A lot of fuss along with the usual media fawning for foul mouth, classless U.S. Representative and practicing Muslim, Rhashida Tiaib. She is from Detroit, which can explain some of her idiocy..but not all. The “Big”; she is using Thomas Jefferson’s Koran for the swearing-in.
Enter Dr. Bill Warner of Political Islam, https://www.politicalislam.com , Dr. Warner has a PhD in Physics and in Mathematics. Very useful, as he has studied Islam scientifically and mathematically. He has clarity in bringing this event into perfect focus. I have followed him for years.
Did Jefferson study the Koran..yes. Why? For one purpose only; he studied Islam so he could send in the U.S. Marines to kick the Islamic, aka Barbary Pirates’, butts. The Islamic pirates had been bullies attacking America and different nations’ merchant ships, killing and taking slaves for ransom, (because that is what the Koran instructs). That is where you get the opening lines from the Marine Corps Hymn,..”from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..”. I love it!
One last thing; if according to the Koran and Sunna, Sharia Law is the supreme law of the land, it means that Muslims consider Sharia above the U.S. Constitution. Then, it would seem that by Ms. Tiaib, taking the pledge on the Koran, did not pledge her loyalty to America and the U.S. Constitution. Just a thought..
Please dive into Dr. Warner’s article and be sure to check on the hyperlinks in each fact..
How it works: Netflix exec & wife bundle big donations to Obama in ’08. Wife is rewarded with ambassadorship. Now Netflix exec steers $50m contract to the Obamas through ‘Higher Ground Productions.’
Exactly why we are leaving NETFLIX!!
Hiring those that hurt & lied to America (Benghazi, Obamacare,IRS,Fast&Furious,etc) … is Despicable!
I will spread the facts so others may make their choice.
Those of you that follow me, know that like you, I deplore someone who is deceptive in who or what they are, all the while claiming to be something else. That characteristic is a form of lying.
I am an unapologetic conservative as my blog plainly states, and will tell anyone and everyone that will listen the same. Not so Ms Addo. She hides the fact that she is a Progressive. Just like Progressives Bill and HilLIARy Clinton, Alan Grayson, Barack Obama, etc, Ms Addo made a calculated choice to deceive the public. But a Brevard County public, astute enough, when given the facts, will know when something is fake and Freedom killing.
We have witnessed the decades old pathological lying spree of Hilliary Clinton! From college, to law school, to the Arkansas mansion, the White House and presently into the incredibly corrupt Obama administration, Hilliary has been constant. From being named after Sir Edmond Hillary, Castle Grande, Removal of Vince Foster documents, Billing records(which showed up on their own), Cattle futures, Travel Gate, Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Anita Broderick and others, Bimbo eruption squad, Benghazi murders, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Initiative and unsecure State Department emails.
Dick Morris, speech writer for Bill Clinton, outlines many others in his piece at Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html
Hilliary,the Saul Alinsky acolyte, is a proven pathological liar, detached from reality. Hilliary has directly and indirectly been involved in the ruining of people’s lives for speaking the truth, as well as the murders of Americans; can you say Benghazi!
English author and reporter, Mr. Christopher Hitchens’ essay is well worth the read as well..
JAN. 14 2008 12:15 PM
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?
Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy “experience”—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim “worked” well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton’s memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.
Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: “It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add.”
Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn’t it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn’t some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her “greatness” (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband’s uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It’s often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That’s not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter “Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?” in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton “rapid response” team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women’s “issues.”
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred “experience” on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main “experience” involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation’s health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another “experience,” this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant.
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and “experience” to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband’s help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don’t show her enough appreciation, and after all she’s done for us, she may cry.
I will be out of the loop for a while, so I wanted to be sure to touch base with you all. This may be the only post before my hiatus,(quit smiling), or it may not. Just depends on how things are going by Monday morning.
I followed with interest all the hoopla about the recently passed ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL by 100% of the Florida legislature. Yep, every single Republican and every single Democrat voted for the so called Florida Today Network ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL. Coinciding with this rare voting anomaly, were recent studies that placed Florida either #1 or #3 in federal public corruption convictions.
So l began to ask, how is it, that the most or one of the most corrupt legislatures, ( money flows from Tallahassee), would vote 100% for a bill to correct the problem that is them!? Of course, here we have a great example of “cooperation” by Dems and Republicants. A kind of CYA strategy.
Additionally,the Florida Today and Mat Reed claim to have “spearheaded” this. This is the same Florida Today, along with Matt Reed that assured us that Obama was going to be great for America, that ObamaCare would save every family $2500/ year, that we could keep our doctor, that we could keep our health plan, That Common Core was great for our kids, that the IRS doesnt single our conservative groups, that Benghazi was due to a video, that Hillary’s emails are a Republican conspiracy.So…I ask questions..
This is along the same lines as a cat cleaning it’s own cat box…aint going to happen! It just gets covered up!!
It was included in a dialogue by Rush Limbaugh that really hits the nail on the head. To paraphrase; the question has to be why would you want to give legitimacy to a people whose goal is to end you and your families freedom and way of life; everything you hold dear, so that they can then rule over you by Sharia or Islāmic law?