This is the wildest. Remember the video of that great patriot telling folks to protect the constitution and take back America? 
Obama calls this kind of talk disturbing, perhaps because he is a disturbed progressive Liberal with communist leanings.
This brings me to my next subject, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. I know, I can hear the Liberal teeth grinding, and the Media lies expanding as I write, but trust me its to no avail I’m saying it anyway!

Scott Walker is the greatest example of a near perfect leader, who sees like no other the great damage that private sector Unions cause in America. They leach BILLIONS from taxpayers to give it to well feed members at the expense of America’s freedom to be great.

“Everything You Know About Unions Is Wrong: 12 Labor Union Myths”


  Unions work to ensure a level playing field for employees.


  Unions advocate for laws which tilt the playing field in ways that are unfair to both employers and employees. 

Those laws often impair economic growth and innovation, as well as destroy the freedom to contract, according to Randall G. Holcombe and James D. Gwartney, economics professors at Florida State University.

Over time, these labor laws actually cause a shift in employment from union jobs to nonunion jobs. In fact, research shows that the growth of labor unions during the Great Depression actually increased unemployment. Unions are still destroying jobs today.

“In the short run, because labor law has given to unions an advantage in the bargaining process, union contracts have had the effect of increasing the wages and benefits of union workers,” they wrote.

“In the long run, the higher cost of union labor brought on by those union contracts has resulted in a steady decline in private sector unionism, and has eroded U.S. manufacturing in unionized industries — most visibly, the railroad and auto industries.”


  Unions bargain on behalf of their members to get employees the wages and benefits they deserve.


  Unions “bargain” with the guns of government in hand, to get employees more wages and benefits than they deserve, with a little for themselves on the side. 

By crawling in bed with government to pass laws which benefited the unions at the expense of employers — and, in the long run, employees — union leaders have drained American businesses dry.

The long, slow decline of private sector unions reflects the economic destruction they left in their wake as they searched for fresh blood to leech. And today they’ve found the biggest source yet, the government.

Armand Thieblot, an economic consultant who has written books on union corruption and violence, writes:

“When Samuel Gompers, then head of the American Federation of Labor, was asked in the early 1920s what unions wanted, he famously replied, “More.” At the time, everyone correctly understood that unions’ targets were the capitalists from whom additional wages and benefits would be wrested by force, and also that if unions were successful, capitalists would have to be content with “Less,” thus, just a transfer of economic rents within the system from one factor to another.

By the 1980s and 1990s, however, when unorganized capitalists had become thin on the ground and those already organized had mostly been rendered uncompetitive by past concession to union demands, unions’ new guiding trope became “More government.” To achieve it, unions became mordantly political. In economic terms, after unions had absorbed all of the readily available economic rents from their capitalist opponents, they have turned to seeking rents from new sources beyond the system — from the polity at large (from taxpayers), using government as the intermediary.”


  Project labor agreements reduce project costs and delays and are good for construction workers as a whole.

Project labor agreements increase costs and only help union workers. 

PLAs are agreements between construction project owners and unions that contractors on the project must use union labor, even if they otherwise would not. David G. Tuerck, economics professor and chair at Suffolk University, cites numerous examples of how nonunion workers were harmed when they worked under PLAs, “first by forcing them to pay twice for benefits already offered their workers and second by forcing pay cuts on their workers.”

Then, unions use veiled threats to “labor peace” to intimidate project owners into accepting PLAs for “job stability.” Further, PLAs increased costs for every project studied which used them, sometimes as much as 20 percent.

“PLAs are motivated by a desire on the part of the construction unions to shore up the declining union wage premium against technological changes and other changes that make traditional union work rules and job designations obsolescent,” Tuerck writes. “Now the PLA has evolved into an instrument that the unions employ in tandem with the prevailing wage laws in order to reduce the competitive advantage of nonunion contractors.”


  Prevailing wage laws are good for competition, improve safety and quality, and help train new workers.


  Prevailing wage laws stifle competition, have no effect on job safety and quality, and do nothing to help train new workers. 

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, signed into law by President Herbert Hoover, mandates that on federal construction projects, workers be paid the so-called “prevailing wage” for similar local workers. In practice, the wage is set far higher than the actual prevailing wage, closely mirroring union pay scales. This virtually locks out nonunion construction workers from federal contracts.

George C. Leef, director of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, finds that all of the arguments for prevailing wage laws fail to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Worse, the Davis-Bacon Act was racially motivated:

“The hearings and debate on the legislation revealed some ugly racial overtones with comments on how ‘cheap colored labor’ was driving down wages of white workers.” Robert Bacon originally proposed the bill because he was upset that a construction firm from outside his district, employing black workers, built a veterans’ hospital in his district.


  Organized labor has worked to promote racial equality.


  Unions have used racial discrimination as a tool to enrich themselves, and continue to do so today. 

In 2008, Richard Trumka, who is now the president of the AFL-CIO, said, “We know, better than anyone else, how racism is used to divide working people.” He should, because the unions have been doing it for their entire existence, and still are, as Paul Moreno, history professor at Hillsdale College, illustrates.

It isn’t — and probably never was — the employers oppressing the black, or the Chinese, or the Hispanic people. Most employers, as it turns out, really are color blind, as Martin Luther King, Jr., noted in 1957:

“With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will necessarily pass away. Moreover, southerners are learning to be good businessmen, and as such realize that bigotry is costly and bad for business.”

As racism goes, unions made the KKK look like amateurs. Big Labor lobbied for, and got, special laws to make them completely immune for whatever they did — all the way up to outright murder. In United States v. Enmons, in 1973, the Supreme Court held that unions were immune from prosecution under the Hobbs Act if their violent acts were in furtherance of a “valid union objective.”

And Trumka?

He talked a good game about ending racism in organized labor, but whether anything will change remains to be seen.


Unions help preserve manufacturing jobs.


  Unions were a contributing factor in the decline of American manufacturing, especially in the automobile industry. 

Detroit makes a great example. At the start of the 20th century, Detroit was a boom town and its manufacturing jobs were paying 33 percent above the national average. Union organizers brought their message of capitalist greed and exploitation to already highly paid auto workers, where it largely fell on deaf ears. Until the Great Depression, when union organizers used a variety of underhanded tactics to force automakers, steel plants and other manufacturers to unionize.

(Interestingly, Henry Ford at the time threatened to break up his company rather than submit to union demands; he finally gave in when his wife threatened to leave him.)

Stephen J.K. Walters, economics professor at Loyola, explains what happened next. Companies, squeezed hard and struggling to survive, would move their operations out of Detroit and other cities, and later, out of the country entirely.


Public sector unions work for the general prosperity of their members and all Americans.


  Public sector unions dramatically increase the cost of government to unsustainable levels. 

The cost of employee wages and benefits accounts for half of the $2.2 trillion that state and local governments spent in 2008, and that number is set to grow dramatically as employees retire and generous pension packages kick in. Though, calling them generous is an understatement.

Moreover, according to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, those pension obligations are grossly underfunded, which will make the fiscal crisis even more acute this decade.

Businesses can and do mitigate the inefficiencies of a unionized workplace, but governments are much more constrained and have less incentive to do so, driving up taxpayer costs even further.

And public sector unions use their large war chests to buy influence and protection. “So the problem with public sector unions is not just that they block compensation reforms, but that use their privileged status to control broader policy debates.”

Myth: Right-to-work laws harm employees and prevent employers from freely contracting with unions.

Fact: Right-to-work laws improve the economy, and employers freely contracting with unions is prohibited by the Wagner Act. 

That Act forces employers to bargain with unions “in good faith,” which is interpreted to mean that employers must capitulate to virtually every demand of the unions or be accused of acting in bad faith.

This is hardly freedom of contract. Right-to-work laws mitigate, but do not entirely fix, this problem.

I have some experience with this, since I once worked in a non-right-to-work state and was forced to join the union. I would rather have negotiated my own terms; I’d likely have gotten a better deal.

It seems many Americans agree, as millions of them have moved from non-right-to-work states to right-to-work states in the last decade, a migration that shows no signs of stopping. Richard Vedder, economics professor at Ohio University, found that both predictive models and real world evidence show that right-to-work states experience more economic growth than non-right-to-work states.


  Labor unions support trade liberalization because it lowers the prices of goods that workers buy.


  This used to be true, but today’s labor unions oppose trade liberalization. 

They believe that increasing globalization has directly led to the decline of their unions, and thus their power. This isn’t exactly true, according to Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.

“Although the evidence is lacking to implicate globalization as a whole, two aspects of the trend have been found to have significant negative effects on labor unions: inward foreign direct investment (FDI), and ‘social integration’ across borders.”

When foreign companies invest in the U.S., companies here realize that they can also invest in other countries. “The correlation of FDI and declining rates of union density suggests that ‘many workers feel greater insecurity from seeing capital mobility in their sectors, even if not in their own particular firms,’ Slaughter (2007: 344–45) concluded.”

And social globalization, “the spread of ideas, information, images and people,” a natural result of advances in communications and transportation, “reinforces what Dresher and Gaston (2007: 176) call a ‘growing normative orientation towards individuals rather than collectivism [which] makes collective organization more difficult.’ 

Adding to the trends are rising levels of immigration and perceptions of younger workers who view unions as old-fashioned and anachronistic institutions.”


  Paying workers higher wages will reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy.

Fact: The “high-wage doctrine” increases unemployment and drags down the economy. 

This doctrine originated with a 1921 report that Hoover commissioned while he was Secretary of Commerce dealing with what was, in retrospect, a minor recession.

In addition to recommending higher wages, the report also said that government spending (now known as the stimulus package) can help the country recover from a recession. Neither is true, of course, and the report might have been completely forgotten had Hoover not become President. He put his disastrous ideas into practice, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Worse, proponents of these theories, which John Maynard Keynes gleefully signed on to, are more concerned with theories than facts, according to Lowell E. Gallaway, economics professor at Ohio University. That’s just a polite way of saying they’re full of crap. Galloway writes:

In the intellectual world, the high-wage doctrine continues to have its appeal. Prior to his appointment as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, collaborating with Martin Parkinson, noted:

“Maybe Herbert Hoover and Henry Ford were right. Higher real wages may have paid for themselves in the broader sense that their positive effect on aggregate demand compensated for their tendency to raise costs” (Bernanke and Parkinson 1989: 214).

More recently, Paul Krugman reiterated this view in a New York Times oped (3 May 2009), arguing, “Many workers are accepting pay cuts in order to save jobs.” He then asks, “What’s wrong with that?”

His answer refers to what he calls “one of those paradoxes that plague our economy right now . . . workers at any one company can help save their jobs by accepting lower wages, but when employers across the economy cut wages at the same time, the result is higher unemployment.” This is simply a reprise of Klein’s (1947) views.

Never mind the existence of more than a century of empirical evidence to the contrary. Krugman’s concern is not with the empirical problem, but with the theoretical connection between wage rates and employment.

The high-wage doctrine still lives. In all probability, this persistent adherence to an incorrect doctrine once again will prove to be detrimental to the U.S. economy, just as it was in the 1930s.


  Unions currently operate in a free market.


Unions are heavily dependent on the government to provide them unfair leverage over employers and control over their members. 

It is possible for unions to exist and provide valuable services to their members in a market free of government-sponsored violence and control, but those services would likely have to be geared toward helping employees improve themselves, rather than extracting undeserved compensation from employers.

Charles W. Baird, professor emeritus of economics at California State University, East Bay, examines what constitutes a free market, how existing labor laws destroy freedom, and what a union might look like in a true free market. It won’t happen any time soon, though, he says:

“It is politically impossible, at this time in America, to repeal the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act and replace them with any sort of free-market union law. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to prepare the ground now for doing so in some future, more enlightened time.”

If you’re wondering why you’re out of a job, why Detroit is a wasteland, and why the economy is on the verge of collapse, don’t be so quick to blame Wall Street: Some of the blame belongs to the labor unions.

[“AFL-CIO building, Washington, D.C.” photo by Derek Blackadder; CC BY-SA 2.0]

  “The whole process is pretty unusual. We had one of the local affiliates here [reporting] about someone signing it, proudly saying they signed 80 different recall petitions,” Walker said on “Fox and Friends.” “As we see it, you should only be able to sign it once and only once, and it should be for a legal citizen.”

Not if your a Progressive Liberal, they can cheat, steal and get away with most Illegal stuff simply because of ‘Rules for Radicals’ protocols and the fact that Unions rule supreme, the ends justify the means so the rules are like water to them, they shift whenever it suits them.

“If we fail, I think it sets back courage in government by at least 10 years and maybe a generation. People will be too afraid to do the hard things.” -Gov. Walker

If the American people do not put their foot down on the necks of these Union thugs soon, it will be to late to stop it. They are trying to gain control of private sector Jobs to the point there will be no more freedom for employers to hire or fire based upon BAD BEHAVIOR and that means a more dangerous world for the rest of us!

The FACTS about Governor Walker’s Responsible Budget Repair Plan, this man should get an award!


The current state of affairs is not a sustainable one for maxed-out taxpayers footing the bill. The average Wisconsin state employee compensation (salary and fringe benefits) in 2010-11 was $76,500. Employee salary and fringe benefits comprises more than 60% of state government general fund operating costs. The average Wisconsin teacher compensation (salary and fringe benefits) in 2009-10 was $74,844. (Source: Department of Public Instruction website)


But the cost to taxpayers keeps growing. Wisconsin taxpayers pay over $1 billion per year for state government employee health insurance; more than double what was paid only 10 years ago. But employees themselves pay only 6% of that amount.


Big savings are needed to fill a big hole this fiscal year. Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill contains more than $30 million in savings over a three month period by requiring state employees to contribute to their pension and health care benefits.


Public protections for state employees will remain. Wisconsin’s statutory civil service laws, among the strongest in the nation, will remain in force to ensure Wisconsin can maintain a professional and experienced state workforce. In addition, employee sick leave, vacation, and retirement benefits will remain unchanged.


Fundamental reforms are needed for a sustainable path forward. While pension and health care contributions are a vital part of solving our current deficit problems, the long-term structural problems facing the state and local governments cannot be solved without a fundamental reform of Wisconsin’s labor relations. 
As Governor Walker said today in a national press conference, in the past public union contracts have taken an average of 15 months to pass. With a $3 billion budget deficit, we don’t have that much time.


Simply requiring pension and health care contributions does nothing to solve crushing problems such as the Department of Corrections out-of-control overtime costs, the Madison bus driver making more than $150,000 per year, or the outstanding first year teacher who was laid off by MPS because she lacked seniority. The time is now to put Wisconsin on a sustainable path, and Governor Walker is the conservative leader to do it.


During tough times, Walker is protecting our most vulnerable citizens. As Department of Health Services Secretary Smith outlined in a memo on February 8, 2011, alternative plans to achieve the type of savings needed to balance the books would be dire.


Other alternatives would require:

–  Eliminating services for 194,539 children on Medical Assistance; or

–  Eliminating services for 92,599 adults on Medical Assistance; or

–  Eliminating services for 16,284 elderly, blind or disabled persons.

Walker is saving thousands of public employee jobs. To achieve similar savings in the state’s general fund over three months would require laying off more than 1,500 state employees. Governor Walker knows there have been enough layoffs across the state already – 250,000 Wisconsin jobs have been lost since the beginning of the recession.


No wage cuts, layoffs, or furloughs. Governor Walker said in an email to state employees that both the Budget Repair Bill and the 2011-13 Biennial Budget will contain no wage cuts, no layoffs, and no furloughs for state employees.


That’s right, no more furloughs. Walker’s sensible solutions effectively mean the 3% of state employee wages lost through Jim Doyle’s unpopular furloughs will offset the increased pension and health care contributions Governor Walker is asking of public employees to help balance the state’s budget.



These protestors should be the ones who show shame, supporting Communists and America haters over common sense Budget cuts! 

Americans scrambling to Bible to see previously untold parallels with today!

Old Testament prophecy
fulfilled before our eyes? Could it be true?
Or is it more bunk from wildly imaginative people? You be the judge!
Americans scrambling to Bible to see previously untold parallels with today

   The roots of a sycamore tree at Ground Zero felled on Sept. 11, 2001, have been preserved as a memorial to the event in New York City. A local messianic rabbi believes it’s a visible fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy about God’s current judgment on America.
What do sycamore and cedar trees have to do with biblical prophecy, the tragic events of 9/11 and the imminent future of the United States? 


Everything, according to a new book which says an obscure text from the Old Testament prophet Isaiah is an urgent wake-up call for all Americans in light of what happened on that fateful day in 2001.

“The Harbinger” by Jonathan Cahn, a messianic rabbi from the Jerusalem Center-Beth Israel Congregation in Wayne, N.J., deciphers stunning connections between what some may think is a cryptic biblical prophecy to the news events happening right now, in our current time.

Read “The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery That Holds the Secret of America’s Future” for yourself!

The key verse in question is Isaiah 9:10, which states: “The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.” (King James Version)

These words were first uttered by leaders in ancient Israel and in response to a limited strike by Assyria on the lands of Zebulun and Naphtali – an attack the prophet makes clear is actually part of a limited judgment by God against apostasy. It wasn’t meant to destroy the nation, but to awaken it, according to most commentaries.

Historically speaking, the northern kingdom of Israel did not repent of its rebellion against God’s commandments, and were eventually conquered and deported from their property by the ancient Assyrians. Eventually, the southern kingdom of Judah was also overcome by the Babylonians after the Jews refused to repent as well.

But in “The Harbinger,” Cahn shows uncanny similarities between what’s stated in Isaiah 9:10 to the 21st century events of 9/11 and the years afterward, suggesting America is currently under a time of focused judgment by Almighty God.

Cahn claims the part of the prophecy noting “The bricks are fallen down” refers directly to the crumbling of the World Trade Center in New York City, with the verse connoting on an attitude of defiance, a desire to rebuild with stronger materials instead of acknowledging the hand of God and moving toward national repentance.

The verse mentions sycamore and cedar trees, and it’s here that things start to get eerie with the terrorist attack involving planes that smashed into the Twin Towers, leading to their eventual crumbling.

“After the cloud of dust began to clear, police officers, rescue workers and onlookers gazed at the little plot of land at the edge of Ground Zero,” Cahn writes in “The Harbinger.”

“There in the middle of the ash and debris that covered the ground was a fallen tree. It would soon become a symbol of 9/11 and of Ground Zero. And it was a symbol … but one much more ancient than anyone there could have realized, and one carrying a message no one could have fathomed.”

“The tree at Ground Zero that was struck down on September 11 was a sycamore tree.”

Cahn notes that in Old Testament times, the Assyrians who attacked the ancient Israelites intended to cut down the sycamore trees belonging to God’s people. But the intention was not present with the hijackers of 2001.

“The terrorists had no idea of Isaiah 9:10, no idea of the Harbingers, no idea of the sycamore tree growing at the corner of Ground Zero, and no idea that their attack would cause it to fall or that its fall was connected to an ancient prophecy. They had no idea … but it still happened.”

Not only was a sycamore tree struck on 9/11, but it was replaced in the exact same location by another tree of the type mentioned in the original Hebrew, an “erez” tree, which is the same genus as the cedar.


The uprooted sycamore tree from Ground Zero was replaced by the “Tree of Hope,” a conifer tree which Rabbi Jonathan Cahn says fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 9:10. 

“The most natural thing to have done would have been to replace one sycamore with another,” Cahn writes. “But the prophecy required that the fallen sycamore be replaced with a tree of an entirely different nature. So the tree that replaced the sycamore of Ground Zero was likewise not a sycamore. According to the prophecy, the sycamore must be replaced by the biblical erez. So it must be replaced by a conifer tree.”

And that’s what took place in 2003, as a conifer tree, the “Tree of Hope” as it was called, was planted in the spot where the sycamore was slammed on 9/11.

“Think about it,” says Cahn. “Who could have put it all together? The tower fell because of the terrorists. It happened to fall exactly as it did in order to strike down that one particular tree. The tree just happened to be a sycamore, which just happened to be growing at the corner of Ground Zero.

“The tree that would replace it just happened to be given as a gift from outsiders who had nothing to do with anything else, but who just happened to feel led to give it. Their gift just happened to be the fulfillment of the biblical Erez Tree, which just happened to be the same tree spoken of in the ancient vow – the tree that must replace the Sycamore.

“They just happened to lower it into the same soil in that the fallen Sycamore had once stood – exactly as in the Hebrew of the ancient vow. And the man who led the ceremony around the tree just happened to bring it all together without knowing that he was bringing anything together. No one knew what they were doing. It wasn’t a matter of intent. It was a manifestation of the Harbingers.”

“The parallels are truly stunning,” says Joseph Farah, founder of WND, who is producing a video documentary about Cahn’s findings. “They are too numerous and too powerful to relate in news story form. In fact, they are overwhelming in their number and their exactitude. I am persuaded God is trying to tell America something and Rabbi Cahn has found the key to unlocking the message.”

As WND previously reported, two major American political figures actually voiced the Isaiah 9:10 prophecy in public in the immediate wake of the 9/11 onslaught.

“In the aftermath of the attack, the nation was stunned,” said Cahn, “Everyone was trying to make sense of what had happened – this unprecedented attack on America. The very next day, September 12, then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle presented America’s response to the world. And what did he say?”

Daschle said: “America will emerge from this tragedy as we have emerged from all adversity – united and strong. Nothing … nothing can replace the losses of those who have suffered. I know there is only the smallest measure of inspiration that can be taken from this devastation. But there is a passage in the Bible from Isaiah that speaks to all of us at times like this.”

He then went on to read Isaiah 9:10.

“Daschle has no idea what he is doing here,” explains Cahn. “He thinks he’s offering comforting words to a grief-stricken people, but he is actually embracing the spiritually defiant and arrogant words of the children of Israel, proclaiming the ancient and ominous vow of the leaders of that nation. He doesn’t realize it, but he is actually inviting more judgment on the nation.”

It might be of some significance that Daschle, one of the most powerful men in the nation when he spoke those words, later fell into disgrace – to the point where he couldn’t even serve in Barack Obama’s Cabinet.

That might have been the end of the story – if no other top leader in the nation uttered those strange and obscure words after 9/11. But that’s not the case.

On the third anniversary of the attack, Sept. 11, 2004, another powerful U.S. senator running for vice president that year and who would famously run for the presidency four years later, gave a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus.

This time, John Edwards’ entire speech was built on a foundation of Isaiah 9:10: “Today, on this day of remembrance and mourning, we have the Lord’s Word to get us through,” he said. He then read Isaiah 9:10. He went on to talk about how America was doing just that – rebuilding with hewn stone and planting cedars:

“Like Daschle, Edwards thinks he’s invoking inspirational and comforting words from the Bible, but he’s actually inviting judgment on America,” says Cahn. “He’s repeating the vow that provoked God to bring calamity on ancient Israel.”

Get Rabbi Jonathan Cahn’s “The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery That Holds the Secret of America’s Future.”

Related Offers:

Is 2012 a prophetic year? Get Mark Hitchcock’s “2012, The Bible and the End of the World” – on sale for just $9.35.

Patrick Heron offers an overview of the endtimes in “Apocalypse Soon,” on sale for $12.99

Want to learn about prophecy by watching it? Get the “Apocalypse and the End Times” video

No matter when the end comes, find out what the Bible says is your true, incredibly glorious and immortal destiny that most churches never even mention in this autographed No. 1 best-seller, “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told”

Interested in Bibles and books to help you with Bible study? WND has an entire section of its Superstore dedicated to learning God’s Holy Word

Check out more offerings on this subject in the WND Superstore religion department

An example of progressive Cowardice: This is why you vote these idiots out!

Joint House/Senate Homeland Security Committee Hearing on Radical Islam’s Terror Threat to U.S. Military Communities


Wednesday Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) opened a hearing to examine the emerging threat to the military from homegrown terrorists within the U.S. and named the armed services as the “most sought-after” target for radical Islamist extremist groups.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R.-Calif.) asked Paul Stockton, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, whether “we are at war with violent Islamist extremism.”
Listen to this COWARD try to side step the obvious question of “Are we at war with RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM” Why in the world can he not answer YES? I’ll tell you why, this administration is friendly with them in a way that makes me and should make you sick! This reason alone is reason enough to get these mad-men out of their respective offices.

To accompany the hearing, Chairman King released a Congressional Majority Investigative Report, also entitled,

“Homegrown Terrorism:
The Threat to Military Communities inside the United States.”
 The report offers numerous details on the dangers faced by our military and their families on U.S. soil, noting,

“The Department of Defense considers the U.S. Homeland the most dangerous place for a G.I. outside of foreign warzones – and the top threat they face here is from violent Islamist extremists.

 While our troops at overseas bases train their weapons outward to prevent armed enemies from getting “inside the wire,” one way militant Islamists are penetrating our defenses is through enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces.
A significant and growing number of military personnel, such as alleged Fort Hood mass murderer Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, pose a serious danger to their brothers and sisters in arms who wear the same uniform.”

 It would seem to me that in Washington DC, cowardice is the operative word. It would be high time this time around that we as Americans would finally see that these kind of people do not deserve our vote, THEY ARE TRADERS TO THE AMERICAN DREAM.
Don’t get me wrong there are a FEW in Washington that care to change the problems, but how can they, when WE the American people keep voting in losers who stay with the ‘status-quot’ and make their job harder?
Do we vote in these people out of a duty of fairness, so both sides get a chance? That in view of the facts is a very dumb proposition indeed.
Giving BOTH parties a chance at the change we want is a total waste of time since BOTH parties have the same end result, HOW CAN EITHER SIDE BRING CHANGE that the American people want if our viewpoints are are vastly different from each other?
The progressive change that Obama brought was NOTHING like the change he promoted during his election run at least not like what we thought it was!
The people we know care can’t do their jobs if we don’t care on our end, and our end of this is even more important than we have given it credit.

Our vote has been demeaned and downcast by the Left and the Right for so long EXCEPT WHEN THAT VOTE COUNTS FOR THEM! They cheat, steal and misinform our Vote until we don’t know the people we are voting for or at least what they really stand for.
It is this very ‘toxic asset’ called the Vote that progressives wish to control, they have controlled the minority vote for decades, not because minorities are stupid, far from it, they have simply controlled HOW WE SEE, FEEL, AND PERCEIVE THE FACTS! 

That is what must stop, and remember BOTH parties have been doing the same thing. We need to change this NOT by complaining about THINGS we don’t have, but by changing the paradigm completely by which we view ALL POLITICIANS BY! Vote out EVERY progressive no matter what in 2012 and beyond and then we can get back our country.

Progressives are a political Cancer designed to dismantle and destroy the constitutional ground work of America – NOT OVERNIGHT BUT OVER TIME and they’ve been doing it since 1910. So you do the math and look at where we’re at now, if you cannot see that voting in more of the same kind of dangerous people is playing ‘Russian Roulet’ then welcome to communist America!


 Voting based upon stupid decisions like: I LIKE THE NAME, THE FAMILY, THE NATIONALITY OF THE CANDIDATES!

I always vote for a women, a man!

I ALWAYS vote for candidates because its what my family has always had a duty to do – Vote party line!

This is absurd, who cares about those things? If progressives have infiltrated ALL OF THAT, and exist in every level of American society then voting along these impersonal lines makes no sense whatsoever. It is because of our lack of understanding the progressive agendas in the first place. We allow them to steal our votes, because we are to lazy to dig out their motives!

What matters to AMERICA is not the outward appearance of the candidates, not their family life, not their nationalities but their voting records over the time they have served, what they have stood for and behind and nothing else. 

All that other stuff is a slight of hand and nothing to base your vote on!

What we should be focusing on is CONTENT instead of empty talk. Substance beyond the debates, that’s where the rubber meats the road not how well they attack each other. Neither Romney nor Gingrich have told the truth about their voting records which is public record for all to see, and they depend on the fact MOST Americans will not check on it.

Romney Vs. Perry on the Issues!

Romney Voting Record:

 Gingrich Voting Record:

 Michele Bachmann

Jon Huntsman

Ron Paul

Rick Santorum



Obama’s Record-

Joe Biden

We as Americans must redefine why we vote if our vote is to count for anything at all. Progressives ARE THE PROBLEM, how they define freedom is unconstitutional and against basic American values. Their intent is to manipulate the system that our founders established, to redefine words we take for granted like FREEDOM, RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT. 

While a third party WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS it is important to know that the Tea Party SHOULD begin to do as our enemy has done, INFILTRATE our government from the bottom up in every segment AND FILL IT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LOVING PEOPLE.

In the above debate about Terrorism and Islam, we see this constant bogus statement thrown out to us that Islam is a peaceful religion and some have HIJACKED their faith to excuse hateful terrorist aims, but the facts, ALL THE FACTS on the ground say plainly that Islam is a murderous, hate filled Ideology and not a true religion. It contains elements of religious thought but is only an Ideology of hate in the end!

The Koran cannot be read without plainly seeing the hate contained within it unlike when the Bible states the facts as they were not as God intended them to be, sure there are verses which can be taken on their own as hate but when nested within their plain context are plainly not hate at all. The Koran on the other hand is nested on its intent as whole chapters filled with hate, racism and murder.
Do your homework America, there’s no escaping the facts:

The State Department website makes it sound so innocent.

“The United States has invited foreign government officials with responsibilities comparable to those at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to discuss best practices for two of the recommended actions from resolution 16/18:

engagement with members of minority religious communities and enforcement of laws that prohibit acts of discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.”

Let me translate.

The US has asked the secret police from the most repressive Islamic countries in the world for advice on how to quash anti-Islamic speech here.

What are the agenda items going to include? Flat vs. Sharp – The best kinds of rocks to use when stoning Christians?




Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of July 31, 1998

I must take issue with those of my conservative friends who say that the Republicans disappoint them. How can that be? The Republicans never disappoint me.
They can always be relied upon to sell out the principles for which they profess to stand, and which they corruptly claim to embrace in order to yet again secure our support.
The latest example [AS OF 1998] of “now you see it, now you don’t” is Congress taxing you yet again to subsidize the International Monetary Fund, which collects the debts owed the big banks and financial institutions in consequence of loans which, at the time they are issued, are quite predictably nonrecoverable. And there is always an excuse to continue.


Here follow excerpts from the conclusion of my May 1 address to a meeting of the Council for National Policy held at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Tysons Corner, Virginia:
“The Republican Party has become the proverbial ‘house divided against itself’.
“The Republican Party has lost its moral energy, and, indeed, its raison d’etre becomes ever less discernible with each new retreat from principle and betrayal of commitment.
“Some of its elected officials oppose abortion completely. Others are unwilling to do anything to challenge abortion.
“Newt Gingrich favors statehood for Puerto Rico, but many within the GOP oppose statehood as an unwise objective.”


“Most grass-roots Republicans favor parental control of education, but the Republican Party in Congress has voted even more spending on education than Bill Clinton himself requested.”


“The list is endless – NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the Mexican bailout, NATO expansion, racial, ethnic, and gender quotas, Legal Services, Planned Parenthood subsidies, Gay Men’s Health Crisis, National Endowment for the Arts, tax policy, spending policy, and so much more.”

“Since the election of 1994, Republicans have controlled the Congress. Under budget agreements for which they have voted, Federal spending is set to rise from one trillion, five hundred fifteen billion, seven hundred million dollars in Fiscal Year 1995 (the year when they came to office) to one trillion, eight hundred seventy-nine billion, seven hundred million dollars in Fiscal Year 2002 (which begins in 2001). Already, in Fiscal Year 1998, spending has increased by more than $200 billion annually since the GOP took power (or office).”


“Similarly, Federal income taxes, collected annually, have increased from five hundred ninety billion dollars in 1995 to six hundred ninety-one billion dollars in the current Fiscal Year, and will further increase to eight hundred thirty-nine billion, eight hundred million dollars in Fiscal Year 2002.
“Other taxes have climbed as well since the 1994 election, including FICA, business taxes, excise taxes, and estate and gift taxes. Only one area of collection has dropped – customs, duties, and fees.”


“That’s right. Tariffs, which were, until 1894, the principal source of revenue to the Federal government, are currently yielding relatively little income, in consequence of trade agreements based on the false notion that it is better to place direct taxes on American workers and businesses than tariffs on foreign companies and foreign products.”


“This state of division in the Republican Party is an insuperable problem. No matter how many platforms conservatives write, the division will remain. To unite the Republican Party, Christians and conservatives would be obliged to surrender their agenda, even were they to control its leadership and choose its nominees.”


“We are told by Newt Gingrich that significant changes cannot be made until there is a Republican President. Others say that more seats are needed in the House or the Senate.”

“But, even with a Republican President, and with two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress, fundamental divisions within the Republican Party on the most important issues, including abortion, taxes, sovereignty, and Constitutional accountability, combined with a lack of Constitutional discernment and fidelity, even among many of its strongest conservative and Christian leaders, will prevent the GOP from ever putting America back on the right track.”


“The Republican Party is no longer a coalition to change policy, but rather a conspiracy to hold power. But the conspiracy no longer works because so many of those who have been gathered together under the banner of the elephant are at odds with one another.”


“However, it is argued that a Big Tent is needed to gain and hold office. It is true that status quo Republicans do in fact need Christian and conservative support to stay in office. But it is not true that Christians, conservatives, and Constitutionalists need to be unequally yoked with those by whom we and our principles are held in profound contempt.”
“Indeed, it is the ‘lowest common denominator’ majority strategy of the Republican Party which is at the heart of many of its problems.”


“For Newt Gingrich to remain as Speaker, he has to stay on good terms with 217 of his Congressional colleagues.
“The best way to stay on good terms simultaneously with pro-lifers and pro-aborts, with free traders and economic nationalists, is to do as little as possible. That will always be the case – however much he doth protest.”


“The answer for us is to weld together those who are in agreement, to build a new coalition which could elect a plurality President who will govern by maintaining and building on his plurality strength and translating it into sufficient support in Congress to have his vetoes sustained.”


“It is easier for us to prevail with a united plurality than a divided majority. The genius of our electoral college system under the Constitution is that, in the context of 51 separate electoral contests, a united plurality force, which brings together millions of pro-family voters committed to one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all, and the comprehensive defense of our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, can win, state by state, 100 percent of each such state’s presidential electors – even while commanding only a plurality of each such state’s popular votes.”


“My friends, it is long past time to reject the counsels of defeatism and despair.
“If our cause truly does merit a full investment of our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, we are morally obliged not to be bought off by offers of crumbs from the Establishment table and to determine instead that we shall replace those now in charge of that table.”


“The biggest lie we have been told is that nothing can be done, that we can’t achieve change until we have 67 Republican Senators or two-thirds of the votes of the House, combined with a Republican President, but this is nonsense.
“Our Constitutional system makes it possible to block unconstitutional expenditures and unwise policies with far less than a majority vote.
“Our founding fathers gave us a brilliant Constitutional system, which permits us to block unconstitutional activities with one President and one-third plus one of one House of Congress.”


“For us to succeed, it is not necessary that we pass legislation, but it is imperative we stop spending.
“Under the Constitution, funds may be disbursed from the Federal treasury only in the context of either a Presidentially signed Congressional appropriation or the Congressional override of a Presidential veto.”


“In fact, if the Republicans truly wish to terminate any particular department or program, all they need to do is refuse to appropriate funds for it. The President cannot veto a zero. He is stuck with it.
“But, alas, the Republican Congress has sent Bill Clinton no zeroes to ponder.”


“They tell us that you can only reverse the policies of the Left incrementally.
“That is incorrect and unwise advice.
“Incrementalism works for the liberals because their philosophical premises guide the course of present policy.”


“We must challenge their premises and, given the chance, immediately change their policies, abolishing unconstitutional programs in whole and at once.
“If you have cancer, you don’t eliminate it incrementally. If you desire to survive and conquer the cancer, you must try to get rid of it at once before it can regroup and kill you.”


“In the space of a single Presidential term, we can win back several generations of liberties lost, reversing the regulatory, prosecutorial, and police functions which have been unconstitutionally usurped and nurtured by those in both parties who have set policy for the Federal government.
“In the space of a single Presidential term, we can reverse the tide of the cultural war in our great nation and throughout the world by depriving the enemies of western civilization of the Federal treasury resources which have fed their armies and fueled their agenda.
“We are already 35 years late in ‘Defunding the Left’. And it has been 25 years since my effort as Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity to close down the ‘Great Society’ was betrayed by a Republican administration which feared a bad day in the media more than it reviled its own complicity in subsidizing the neo-Marxist war against God, family, and country.”


“In the space of a single Presidential term, we can strengthen the American family by cutting the Federal government down to Constitutional size, abolishing the income tax, and ending the pressure on both husbands and wives to work outside the home with one parent trying to generate enough income to pay taxes to the government, while the other parent works to provide for the needs of the family.”


“In the space of a single Presidential term, we can eliminate the use of our tax dollars for the miseducation of America’s children by government-funded indoctrination academies which train them to be sexually proficient and promiscuous, even as they lead them astray concerning the facts of history and the nature of truth.”


“In the space of a single Presidential term, we can save the lives of 6 million children whose abortions will be stopped by an executive branch which honors that Constitutional mandate that no person, indeed, even a person recently conceived, may be deprived of life without due process of law.”


“My friends, with God all things are possible, but to achieve victory, first we must seek it.”


“We are told that the ship of state is a big boat, and that we cannot reverse direction too quickly. Indeed, defenders of the status quo say we must do so gradually.”


“I am here to say that the ship of state is on the wrong course, and the time is running out on the opportunity to change direction.
“There are icebergs ahead for America. We don’t know what form those icebergs will take. They could come as acts of terrorism, as natural disasters, in the form of a nuclear explosion, via chemical biological warfare, or an Euro-inspired crash of the dollar, or an economic paralysis and nationwide loss of confidence resulting from the failure of Congress and the President to fully anticipate and deal with the ‘millennium bug’.”


“Only God knows the details. But we can clearly discern the prospect of calamity.”


“Our job is to warn of the crisis to come, and to prepare to deal with it, so that our cause will have not merely survivors, but victors.
“Unless America changes direction, we shall at best merely delay the inevitable catastrophe, which is not inevitable, rather than avert it.
“My friends, it is time to leave the ‘political Titanic’ on which the conservative movement has for too long booked passage.
“Instead, it is our task to build an ark so that we will be ready to renew and restore our nation and our culture when God brings the tide to flood.
“Let us act now to prepare and plan for the renewal of America’s role as the leading force for Godly leadership in the restoration of Western Christian civilization.”


“We can and must cut the Federal government down to Constitutional size – abolish the income tax – withdraw from the institutions of the New World Order – and end the government-approved destruction of our posterity, the innocent unborn children, each of whom is truly a gift from God.”
“…our first and our greatest President, George Washington, who, at a critical moment in that 1787 convention which gave us our Constitution, asserted that: ‘If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God.’”


Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to join with me in rejecting the politics of retreat, defeat, sellout, and surrender – as we raise once again the banner of truth, demanding justice, expecting victory, and marching forward as members of Gideon’s Army, faithful to our duty, knowing that God’s will shall be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Thank you.”
Howard Phillips

Questionnaire for Muslims seeking U.S. Citizenship….Hummmmm!

It never ceases to amaze me just how DUMB Americans can be, we need; just as sheep do, to be prodded into the right direction to go, we must be lead constantly away from improper justification of stupid beliefs. Our beliefs about Islam’s true threat to the American way of life is a blatant example of that dumbness that seems never to go away!
Islam is the single most dangerous religion on the planet, just as dangerous as the Catholic Church was in the middle ages to the true underground believers. Only Islam hate every fiber of American society, so why in the world do we still fall for the same crap they spue out week after week?
The following DOES NOT EXIST as a questionnaire presently, but it should be a requirement to enter the U.S. immigration system for any and all Muslims! This EXPOSES the real Muslim agenda for America and would end the legal infiltration of our country!
 “The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
 “Muslims, fight in Allah’s Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious.”
 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'”
“Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”
 “I am fighting in Allah’s service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah’s war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good.”
 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
 “Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty good fighters they will defeat two hundred for they are a senseless people. They do not fight with good intentions nor for truth.”
 “A man whose face was covered with an iron mask came to the Prophet and said, ‘Allah’s Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?’ The Prophet said, ‘Embrace Islam first and then fight.’ So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A Little work, but a great reward.'”
 “Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.'”
(1) The Constitution of the United States requires equal legal rights for men and women. This means that the testimony of one woman counts exactly the same as that for one man in a court of law. There are no possible exceptions to this rule for any American citizen.
Qur’an 2:282 says, in part:
  “call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses…”
This is the basis for Shariah law which holds that in all cases of law the testimony of two women is necessary to equal that of one man.
Do you repudiate the principle in the Qur’an which requires that it takes the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one man in a law court?
(2) US Law does not tolerate wife beating and regards it as a crime.
Qur’an 4:34 says:
” Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. But as to those women on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great “
Do you repudiate the teaching in the Qur’an which approves wife beating?

(3) Cruel and unusual punishment is illegal by provisions of the US Constitution. This includes such retribution as physical mutilation and injury to the body.
Qur’an 5:38
“As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
Qur’an 5:33
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: “
Do you repudiate all verses in the Qur’an which demand cruel and unusual punishment?

(4) The age of marriage varies by state, but in all cases requires that a wife should be of child bearing age, that is, she should be post-pubescent, generally 15 or 16 years of age minimum, 17 or 18 in other jurisdictions.
Qur’an 65:4
“As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, then their waiting period is three months as well as those who have not yet menstruated. As for those who are pregnant, their term shall be the time they deliver their burden. Allah will ease (matters) by His order for whosoever fears Him.”
As a Muslim scholar named Maududi has said in his official interpretation of this verse:
 “Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.”
Do you repudiate this verse in the Qur’an which regards child marriage as approved, which American law regards as a form of child molestation?

(5) The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly outlaws slavery in all forms, male or female.
Qur’an 4:92
” And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid, but he who cannot find a slave should fast for two months successively.”
As scholars have pointed out, this verse assumes that Muslims will own slaves, or a significant number will, as did Muhammad, who owned slaves and bought and sold them.
This is just one verse out of dozens that approve the institution of slavery and present in as an eternal condition of humanity.
Do you repudiate all verses in the Qur’an which approve slavery?
(6) Hate speech is objectionable in American culture, and federal law regards such language as legally actionable, deserving punishment. While there are various categories of hate speech, general agreement is that anti-Semitism is the worst such offense.
Qur’an 5:60-65 says in part, speaking specifically of Jews as verse 59 makes clear:
 “Those whom God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, he has transformed them into apes and pigs, and those who serve the devil”
This is the source of Muslim demonstrators’ signs and chants that Jews are apes and pigs –the Qur’an itself.
There are still other passages in Muhammad’s book which also are anti-Semitic –as the term is generally used in America to refer to anti-Jewish bigotry.
Do you repudiate all anti-Semitic hate speech in the Qur’an, especially verse 60 of Surah 5?
(7) War or any acts of physical violence, or threat of violence, with the intention of forcing people to convert to a religion is utterly abhorrent to American law and is explicitly outlawed by the First Amendment.
 “Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message):
 “I am with you: give firmness to the Muslims, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them on their necks and cut all their fingers off.”
This is one of 164 jihad verses in Muhammad’s book. Of this number approximately 100 are commandments to able-bodied Muslim men to physically fight against non-Muslims. 
The remaining 64 verses deal with inner struggle, etc, and are not the subject here.
Generations of Muslim authorities leave zero room to doubt that war or other forms of physical violence on behalf of Islam, with the objective being forced conversion of non-Muslims, is commanded and is not an option.
 In most cases the “cover” –rationalization– for such aggression is the pretext that these should be defensive campaigns. Except that, from the outset, while Muhammad was still alive and a leader in jihad, few if any jihads were defensive at all and were only claimed to be, because Muslims were offended that other people would not willingly surrender to their armies when invaded. 
That is, there is no reasonable doubt that the meaning of the 100 jihad verses in question all promote violence against people of other faiths. The main objective is conversion but also important is terrorizing others so that they fear the wrath of Muslims.
Do you repudiate all jihad verses in the Qur’an which command Muslims to fight against non-Muslims with the objective of converting other people to Islam? YES / NO
(8) The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all US citizens. No-one may prohibit someone from changing religion, or ceasing to belong to a religion.
No-one may prohibit someone, in any appropriate setting, from seeking to convince someone else of the rightness of his or her faith and seeking to win converts. No believers of any faith are exempt from this provision of the First Amendment.
Qur’an 4:88-89
“Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief)… Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made go astray? … They wish that you reject (Islam), and thus that you all become equal (like any other faith). So, take not… (friends) from them, till they emigrate in the way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn away (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them .”
 One of several verses which deal with what Muslims characterize as apostasy. The penalty for what Americans insist is a God-given right, to free choice in religion, is death in an Islamic context.
Do you repudiate all apostasy verses in the Qur’an and uphold the principle of free choice in religion?
(9) In America, free speech is sacrosanct and, while a people have the right to object to criticisms of their beliefs, and while others must obey libel or slander laws, everyone who so desires is free to make any criticisms of religion he or she wishes to make.
This is considered a moral good when one’s motivation is making the truth widely known. It does not matter if a truth is popular or unpopular; honesty is the higher virtue by far, indeed, there is no real contest.
Qur’an 4:140
“Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith – and put them in Hell.”
This is one verse which is foundational to Shariah law penalizing all forms of what Muslims characterize as “blasphemy.” Depending on the “offense” and what country such law is enforced in, the punishment may be anything from jail time or banishment, to death.
What qualifies as blasphemy ?
A few examples: criticizing Islam making jokes about Muhammad or the Qur’an, criticizing the Qur’an, which is regarded by Muslims as Allah’s exact words incarnate on Earth asserting that the Qur’an was written by Muhammad rather than a transcription of Allah’s words, for example, calling the Qur’an “Muhammad’s book.” criticizing Muhammad, especially perceived insults of Muhammad criticizing such Muslim practices as saying prayers 5 times a day, prostrate on the floor reporting objective facts that embarrass Muslims, such as the fact that Muhammad married Aisha, a girl of 6 and consummated the “marriage” when she was 9. creating an image of Muhammad or portraying him with an actor in a movie or stage play claiming to be a prophet.
The last item makes all Mormons guilty of blasphemy since all male Mormons are considered prophets by their church and all Mormon women accept this belief.
One or more items make Christian missionaries who express honest opinions about the Qur’an or Muhammad guilty of the “crime” of blasphemy who, in some countries, with Pakistan being especially notorious, are killed. Indeed, considering these types of “blasphemy” alone, each, by American law, is a form of protected speech to which all US citizens are entitled.
Do you repudiate all anti-blasphemy laws in Shariah, those derived directly from the Quran as well as those derived from Hadith traditions?

(10) The First Amendment guarantees freedom to worship any deity of your choice. Or freedom to be an Agnostic or Atheist. You may worship 100 Gods or Goddesses, or just one, or none at all. All US citizens accept this principle but are free to express their opinions if they think someone Else’s beliefs are wrong.
Qur’an 4:116
“Verily Allah does not forgive setting up partners in worship with Him. But He forgives whom he pleases, sins other than that.”
To be devoted to a Goddess, in other words, is, in Islam, the unforgivable sin. Also extremely serious is
Qur’an 2:28,
 “How do you disbelieve in Allah, seeing that you were dead and he gave you life! Then he will cause you to die…”
In other words, Goddess worship deserves death according to Islam, and Atheists also deserve death.
In some Muslim lands capital punishment for these “offenses” are de jure carried out.
Almost all Hindus are devotees of one or more Goddesses, so are most Mahayana Buddhists in Japan and elsewhere. Taoists venerate a Goddess, as do Zoroastrians (Anahita) and traditional Pagans such as those in the Baltic states and rural Russia.
So do Wiccans and most other neo-Pagans. Islam considers Catholics and the Greek Orthodox as Goddess worshippers for their devotion to Mary, and the Mormons worship the Heavenly Mother as well as the Heavenly Father.
 Plus there are normative Christian groups, like Assyrian Christians, who adhere formally to usual Church doctrine but who informally venerate the Goddess Ishtar.
Altogether, about 2 billion people in the world can be classified as Goddess devotees, closer to 3 billion if you add Catholics and the Orthodox. A reasonable estimate is that, including Mormons, about 15 or 20 million Americans are Goddess devotees of one kind or another.
And all deserve the full protection of American law as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Do you repudiate all passages in the Qur’an that demand death or other extreme punishment for Atheists and Goddess devotees?
There are numerous other morally reprehensible passages in the Qur’an, all of which contravene American law and the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
These ten examples are sufficient to make the criminality of Islam crystal clear, however, and to argue the point that Islam in any orthodox form should be criminalized in the United States. In other words, Islam should be outlawed in much the same way as Communism and Nazism were outlawed in the mid 20th century.
There might be exceptions for some Sufi schools or some Ahmadiyya groups, to speak of people who have already rejected objectionable parts of the Qur’an, and it is not surprising to learn that many of these smaller groups are themselves persecuted and rejected by mainstream Islam.[2]
As for MINOs, Muslims In Name Only, there is no real objection, but otherwise Islam should be recognized for what it is, a subversive and criminal religion that functions in outright defiance of American law and which is based on principles which are totally incompatible with the US Constitution.
Islam, to discuss people who actually believe in the Qur’an, promotes physical violence against non-Muslims, it seeks to intimidate others through threats of violence, it promotes hate speech, and generally can be thought of as an organized mental illness.
As we all know, from daily news stories in the press and TV, this is a matter of actions that kill people, that threaten citizens of many countries that simply wish to live in peace, and that incite outrages against “unbelievers” through hate speech.
To be very sure, Muslims may deny each and every fact about their travesty of a religion presented here. About which there are two basic rejoinders,
Anyone familiar with the fact that the Qur’an is really two books in one, the Mecca Surahs and the Medina Surahs, can tell you, if he or she is honest, that most of the “good” teachings in the Qur’an date to Muhammad’s years in Mecca, when he preached tolerance and a form of morality which resembled that of Judaism or Christianity.
However, in the Medina years, partly by use of the doctrine of abrogation, which nullified earlier verses at will, of which well over a hundred Mecca verses were repudiated as obsolete, what resulted was a religion that some scholars compare with Bolshevism and others consider to be an early form of Nazism.
 Personally the comparison with Nazism seems most accurate given the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent the WWII years in the Third Reich and organized regiments of Bosnian Muslims to fight in the ranks of the SS, and considering the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, the “parent” of Al Qaeda and still other terrorist groups, was funded by the Nazis and was their political inspiration.
There is a “slight detail” called the doctrine of taqiyya lying in order to further the interests of Islam. At least two Qur’an verses are fairly explicit about this, Qur’an 3:28 and Qur’an 16:106, and this doctrine is not limited to the Shi’ite sect.
The gist of things is that Muslims are free to tell others falsehoods about Islam if they think it will protect Muslims or their property, are free to misrepresent Islam, are free to camouflage their actual purposes behind a cloak of good works, etc.
 In other words, Muslims simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth about their religion.
But the truth is there to be seen, and anyone who so desires can study the Qur’an and read its collection of criminal precepts any time it is convenient to do so. Not my problem if someone simply can’t be bothered to do so, or prefers cock-and-bull stories manufactured by simpletons like Karen Armstrong and purveyed by charlatans like George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama.
Islam is a criminal religion and it really doesn’t matter if someone who is famous lies about this painful reality. As a criminal religion it has no legitimate place in the United States of America.
About the Questionnaire:
No-one who answers even one question with a “NO” should be eligible for US citizenship. For a Muslim to become a citizen, all questions should require a “YES” answer.
Clearly this presents a dilemma for any believing Muslim. He or she cannot deny the perceived “truth” of even one verse in the Qur’an since all verses, according to the Qur’an’s own words, are the presumed actual words of Allah, and are inviolate and holy.
For a Muslim to give even one “YES” answer is to commit apostasy via blasphemy in belief and condemn himself –or herself– to death.
This is the exact intent of the Questionnaire, to show everyone exactly how unethical and criminal the core text of Islam actually is, how evil the religion of Islam actually is, and how antithetical to most or close to all values which Americans regard as absolutely essential –or even divinely sanctioned.
Billy Rojas[3]
Eugene / Oregon

  1. Qur’an verses may not have the identical Surah (chapter) number in different translations of Muhammad’s book. There is no standard numbering system. However, all translations include the same verses, and if a passage is not found in one place it exists elsewhere in the text.

Surahs are always numbered exactly the same. Different translations will make use of somewhat different word choice in the English language, but the meaning is always the same or very close to exactly the same.

    3. Originally written by Billy Rojas; former teacher of Comparative Religion, history and social science. Alice Lloyd College, Phoenix College, Lower Columbia College, City Colleges of Chicago assigned to the US Navy PACE Program to provide college course instruction to military personnel on board the aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise . Also a lecturer at the University of Oregon, Pacifica Forum, 2008 – early 2010.

    I agree 100% with this and applaud this man for putting this truth out, let’s see if this is brought out on TLC’S new show ‘American Muslim’s’? Not likely since that is a propaganda arm of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Is the Constitution compliant?
    Sharia for Dummies
    Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the US constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:
    1- Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
    2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.
    3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
    4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
    5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
    6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
    7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.
    8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
    9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of :
     1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber.
    Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
    10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
    11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
    12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
    13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals.
     They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
    14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
    15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
    16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
    17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
    18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.
    19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.
    20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
    21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
    22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
    23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
    24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
    25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
    26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
    27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
    28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
    29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.
    30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
    31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
    32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.
    33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”
    The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?