Friday, February 5, 2016

Jihad Barry

US Defense Watch ^ | February 4, 2016 | Ray Starmann 

President Obama showed his true colors again yesterday by visiting a mosque in Baltimore with ties to radical Islam.
The Islamic Society of Baltimore's former imam has ties not only to the Muslim Brotherhood but the Northern Virginia mosque where the radical Anwar al-Awlaki used to preach.
The former imam in question is Mohamad Adam El-Sheikh, who served at the Baltimore mosque from 1983-1989 and 1994-2003. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan, he had moved to the U.S. in 1978 and went on to receive several advanced law degrees as he became involved in the religious community.
During his time in Baltimore, El-Sheikh was a regional director for the Islamic American Relief Agency, the international parent organization of which has been cited by the U.S. Treasury Department for connections to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. After 2003, he was the imam for the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., near Washington. It was there that Awlaki, just months earlier, gave his fiery sermons, before going on to be a top Al Qaeda affiliate operative in Yemen. Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama is visiting to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans.”
Contributions?
When does Obama ever speak of the contributions of our Founding Fathers, the Tejanos who fought with the Texans at the Alamo, the Chinese who built the Trans-Continental Railroad, the Tuskogee Airmen in World War II, or the bravery of those who served in Vietnam?
It will also be an opportunity, Earnest said, for the president “to talk about the role that faith plays in his own life.”
What faith would that be exactly, Mr. President?
It’s not just El-Sheikh’s affiliations but his past comments that have stirred controversy.
He told The Washington Post in August 2003, when he was the imam in Falls Church, that Islamic law does not allow suicide bombings in most instances, but, “if certain Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means, and their local religious leaders issued fatwas to permit that, then it becomes acceptable as an exceptional rule, but should not be taken as a principle.”
One has to wonder why Obama would want to visit this particular mosque at a time when radical Islamic terrorists are wreaking havoc across the globe.
Why indeed?
This is a president who has found opportunity after opportunity to bash Christianity and defend Islam. In February of 2015, the President remarked, “From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam.”
He then doubled down by remarking, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”
When has the President ever spoken of 2015 as the most violent and deadly year for Christians in the last thousand years?
Yet, Jihad Barry can’t say radical Islam. He refused to call the San Bernardino attacks Islamic terrorism until the FBI told him that the shooters, Mr. and Mrs. Jihad weren’t related to people who came over on the Mayflower.
Jihad Barry won’t fight Islam. He simply doesn’t want to destroy ISIS. He has overseen the implementation of an air campaign that is a farce on a good day and a bloody shambles on a bad day.
On the same week that the nation was mourning the victims of San Bernardino, Jihad Barry was telling the country that he couldn’t wait to bring in thousands of un-vetted Muslim refugees; you know the same people who are murdering, thieving and raping their way across Europe now.
In essence we have a President who is sympathetic towards Islam. We have a President who blames Christianity for the world’s woes, past and present. We have a President who thinks America is just another country on the block, equal to such Third World paradises like Somalia and Iran.
Jihad Barry, like other liberal imbeciles, believes that America and the West can only be strengthened by hordes of un-vetted Muslim migrants storming our shores.
Obama is the spokesman for a whole generation of liberals and do-gooders who think that by placating radical Islam, the bad guys will see the light and will be singing Amazing Grace with Pat Robertson.
What Jihad Barry and other liberal fools refuse to see is that the West and radical Islam are heading for a clash, a clash of civilizations that has been in the making for a millennium.
While some Muslims want peace, many do not and many are happy to sit on the sidelines and reluctantly accept the violence perpetuated in the religion’s name.
You would think that the President of the United States might just be on the side of those fighting radical Islam. But, that is obviously too much to ask.
Yesterday’s event was just another sad chapter in the tenure of our commander in chief, Jihad Barry.

Obama Hid “Jesus” at Catholic University – But Allows “Allah” to Be Widely Displayed ...

The Gateway Pundit ^ | 3 Feb 2016 | Jim Hoft 


If there was one word which could describe President Obama's Presidency (aside from failure, Progressive hell, and nightmare) it would be anti-Christian.
From declaring that the United States is no longer a Christian nation to denying Syrian Christians entry into the country President Obama's distaste for the followers of Jesus are as obvious as the nose on your face. But with less than a year left in his Presidency Obama hasn't given up on dissing Christians at every opportunity.
For example, President Obama gave a speech at a mosque in the Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday. While standing in front of a glass wall where the word "Allah" was written 99 times in Arabic calligraphy, the President took a stab at Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump by stating there was "inexcusable anti-Islamic rhetoric in the political sphere." The White House staff were even gifted Qurans at the event (pictures at link).
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

Hot Chicks

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2012/08/red-hot-conservative-chicks-fox-news.html

ISLAM!

TRUST?

People Do!

Keeping Up

Pixie Dust!

Think Again!

Celebrating

Its Time!

You have enemies?

Obama's 'Pay Gap' Lies

Frontpagemagazine ^ | 2-4-16 | Matthew Vadum 

When facts get never get in the way of the victim narrative.





President Obama used the seventh anniversary of a law based on lies to push the Left's long-running lie that American employers discriminate against female employees.
The Left perpetuates the cult of the victim because it needs clients. Independent, self-reliant, self-respecting women who succeed on their own don't need leftist social programs (and they're less likely to vote for Democrats). Sadly, the leftist lie that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair.
And it's not that Obama is necessarily economically illiterate -- as a Marxist ideologue he simply doesn't care about the laws of economics, which he regards as obstacles to be overcome in the furtherance of social progress.
"Today, women account for almost half of the workforce," Obama huffed. "But the typical woman who works full time still earns 79 cents for every dollar that the typical man does."
The Radical-in-Chief continued:
It doesn't just offend our values. At a time when women are increasingly the breadwinners in our households, paying them less makes it harder for families to cover the necessities like child care or health care, just to pay the bills. It makes it harder for a family to save, harder for families to retire. It means local businesses have customers with less money to spend. So it's not good for our communities. It's not good for our families. It's not good for our businesses. What kind of example does paying women less set for our sons and daughters?
Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges.
As the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013, the 77-cent figure Obama used that year "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."
Furchgott-Roth added:
Even with such averaging, the latest Labor Department figures show that women working full-time make 81 percent of full-time men's wages. For men and women who work 40 hours weekly, the ratio is 88 percent.
"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's. In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar.
Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college.
"Then, when they graduate, more enter the non-profit or government sector," she observed. "Finally, many choose to work fewer hours to better combine work and family. In May, 2013, according to Labor Department data, 23 percent of women worked part-time, compared to 11 percent of men."
Even the left-wing Washington Post has called out Obama for his pay-gap distortions, awarding "Two Pinocchios" to his 2014 claim that American women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn.
Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for naval architecture, this huge gap in wages will almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it up every two years.
There appears to be some sort of wage gap and closing it is certainly a worthy goal. But it's a bit rich for the president to repeatedly cite this statistic as an 'embarrassment.' ... The president must begin to acknowledge that '77 cents' does not begin to capture what is actually happening in the work force and society.
But Obama never lets facts get in the way of the narrative.


On January 29 Obama praised Lilly Ledbetter, who unsuccessfully sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for not paying her as much as male counterparts. Of course the president left out the fact that Ledbetter was a terrible employee who was lucky she wasn't fired for poor job performance.
For years he has portrayed Ledbetter as a martyr, a victim of capitalism, the patriarchy, and the generalized rottenness that is America. Inspired by Ledbetter's false story, the first law Obama signed as president made it easier for whiny malingerers to sue their employers for sex-based pay discrimination years after the fact.
To our radical left-wing president, Ledbetter is a heroic figure for soldiering on with her pointless lawsuit for years.
The same way that Lilly described her endeavors -- when she lost that court case, she could have given up, but she didn't. And that spirit is what all of us have to adopt. That's the spirit that built America. That's the spirit that opened up opportunity for so many more people than a generation ago. And that's the spirit that I intend to keep pushing as long as I have the privilege to be in this office.
Oh please. Fighting for special legal privileges and undeserved extra pay based on the fact you carry the double-X sex chromosome is hardly the "spirit that built America."
Actually, it's closer to the spirit that built and ultimately destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. America has never been about coercive redistribution of wealth based on sex or any other attribute.
The Founding Fathers were not idealists. They were realists.
Unlike leftists with their perverse social engineering fantasies, they had a healthy respect for human nature. They had no desire to perfect humankind. They recognized that people are different, endowed to varying degrees with various abilities and aptitudes.
It is government's purpose, they believed, to protect what the Declaration of Independence calls "the pursuit of happiness." Individuals need to be free to fail or thrive while government safeguards the rule of law.
A single paragraph in Federalist No. 10, an essay James Madison wrote to convince his fellow Americans to ratify the Constitution, was a micro-manifesto, a prophetic advance refutation of the redistributionist leveling that would be kickstarted in the Progressive Era:
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
In other words, it is not government's duty to modify the differences that make us human. On the contrary, government is obliged to protect that critical human diversity.
This is a quintessentially American idea.
But Obama assaults Americans' individuality in an effort to mold us all into what a Marxist thinks Americans should be. In his twisted vision, having government bureaucrats determine fair wages for women -- and everyone else -- is as American as apple pie.
As always, his solution is to expand the size and scope of government and unleash more taxpayer-supported paper-pushers to meddle in Americans' lives.
Last week he proposed collecting and reporting pay data by race, ethnicity, and sex from businesses with 100 or more employees. The goal "is to help businesses that are trying to do the right thing ... to get a clearer picture of how they can ensure their employees are being treated equally."
Perhaps, but letting the government seize the data will also help in Obama's fundamental transformation of America.

Smell

2TwNZ9J.jpg

FUNNY?

95XXSts.jpg

Just like Benghazi

XHe1rJn.jpg

What do you expect?

l5WMFqO.png

OH MY GOD!

X2LllN5.jpg

Investment

WI7CSio.jpg

NUTS

vdaIadY.jpg

A businessman in the first class cabin decided to chat up the drop dead, gorgeous flight attendant: "What is your name?"

Flight Attendant:   "Angela Benz, Sir”

Businessman:          "Lovely name ... any relation to Mercedes Benz?"

Flight Attendant:   "Yes sir, very close"

Businessman:           "How close?"


Flight Attendant:    "Same price"

Amazing Dream

amazing-dream.jpg

Coin Toss

XcqOeCi.jpg