Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood

According to an August 13, 2011 article by Gulag Bound, Barack Hussein Obama has three members of the Muslim Brotherhood working for him. Obama has also opened formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and wants to support them with $3 billion. 

As a State Senator Obama said, we must have empathy for the jihadists who attacked this country on 9/11. He also invited the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. The same Muslim Brotherhood who call for a “Civilization-Jihadist Process,” in which they would destroy the Western civilization from within. The Muslim Brotherhood says the White House will become the Muslim House. They state, we do not want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy. That is what we want. Sharia law is not compatible with the US Constitution; then again the Obama Regime does not care too much about the Constitution either and wants to change it. The Muslim Brotherhood is a mortal enemy of our civilization. Their slogan says so openly, their way is Jihad, and their method is death.

  

If Barack Hussein Obama has members of the Muslim Brotherhood working for him; and if decides to support the Muslim Brotherhood with $3 billion would he not be violating his oath of office he swore to, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution? Would this act be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which would be considered an act of Treason? The President can be impeached for an act of Treason. If he decides to go through with supporting our enemy, The Muslim Brotherhood, will Congress have the COURAGE to impeach him? Obama shows weakness to the world, thus endangers Americans.

Cowardly Don Imus Attacks Sarah Palin

August 4, 2011 Don Imus was talking to Alan Colmes on his Show and called Sarah Palin ‘stupid’ for her remarks that if the Tea Party were real terrorists Obama would hang out with them. And of course Colmes agreed. Imus called her remarks nonsense. Just because Imus wants to bury his head about Obama, possibly for fear of being called a racist again, does not make it so.  Her remarks were not nonsense, they are the TRUTH. Barack Hussein Obama’s mentor is the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. She had the courage to stand up to the attacks on the Tea Party, unlike the gutless Don Imus, who cow-towed to Al (Not So Sharp) Sharpton when he made his remarks about the girl’s basketball team. Don Imus is a COWARD and the STUPID one, because he is apparently blind to the fact of what the Obama Regime and the Statists are doing to this country.  

The New Crystal Meth Law is Bad Medicine

Unincorporated Jefferson County and other Missouri cities have enacted new laws requiring citizens to obtain a prescription for cold remedies that contain pseudo-ephedrine. There is also a push for a statewide law to do the same thing. The pharmacies, drug stores, retail outlets and convenience stores that sell cold remedies that contain pseudo-ephedrine will have to keep them behind the counter, as well as needing the prescription for them.

            Requiring law abiding citizens to obtain a prescription to receive what used to be over-the-counter cold and allergy medications is not a Conservative, limited government approach to address the problem of “Crystal Meth.” A similar argument is made by “gun control advocates,” who want more and more restrictions regarding guns placed on law-abiding citizens and businesses.

Once again law abiding citizens will be punished because some government bureaucrat passes a law without thinking about the unintended consequences. Some of the unintended consequences are: People will need a prescription to obtain these drugs, which will cost time and money by having to make an appointment, go to the doctor, pay for the visit and then pick up the item. People may not want to go through the hassle of getting the medicine and may end up getting sicker because of it; necessitating a trip to the hospital.  There will be an extra burden on the businesses by having to place the products behind the counter and check the prescriptions. Then there is the loss of revenue to the businesses and the municipalities that enact the law because people will shop elsewhere.

            What is the reasoning for passing these laws?  Could it be these politicians/ lawmakers are looking for the easy fix? Are they possibly thinking let’s make it difficult for these illegal drug makers to obtain the chemicals needed to make crystal meth? They claim pseudo-ephedrine is the one essential ingredient in making methamphetamine and this will stop the meth problem. Nevertheless, what will prevent the illegal drug makers from breaking into homes or robbing pharmacies to get that ingredient? Could the illegal drug makers possibly change the formula where pseudo-ephedrine is no longer needed by replacing it with another ingredient?  What about the other ingredients and household chemicals such as: acetone, alcohol, anhydrous ammonia, battery acid, benzene, camera batteries, diet aids, drain cleaner, ether (starting fluid), gasoline additives/rubbing alcohol, iodine, iodine crystals, muriatic acid, paint thinner, phenyl acetone, red phosphorous, rock, table, or Epsom salt, Red Devil Lye, stained coffee filters, toluene (found in brake cleaner), white gasoline and wooden matches. that makes up crystal meth; should there then be a law to ban or restrict those items?

There has been an increase in the use of heroin in this county and this law does nothing to stop that. Some people try to make a correlation between the increases in the use of heroin with the selling of pseudoephedrine to illegal drug makers, because they use the money to purchase heroin. I do not see the correlation. Although some heroin users sell drugs to obtain other drugs, they also get their money from robberies, burglaries, prostitution and shoplifting. In fact, many stores do not prosecute shoplifters and these companies become enablers for the drug addicts to get their money.  

The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office reported making 226 meth lab busts in 2010; 217 in 2009 and 93 meth lab busts as of April 30, 2011. They should be commended for that, however, speaking as a former police officer, who made numerous arrests including drug violations, that’s their job. There are laws on the books to deal with illegal drug making and those laws should be strenuously enforced. The way to combat the drug problem is to go after the drug dealers and producers.  Law-abiding citizens and businesses should not be punished or penalized to correct the illegal drug trade and therefore, laws requiring a prescription to obtain pseudoephedrine products should not be enacted. Let’s go after the “BAD GUYS.”  

Statists and Gun Rights

 Representative Carolyn McCarthy Democrat/Statist of New York, a staunch supporter of restricting gun rights said the lax gun laws in America led to the mass shooting in Norway. What the more restrictive gun laws in Norway did not stop it? In Norway a license is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. What, a criminal is not going to LIE? 

Some people believe it is up to the police to protect us. As a former police officer, I say this is a false premise. Policemen usually respond after the crime and do follow-up work to catch the perpetrator.

 Others believe in more restrictive gun laws and still others believe in an outright ban on them. You’ve seen the signs in America. It’s a picture of a gun encircled with a line slashed through it. They are everywhere. These signs are in schools, churches, hospitals, government buildings, and businesses. They’re supposed to represent a universal message stating that No Guns Are Allowed i.e. a ‘Gun Free’ zone on the premises. Yet in the criminal mind it represents a place where there will be little or no resistance, in other words a Shooting Gallery, because criminals do not care about laws.

In Norway the police were unable to get to the shooting site while it was occurring, because they did not have a boat or helicopter. In the Virginia Tech shooting the Media and a number of heavily armed police officers were on campus as seen in the video when the shootings were occurring, because you could hear the gunshots coming from inside the school at that time. Nevertheless, having more policemen on the scene as seen in the News video did not prevent Cho from murdering those innocent people.

The restrictive gun laws in Norway did not prevent the massacre from happening. Being a gun free zone did not stop the massacre as in Virginia Tech. There are EVIL people in the world who mean us harm. People need to be able to defend themselves from these evildoers. If the people in Norway or the students at Virginia Tech were armed the carnage may have been limited or at least they would have had a chance to protect themselves and possibly take out the shooter. 

 People have a God given right to be able to protect themselves and their family. I say they have a duty to do so. This means people should be able to arm themselves anywhere. These rights are protected under the Second Amendment of the Constitution in America, however several countries in the UN, as well as FOOLS like Representative Carolyn McCarthy do NOT think so. That is why Patriotic Americans need to stand up and fight for the right to protect themselves and their family. 

Who are the ADULTS

On July 29, 2011 Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer (the Three Stooges) held a Press conference after the US House passed the Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill. They said the Boehner Bill was tabled by a bi-partisan vote 59-41, because it is a catastrophe and would roil the markets. The six Republicans were: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

 They touted they were the adults in the room and this was a serious matter. They claimed Reid’s bill was the adult bill and must be passed for the sake of the country; all the while they were grinning and snickering during the Press conference. So, who are the ADULTS? And what was so FUNNY? The majority of the American people do not think this is a laughing matter.

 They talked about the need to ‘compromise,’ however a Statists’ definition of ‘compromise’ is doing it their way.  They said there should be an up or down vote on raising the Debt Ceiling. Ironically, Harry Reid and the Statists did not do an up or down vote on Boehners Bill. They also emphasized that Boehner’s Bill was voted to be tabled on a bi-partisan vote and that is why the Republicans should go along with the Reid Bill. Yet, when Obamacare was rammed through there was bi-partisan opposition to it in the House. So why did Reid then proceed to do parliamentary procedures (trickery) to get Obamacare passed?

They said the Republican’s were playing politics and the Debt Ceiling has to be raised. They justified it by saying it has been raised in the past. Yet, in 2006 Barack Hussein Obama and all the other Democrat/Statists voted against raising the debt ceiling. They were right then for the wrong reason, because I guess it’s alright for them to play politics. The debt debate should have been handled then but wasn't.


Why have debt ceilings?  A debt ceiling is supposed to force Congress to spend within their means; yet what good is it if every time it is reached the Statists vote to increase it?  This country has a spending problem, which has been exacerbated since the Democrat Statist’s and Obama had the power.


The Tea Party caucus was sent to Washington to change the way things are done in Washington. Nevertheless, the Tea Party caucus is being vilified by Obama, the Democrat/Statist’s, RINO’s and the so- called Mainstream Media as being intransigent and unwilling to compromise. The Tea Party caucus is trying to do the responsible thing and get control of the National debt. Therefore, it is the Tea Party caucus who ARE the ADULTS in the room.    

Be Careful What You Wish For

Barack Hussein Obama and other Statists are talking about invoking the 14^th Amendment claiming it gives the President the authority to raise the Debt Ceiling and by-pass Congress. I guess they are referring to Section 4 of the Amendment which states: …The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned…


Who is questioning the validity of the debt? No one. Many people are questioning the amount of debt and the need to cut spending. The debt has been incurred and needs to be paid. The Government has the money to pay the debts that would not cause a default without raising the debt ceiling.


I am not an attorney, however I can read and I do not see where in the 14^th Amendment it gives the President the authority to by-pass Congress and raise the Debt Ceiling on his own. We are not living in a Dictatorship, at least not yet.


Nevertheless, since Obama and the Statists want to invoke the Constitution they may want to check out the following: Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment states: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It is considered an Act of Treason to give aid and comfort to our enemies. The Obama Regime has been funding the Taliban and wants to fund the Muslim Brotherhood. The Taliban and the   Muslim Brotherhood are enemies of the United States. The Muslim Brotherhood is a mortal enemy of our civilization. Their slogan says so openly, their way is Jihad, and their method is death. The Muslim Brotherhood calls for a “Civilization-Jihadist Process,” in which they would destroy the Western civilization from within.  Nevertheless, Barack Hussein Obama has opened formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and wants to support them with $3 billion.  

Therefore, wouldn’t this act be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy and considered an act of Treason?   Wouldn’t Obama be violating his oath of office he swore to, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution? After all, the primary responsibility of Government is to protect its citizens from its enemies. Furthermore, the Constitution specifically states the President can be impeached for an act of Treason. If Obama decides to go through with supporting our enemy, The Muslim Brotherhood, will Congress have the COURAGE to impeach him?  

James Madison & the KISS Principle

Apparently, James Madison believed in the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) Principle when it came to governing, because he wrote in Federalist 62: … “The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.”