as Lukas wrote in 2007.

The reality is that women don’t get less money for equal work — they get less money for lesser work. Moreover, it seems that some pay gaps are more equal than others. There was much talk late last year about Hollywood actresses making less than actors (poor Jennifer Lawrence had to settle for $52 million, $28 million less than Robert Downey Jr.). Yet no one troubles over the top 10 female fashion models earning more than 10 times as much as their male counterparts do. And even among rank-and-file models, the women make 148 percent more.

But isn’t this “sex discrimination”? Aren’t the models doing equal work? This question gets at a generally ignored but central issue: What constitutes equal work, anyway?

Models don’t get paid because they’re capable of posing, wearing clothing, standing under hot lights or parading down runways; I could do that. They earn wages because their “work” helps satisfy a market — and the female models command more because their “work” satisfies a bigger market than the men’s work does. This is the same reason NBA players make more than WNBA players and heavyweight boxers generally out-earn lightweights. The “work” isn’t just shooting baskets and throwing punches; it involves succeeding in, respectively, the NBA and heavyweight ranks.

This brings us to another significant point: Is it really true that sex and racial discrimination is always unjust? Consider that a quality integral to doing the women models’ work is being female. If the male models were women, they might be able to do the same “work” and satisfy the market equally. There are many other such examples. As I wrote in 2014:

My local hardware store provides knowledgeable workers, all men, who render valuable advice on products and how to perform various home repairs. If it was determined that people found a female in that role less credible and were then not quite as likely to buy from the establishment, would even a highly competent woman be able to do “equal work” in that capacity?

What about the little West Indian restaurant, with all-black workers, I loved when I spent a few weeks in Tampa? If hiring a white person made the eatery seem less authentic and negatively affected its appeal, would that individual be able to do “equal work”? The same, of course, could be asked about a black person working in a German restaurant. In these cases race would be integral to the “work.”

The reality is that the government has no idea what constitutes “equal work,” yet it feels qualified to mandate equal pay. But while one might not expect bureaucrats to have pondered deeper issues such as the above, simple facts can be easily apprehended. And here’s one: Women in the Obama White House make only 84 cents on every male staffer’s dollar. Is this driven by bad intentions? If not, a desire to ascribe such motives to a wider society exhibiting the same phenomenon just might be driven by bad intentions itself.

Source : The New American

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