Saturday, February 16, 2013

Are you Catholic? ... Are you ready to get burnt? ...literally!

While Muslims can be protected in the United States even after murdering and beheading people (Note: Not once do they [the media] mention that the perpetrators are Muslim), Muslims in Nigeria can get away with burning numerous Catholics while they're still alive...and not one word from your favorite American newscaster... Is this just another Obamanation?  Lets face it, Obama is not only a Muslim sympathizer, he practices what they preach, he lies like a Muslim, and he defends their right to practice what they preach...and they preach lies!  So now we have a story out of Nigeria, one of Obama's favorite places, where numerous Catholics are literally burnt alive and not one peep from the guy who never had a real job and accumulated semester hours from Columbia University yet never set foot on campus ←in case you didn't know, he was living in that Muslim country called Pakistan...
Meanwhile, the picture you're about to see (if they haven't already deleted it) is pretty gruesome but you need to see it because this is their (the Muslims) goal not only here in the United States, but world-wide, if you're Catholic, get ready to be burnt...literally!  ~  Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following: News With Views
by Dr. Laurie Roth

Shameful U.S. media is asleep at the wheel again

I was gut punched and reminded yet again of the horrifying truth of Islam and its tactics worldwide. Thanks to Ruth White the fearless editor and publisher of BreakingNewsJournal I saw the photo below of those burned alive simply for not being Muslim and practicing a different faith.
Father Jaun Carlos Martos commented: “This is a brutal example of how far the struggle between Muslims and Catholics in Nigeria has reached. Muslims determined to impose their ‘religion’ all over Africa as well as in other continents and countries of the world have but one goal: rule the world at any cost!”
Ruth White tried to get the truth out of this International hate crime but was stunned at the response, basically nothing. She then trying to post the photo on Facebook but that didn’t work either. The photo was classified as ‘pornographic’ ‘violent’ or ‘inappropriate’, thus she was not allowed to publish it to provide proof of the unbelievable human rights violations going on as we speak in Nigeria. It is genocide against Christians of all kinds and where is the U.N?
Face book and others in media talk ‘porn’ and ‘violence.’ Funny how that happens when Muslims burn Catholic churchgoers alive. 3rd degree burns, bloody flesh and melting eyes, ears and noses tend to look and smell nasty!!! It is unbelievable to our eyes and ears but it happened and continues all around the world in the name of Islam and the Jihad mission to wipe out the Infidels. Do you get yet some of you ‘polite’ and ‘careful’ type morons?
The guts of Islam IS evil and murderous no matter how many peaceful posers are walking through its halls amongst those pushing the international Caliphate and murderous ‘cleansing’ of the world.
I agree with Ruth White in her anger and horror regarding this. Where is the U.S. media? Where is the outraged and horrified U.N. and every human rights group on earth??? Don’t talk to me about ugly. Islam and the push for worldwide domination and executions is the definition of pornographic, ugly and violent, yet all we here is ‘Islamaphobia’ ‘redoing of our curriculum in school to convert our children’ and ‘special rights for growing Muslim madness.’ Is it a hate crime to smell the burning flesh in the air and notice the screaming?
It is the alleged ‘religion of peace Islam’ that should take leadership in harshly and loudly screaming their rebuke of this murderous genocide in Nigeria. Islamics should be screaming out against this and demanding media attention. Instead there is tacit support by their sick silence. I bet you more than a few Catholics and Christians in Nigeria are ‘Islamaphobic today.’
Look at the picture above and let it sink in. I hope your stomach turns and you wake up to the evil of Islam against Christians and Jews.
I would love to talk with any of you further about this on my show. Join me each day on my national radio show as we tackle these and other issues. You can listen on line live from 7-10pm PAC at You can also listen to archives for free.
© 2013 Dr. Laurie Roth - All Rights Reserved

In other news...

Obama is telling us his State of the Union show is a crock...and he knows it!

Current Trend By Norman E. Hooben
Source: NRO
Achieve Ye This Goal
by Mark Stein

I’m also issuing a new goal for America,” declared President Obama at his State of the Union on Tuesday. We’ll come to the particular “goal” he “issued” momentarily, but before we do, consider that formulation: Did you know the president of the United States is now in the business of “issuing goals” for his subjects to live up to?
Strange how the monarchical urge persists even in a republic two-and-a-third centuries old. Many commentators have pointed out that the modern State of the Union is in fairly obvious mimicry of the Speech from the Throne that precedes a new legislative session in British Commonwealth countries and continental monarchies, but this is to miss the key difference. When the Queen or her viceroy reads a Throne Speech in Westminster, Ottawa, or Canberra, it’s usually the work of a government with a Parliamentary majority: In other words, the stuff she’s announcing is actually going to happen. That’s why, lest any enthusiasm for this or that legislative proposal be detected, the apolitical monarch overcompensates by reading everything in as flat and unexpressive a monotone as possible. Underneath the ancient rituals — the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod getting the door of the House of Commons slammed in his face three times — it’s actually a very workmanlike affair.
The State of the Union is the opposite. The president gives a performance, extremely animatedly, head swiveling from left-side prompter to right-side prompter, continually urging action now: “Let’s start right away. We can get this done. . . . We can fix this. . . . Now is the time to do it. Now is the time to get it done.” And at the end of the speech, nothing gets done, and nothing gets fixed, and, after a few days’ shadowboxing between admirers and detractors willing to pretend it’s some sort of serious legislative agenda, every single word of it is forgotten until the next one.
In that sense, like BeyoncĂ© lip-synching the National Anthem at the inauguration, the State of the Union embodies the decay of America’s political institutions into a simulacrum of responsible government rather than the real thing, and a simulacrum ever more divorced from the real issues facing the country. “Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion,” said the president. Really? Who knew? “Now we need to finish the job.” Just one more push is all it’ll take.
What’s he on about? The annual “deficit” has been over a trillion for every year of Obama’s presidency. The cumulative deficits have, in fact (to use a quaint expression), increased the national debt by $6 trillion. Yet Obama claims Washington has “reduced the deficit” by $2.5 trillion and all we need to do is “finish the job.” Presumably this is a reference to allegedly agreed deficit reductions over the next decade, or quarter-century, or whatever. In other words, Obama has saved $2.5 trillion of Magical Fairyland money, which happily frees him up to talk about the really critical issues like high-speed rail and green-energy solutions. These concepts, too, exist mainly in Magical Fairyland: If you think Obama-approved taxpayer-funded “high-speed rail” means you’ll be able to board a train that goes at French or Japanese speeds, I’ve a high-speed rail bridge to Brooklyn to sell you.
Take, for example, the “goal” Obama “issued”: “Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.” What does that even mean? How would you even know when you’ve accomplished that “goal”? What percentage of energy used by my home and business is “wasted”? In what sense? Who says? Who determines that? Is it 37 percent? Twenty-three percent? So we’re going to cut it down to 18.5 per cent or 11.5 percent by 2033, is that the “goal”?
Barack Obama is not the first president to “issue” “goals.” John F. Kennedy also did, although he was more mindful of the constitutional niceties:
“This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”
That’s a goal! No wiggle room. A monkey on the moon won’t count, nor an unmanned drone. We need an actual living American standing on the surface of the moon holding Old Glory by December 31, 1969.
Whoever’s writing Obama’s speeches these days either has a tin ear — you don’t “issue” goals, you set them — or he has a very refined sense of the ersatz nature of contemporary political discourse. Old-school monarchs issued “edicts.” One thinks of King Charles the Bald in his Edict of Pistres in a.d. 864, announcing among other things that henceforth selling a horse to a Viking would be punishable by death. No doubt the odd equine transaction slipped through the regulatory net, but historians seem to agree that the sale of mounts to Norsemen certainly diminished. And more to the point his courtiers would have thought Charles the Bald was an even bigger schmuck than they already did if, instead of an edict, he was issuing a new goal to reduce the sale of horses to Vikings by 50 percent by the year 884.
These days, the edicts are issued by commissars deep in the bowels of the hyper-regulatory state, and most of them are, like King Charles, a little too bald in their assumptions of government power to be bandied in polite society. So, in public, the modern ruler issues goals, orders dreams, commands unicorns. People seem to like this sort of thing. No accounting for taste, but there we are. “America moves forward only when we do so together,” declared the president. I dunno. Maybe it’s just me, but the whole joint seems to be seizing up these days: The more “activist” Big Government gets, the more inactive the nation at large.
But the president’s sonorous, gaseous banalities did serve notice that the Republicans don’t want to get too far behind on his “goals.” He’s right that Washington “moves forward” like a pantomime horse lurching awkwardly across the stage and with the Republicans always playing the rear end. A “bipartisan” agreement means that the Democrats get what they want now and Republicans at some distant far-off date. Try it: New taxes and government programs now, alleged deficit reduction of $2.5 trillion a decade hence. Illegal-immigrant amnesty now, alleged rigorous border enforcement the day after tomorrow. Washington has settled into a comfortable pattern: instant gratification for spending binges that do nothing for any of the problems they purport to be solving assuaged by meaningless commitments to start the twelve-step program next year, or next decade, or next century. No other big spender among the advanced democracies lies to itself about the gulf between its appetites and its self-discipline.
“Tonight, let’s declare,” declared the president, “that in the wealthiest nation on earth . . . ” Whoa, hold it right there. The “wealthiest nation on earth” is actually the Brokest Nation in History. But don’t worry: “Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.”
“Should”? Consciously or not, the president is telling us his State of the Union show is a crock, and he knows it. Under Magical Fairyland budgeting, Obama-sized government “shouldn’t” increase our debt. Yet mysteriously it does. Every time. Because, in a political culture institutionally incapable of course correction, that’s just the way it is.
Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2013 Mark Steyn
See also: Pundit & Pundette The faux must go on

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Dead People some places!

See video below.
If you think that voter fraud does not exist, you're naive as dodo bird...and that's putting it bluntly.  Of course all the  naivetĂ© folks are not here reading this.  That's because they're controlled by the politic elite and they see no need to read about their corrupt ways.  The controllers (aka Eric Holder and company) will take care of things.  Nobody that I know of cares a rat's tail that I've personally witnessed voter irregularities (I was an official ballot observer on more than one more than one state) and the reason is that nothing ever gets done to correct and/or prevent the wrong doing.  Did you know that its physically impossible to trace a person's vote once the ballot has been cast...there is no identification on the ballot, so how are you going to know who voted...maybe the voter who cast the ballot was dead.  Why are so many dead people still on the voter registration rolls?  In the video below J. Christian Adams explains a lot about what's going on around the entire country but offers no foolproof solutions...but the presentation is worth viewing even if you're naive!  ~ Norman E. Hooben

Video courtesy of WND --- See the entire story here: Did Obama steal the 2012 election?

Millions of guns sold since Obama scare...Have you got yours?

Have you got yours?
65.4 Million Gun Purchases Since Obama Took Office, 91% More Than Bush's First-Term Total
February 11, 2013
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

There have been 65,376,373 background checks completed for Americans purchasing firearms since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama's presidency.
According to data compiled by the FBI, the number of Americans purchasing guns has skyrocketed since Obama was elected.
In 2009, there were 13,984,953 background checks for Americans buying firearms. If we subtract the 1,212,860 checks completed in the month of January, the total checks for the year under Obama were 12,772,090.
For 2010, background checks totaled 14,320,489. In 2011, checks were 16,336,732, and in 2012, 19,463,832. Background checks for the month of January 2013 were 2,483,230.
This totals 65,376,373 background checks completed since President Obama's first full month in office, or 44,748 background checks per day!
By comparison, the number of background checks in Obama's first term is 91.1% higher than President George W. Bush's first-term total of 34,214,066.

Chris Matthews has no black friends, employees or neighbors

"I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years." ~ President Lyndon B. Johnson

February 13, 2013

Liberals ignored my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama throughout the fall. Now that I'm safely home from my book tour, they feel free to jabber on about their make-believe history of the civil rights movement with abandon.

In the hackiest of all hacky articles, Sam Tanenhaus, the man responsible for ruining The New York Times Book Review, has written a cover story in The New Republic, titled: "Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people."

MSNBC has been howling this cliche for a decade -- or, as MSNBC's Chris Matthews said of Tanenhaus' article, "a bold headline"!

Being interviewed by a giddy Matthews -- who has no black friends, employees or neighbors -- Tanenhaus announced the startling fact that once, long ago, some Republicans supported civil rights!

"In the 1950s, as I say in the piece you read, Republicans looked pretty good on civil rights under Eisenhower. We had the Brown decision, the Central High in Little Rock, where he did the tough thing and sent the troops in, and we had the first modern civil rights act."

It wasn't a "tough" decision for Eisenhower to send troops to Little Rock in 1957.

In the presidential campaign the year before, the Republican platform had expressly endorsed the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Democratic platform did not.

To the contrary, that year, 99 members of Congress signed the "Southern Manifesto" denouncing the court's ruling in Brown. Two were Republicans. Ninety-seven were Democrats.

As president, Eisenhower pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act. He established the Civil Rights Commission. It was Eisenhower, not Truman, who fully desegregated the military.

Meanwhile, the Brown decision was being openly defied by the Democratic governor of Arkansas (and Bill Clinton pal), Orval Faubus, who refused to admit black students to Little Rock Central High School.

Liberals act as if Eisenhower's sending federal troops to Little Rock was like Nixon going to China. No, it was like Nixon going to California.

Only someone who knows no history could proclaim, as Tanenhaus did, that the 1957 act "wasn't great, it wasn't what LBJ gave us, but it was something."

If Eisenhower's 1957 civil rights bill was weak, it was because of one man: Lyndon B. Johnson. As Robert Caro explains in his book, "Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson," it was LBJ who stripped the bill of its enforcement provisions. Even after that, the bill was still opposed by 18 senators -- all of them Democrats.

To the easily astounded Chris Matthews, Tanenhaus breathlessly remarked, "Not one Republican voted against that bill!" -- as if the 1957 Civil Right Act was a Democratic idea and they were delighted to get any Republican support at all.

Imagine a modern German historian saying: "Remember -- it wasn't just Germans who opposed the Holocaust. The English and Americans did too!" Such a historian would be beaten bloody, quite rightly so.

The 1957 bill was sent to Congress by Eisenhower, passed with the intervention of Vice President Richard Nixon, and opposed exclusively by Democrats. Not "Southern Democrats," not "conservative Democrats," but Democrats, such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Joseph O'Mahoney of Wyoming.

With absolutely no evidence (because there is none), Tanenhaus then asserted that Republicans decided "they were not going to be pro-civil rights. ... They were going to side with the Southern oppressors." Cretin Matthews seconded this gibberish by saying Nixon was "playing the Southern Strategy electorally with Strom Thurmond and those boys."

Who exactly does Matthews imagine he means by "Strom Thurmond and those boys"? Every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.

The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats. These included such liberal luminaries as Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell.

Fulbright was Bill Clinton's mentor. Gore was "Al Jazeera" Gore's father. Sam Ervin headed Nixon's impeachment committee. The segregationists who were in the Senate in the '50s were rabid Joe McCarthy opponents. In the '60s, they opposed the Vietnam War and supported LBJ's Great Society programs. In the '90s, they got 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

These "Southern oppressors" were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they finally stopped being racists (in public). If Republicans had a racist "Southern strategy," it didn't work on the racists.

Nor did Nixon -- or Reagan -- ever win over segregationist voters. Republicans only began sweeping the South after the segregationists died.

Even as late as 1980, when Reagan won a 44-state landslide, the old segregationists were still voting Democrat. Although Reagan handily won Southern states that had been voting Republican since the '20s, he barely won -- or lost -- the Goldwater states.

According to numerous polls, Reagan swept Southern college students, while losing college students in the Northeast. Meanwhile, The Washington Post called the elderly "a bedrock of Carter's southern base."

As LBJ explained to fellow Democrats after doing a 180-flip on civil rights as president and pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which resembled the 1957 Civil Rights Act he had gutted as a senator): "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years." That's according to a steward on Air Force One, who overhead him say it.

It's one thing to rewrite history to say the Holocaust was when the Swedes killed the Jews. But it's another to say that the Holocaust was when Jews killed the Germans.

That's how liberals rewrite the history of civil rights in America. For the truth, get Mugged .

1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Welocome home soldier...welcome home!

Source: God Fruits  Video via YouTube
Applause for the New Waiter! Returning Soldier Turns Food Server to Surprise Wife!
Another returning armed forces member, another creative surprise! This time the wife and family are just having a normal meal in a restaurant, when the new “waiter” delivers the food! Wow! Then all the customers join in to applaud the precious reunion!

Man's best friend saves man!

This is an amazing story...
Man Frozen and Flatlined in Blizzard — But His Dog Wouldn’t Give Up on Him!
Everything about this true story is amazing. Milwaukee area resident Ted and his beloved Buddy get stuck in a blizzard, and Ted collapses face-down in snow. Buddy runs for help. Then Ted — with a body temperature of 68 degrees and no heartbeat — is unconscious for days… Watch what happens when Buddy visits the hospital! Sent by God!

Click on any of the underlined links.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Obamacare’s solution to our health care problems...Tens of thousands of new government employees will be needed to make sure all the new rules are being followed and all the new taxes are being paid.

Source: Tony Phyrillas

Guest column: Regulatory Mess Left By Obamacare
By Congressman Joe Pitts
Scientists are discovering new planets in other solar systems at an amazing pace. Some of these planets are even the same size as Earth and may be in a similar orbit. Perhaps we’ll even find a planet orbiting our nearest neighbor, Proxima Centauri. If we could build a spacecraft just a little faster than current technology, it would take around 14,000 years to get there.
The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that the combined time to comply with all the new regulations under Obamacare is 127,602,371 hours… or around 14,000 years. Of course, that burden isn’t just on a single person, but it’s a potent illustration of just how much time American families, businesses and health care providers will be spending to follow all the new rules.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is working together with two other committees to track the burden of these regulations as they are announced. By the time the regulators are through there might enough hours to get back from Proxima Centauri.
The health care law runs more than 2,000 pages. While that might seem like some heavy reading, the legislative language only loosely describes how Obamacare is supposed to work. Most of the details about how the programs, boards and bureaucracies are supposed to do their job is done through the regulatory process.
So far this process has been anything but smooth. The law sets deadlines for the implementation of programs, new taxes and reporting requirements. Just a few months after the law was signed, deadlines were already being missed.

This is bad news for those who have to prepare to comply with the law. One of the biggest deadlines is for opening of health care exchanges. The federal government was hoping that states would shoulder much of the burden of opening up and operating these exchanges.
The keystone regulation of the health care exchanges is the rules for the essential minimum benefits — the items every health insurance plan needs to cover in order to continue operating. The political problem the White House faced with this rule is that it would make it clear just how much more health insurance would cost under Obamacare. Heading into the election, the President didn’t want bad news about how much more Americans would be paying because of his policies.
Now with these regulations starting to role out, state governments and health insurers have little time prepare for the opening of exchanges in October of this year. Some state governments have wisely decided that they shouldn’t commit to operating what is essentially a federal government program. Even those states that have committed to running an exchange are finding it difficult to get answers out of the federal government.
When the regulatory process is finally complete, states and insurers will have to work their way through a mountain of paperwork. This means hiring more employees and spending more money on new technology. In California alone, the government may need to hire more than 21,000 employees to help people navigate the new exchanges.
Business owners and health providers will also face a new mountain of paperwork to comply with Obamacare. For businesses, they must file additional tax forms either proving that their current insurance meets standards, or paying the new fine for going without insurance.
Hospitals and doctors will now have additional reporting requirements. This means more time away from patients for physicians. It also means hiring more employees who have nothing to do with providing care.

Obamacare’s solution to our health care problems is Washington-centric. Tens of thousands of new government employees will be needed to make sure all the new rules are being followed and all the new taxes are being paid.
Bureaucracy doesn’t cure the sick. Instead, more paperwork requirements create government jobs, when what we need are quality private sector jobs that create economic growth. The President said his plan would reduce costs and make it easier to purchase insurance. So far, all we’ve seen are rising costs and increasing government burdens.
Bureaucracy doesn’t cure the sick. Instead, more paperwork requirements create government jobs, when what we need are quality private sector jobs that create economic growth. The President said his plan would reduce costs and make it easier to purchase insurance. So far, all we’ve seen are rising costs and increasing government burdens.