From the Daily Caller. Link Below:
26 percent of Obama supporters believe tea party is America’s top terror threat
In a new Rasmussen poll of likely voters released Thursday, President Obama’s supporters are pretty evenly split concerning whether the tea party or radical Muslims pose the greater threat of terrorism in America.
Twenty-six percent of people who approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance view the tea party as the United States’ top terror threat, compared to 29 percent who view radical Islam as the greatest concern.
A plurality of those who “strongly approve” of Obama’s performance believe the tea party poses a greater threat of terrorism than radical Muslims, or any other group.
You can’t make this stuff up. You could try, but it wouldn’t be as funny.
More Radical behavior from the left. This time it puts your safety at risk
Less than a week after Washington Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott wrote a letter to the FBI about the “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad he found to be racist, the ad is being taken down, the Seattle Times reports.
McDermott had written that the Puget Sound Joint Terrorism Task Force’s “ad featuring sixteen photos of wanted terrorists is not only offensive to Muslims and ethnic minorities, but it encourages racial and religious profiling.”
The congressman, as well Jeff Siddiqui, the founder of American Muslims of Puget Sound, are concerned that all sixteen terrorists featured have connections to Islam.
“When you start saying that this is the face of terrorism, you are really stigmatizing a whole group of people,” McDermott said.
Siddiqui added that the ad “is affecting all kinds of people who have no experience with Muslims, who look at it and say, ‘Oh, Muslims are the face of global terrorism.’”
Uh, the only people I am ‘stigmatizing’ are the TERRORISTS in the picture Jimbo. You’re the one making the connection they are all Muslim you bigot. You’re also insightful. THEY ARE! Would the NSA agents monitoring this please forward a copy to Mr. McDermotts Office. Thank you
The Radical left has one rule. You must accept their doctrine 100% unquestioned. Not only accept. Embrace it. Celebrate it. Even if it is violently against everything you hold dear. Failure to do so makes you a repugnant human being. And their view on your views? Those views are wrong. Morally objectionable and therefore have no place in society. They are not required to even understand your position let alone permit you to exercise it.
Another example today where I don’t even care about the issue – it was the execution by the Radical left. The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage came out today (pun intended). Honestly, this issue isn’t high on my give-a-crap-meter. Shack up, just pay the same marriage penalty to the IRS I pay. But you aren’t going to do get married in my church and I am not going to celebrate your lifestyle nor embrace it in mine. Not good enough for the left. The Radicals must cast the opposition as depraved. Whatever your position, the majority opinion was a personal assault against anyone that disagreed. Justice Scalia makes the case much better than I:
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.
It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.
It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
Radical – I am going to start using that word the way the left uses the word ‘extreme’. The Democrats are pursuing a radical change to our immigration policy. The IRS is pursuing a radical agenda against the tea party. The President yesterday announced a Radical change to EPA regulations.
Actually, it was tyrannical.
Do yourselves a favor. Take your kids to Philadelphia and show them the Constitution. Do it quickly before it is lost forever. Yesterday the President put a significant tear in the document. As the WSJ reports in the Opinion section today:
President Obama’s climate speech on Tuesday was grandiose even for him, but its surreal nature was its particular hallmark. Some 12 million Americans still can’t find work, real wages have fallen for five years, three-fourths of
Americans now live paycheck to check, and the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery. But there was the President in tony Georgetown, threatening more energy taxes and mandates that will ensure fewer jobs, still lower incomes and slower growth. Mr. Obama’s “climate action plan” adds up to one of the most extensive reorganizations of the U.S. economy since the 1930s, imposed through administrative fiat and raw executive power. He wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, but over his 6,500-word address he articulated no such goal for the unemployment rate or GDP.
Unable to get cap and trade through a democratically controlled Congress, buried by an unwinable war in Syria, pursuing negotiations with the Taliban and plagued by scandal – Obama turns his attention to Climate change. How does this proposal help the millions of unemployed Americans? How does it create wealth and lower the costs of the necessities we use every day you ask? It doesn’t. It is the single largest ECONOMY KILLING FIAT ever issued by the White House. I am not going to get into the debunked climate science Obama hides behind. There are countless articles on the web discrediting his lies. I am not going to quote statistics on our energy production or uses. Nope. I have a simply question:
Ohio and Pennsylvania – How are you liking Obama now?
Here is what you need to know and fear about what Obama did yesterday. Yes, FEAR.
- First, the regulations he laid out yesterday are a complete abuse of the rule of law. They are a gross perversion of executive power that fundamentally alters the balance of power with Congress.
- Second, this will kill the coal industry. Coal powers our electric plants. Electricity dear friends powers our economy. EVERYTHING you buy is about to get more expensive. Everything.
- Third. If he can do this to coal, he can do this to ANYTHING. I don’t get the Democrats comfort with tyrannical power. He took over student loans, the auto industry, banking, healthcare and now energy. Some sectors to larger, more damaging degrees than others but this is an unlegislated accumulation of power to unaccountable officials. You know, trust worthy people like the DOJ, NSA, and IRS.
- Fourth – this is another transfer of wealth on a massive scale. The EPA regulations are in effect a tax that was never legislated by Congress. It will take money from you in the form of higher consumer prices and reallocate those funds to non efficient sectors of the green economy and democratic fund raisers.
- Fifth – That transfer of wealth to our international economic competition will be massive. Companies will not create jobs in America if they can operate in other countries for less cost and with fewer regulations. Jobs will flee our shores.
The irony in Obama’s tactics- he wants conservatives in a complete lather about this topic. Distract us from his scandals and the shitty economy. FOCUS on what is really happening here. With each executive order, the Constitution becomes more irrelevant.
Obama is a Radical and he is implementing his Radical agenda to fundamentally transform America
It is one thing for a president to have an agenda, to try to sell it to the American people, to pass bills in Congress and act through the legislative process. It is another thing entirely — it is tyranny — to go around the lawmakers in order to implement massive, multi-billion-dollar-impact regulations through executive agency rule making.
But this is the crew that is willing to make recess appointments of union thugs to the NLRB when the Senate is not in recess. This is the crew that has subverted the integrity of the Department of Justice, the IRS, the EPA, even the FDA, and for whom its statist ends always and everywhere justify the means.
This is a president who has said for years that he intended to bankrupt the coal power industry, and that his plan will cause electricity prices to“necessarily skyrocket.” He is a radical (environmentalist, socialist, you name it) in his heart, motivated far more by ideology than pragmatism or even politics. He is blissfully unfettered by concern for the rule of law or the Constitution.
What happens when you rush 1,000 pages of major legislation, written in a backroom by special interests, through the Senate? You get Obamacare. You will soon get Immigration reform. What happens when you’re too politically afraid to discuss the real issues behind your opposition to said legislation? You focus on politically popular objection that your opposition can easily defeat. Welcome to border security.
The GOP establishment has used border security as the rallying cry for defeating immigration reform. Most of the establishment GOP inside the beltway are still convinced we lost the last election because we didn’t capture enough of the hispanic vote. Their delusions grow more fantastic if they think granting amnesty to 11M illegal aliens will somehow play to their advantage. The Democrats have the infrastructure in place (Food Stamps, unemployment, Obamacare – which by the way includes voter registration when you sign up for it) to lure Central America to the Democratic party.
So the GOP runs around demanding border security. I don’t think they truly believe the border will be secured or that Obama will even attempt to enforce it. They simply want the air cover for the vote. They are cowards.
There are two underlying issues we SHOULD be debating as part of immigration reform. First, WHY? Why is this a burning issue? Really it shouldn’t be. There is no catalyst demanding this other than the Democrats sensing a window of opportunity ahead of the 2014 elections and a fractured GOP. More than Washington politics we need to ask ourselves WHY are we granting amnesty to 11M people who broke the law?
The intellectual rationale for this bill is about as weak as anything to come down the pike for years. And the so-called moral arguments for going along with this mass manufacturing of Americans don’t hold up well either. Conservatives need not be intimidated by those who argue we must extend amnesty to law-breakers in order to be “fair.” This may make sense to fair-minded Americans who sympathize with people looking for a better life (as I do). That is until you think about it. Are we to be fair to everyone on the planet who would prefer living in America to where they are, or just to those who have been bold enough to break our laws to get here and then announce to us what they are entitled to?
Most of the ‘problems’ with immigration could be solved by enforcing current legislation and updating guest worker visa programs. Also, why aren’t we putting more pressure on Mexico? There is a reason we don’t have 11M illegal Canadians in our country. Their nation has an economy. The largest concentration of Canadian immigrants can be found in the NHL.
Second and maybe most important – The Welfare State. This country can not afford the entitlements we currently provide. And that is BEFORE Obamacare. Now we want to extend these entitlements to Central America as well? Sarah Palin does a great job addressing this issue:
Passing this bill with an unsecured border and within a growing welfare state under Barack Obama is economic insanity. Have people already forgotten that our bankrupt government is running up massive unsustainable deficits every year? We can’t afford to pay the piper now, much less the trillions of dollars more in welfare and entitlements for the millions who are here illegally today that will be granted this bill’s benefits. According to the Heritage Foundation, the bill provides only a temporary delay in granting illegal immigrants eligibility for all U.S. welfare and entitlement programs. We’re looking at an explosion of costs in the very near future. There is no way to pay for the added untold millions of new enrollees in these growing government programs. Pass this, Congress, and Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.
We are, as the President is fond of saying, a nation of Immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. It’s time we started remembering that.