The following is from an email my wife received but I do not know who the author is so I can't give the author the proper credit.


Barack Hussein Obama, during his Cairo speech,  said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of  America 's story."

AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?  Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day?  Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ?
Bill of Rights?

Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ?  No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ?  No, they did not.  In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.  Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."  Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country?  Not present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era?  Again, not present.  In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture.  So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband.  Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II?  They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.  The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?  If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East ..  No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day.  Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's backside you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.  To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.  They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan

That, Mr. Obama is your "Muslim heritage" in America .

EVERY AMERICAN MUST READ THIS !!  (Oh yeah, also think about the poor, ignorant people that voted this idiot into the POTUS office!)

Anonymous

The following is the text of a guest viewpoint published in the Binghamton, NY Press & Sun-Bulletin
By Sid Dunn • July 27, 2010, 12:00 am

The original text is in italics followed by my rebuttals in plain text.

It is amazing how many pundits continually chide the current president at every single inappropriate opportunity. Among the examples:

* The president had the audacity to be playing golf on Father's Day while BP's oil spill spewed in the Gulf. Hm-mm. Now how many days did the former president spend at his ranch in Texas? Bush seemed to spend as much time in Crawford, Texas, as he did at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Mr. Dunn completely and conveniently misses the point. Why was Obama golfing when he should have been concerned more about the oil spill. In fact, why did it take Obama more than two months before he took the spill seriously?

* The president has had over one and one-half years to correct the financial crisis he inherited. Hm-mm. Now where and when did this crisis originate and on whose watch was it?

Well, how about the well-intentioned Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Pres. Carter. Then Pres. Clinton got his hands on it and really screwed the housing market creating the crisis. He ordered banks to write mortgages to people who had no way to repay the loan. This, of course, led to sub-prime mortgages which the home buyers never really understood. They were totally unprepared when their mortgage payments suddenly sky-rocketed beyond their ability to pay. And since the interest was accruing during the “teaser” rate period, they suddenly had whatever equity they had built up simply wiped out. But Clinton couldn't stop there. He also ordered the banks to include unearned income in order to qualify the home buyer. This included welfare benefits, food stamps (it is illegal to use food stamps to pay for anything except food), alimony and child support which are totally unreliable. If the banks didn't comply, they would be severely penalized.

Then there's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd kept assuring they were sound despite the fact they facing bankruptcy because of all the bad mortgages they were saddled with.

* The president is handling the war in Afghanistan completely wrong. Hm-mm. Now who started this war that virtually no other nation on Earth is committed to?

Ah, Afghanistan. He increased the number of troops beyond what were already there and then crippled the military with his totally irresponsible change to the rules of conduct. Also, the number of American casualties in the short time Obama has been in office skyrocketed way beyond the casualties during Pres. Bush's term. And let's not forget Obama's promise that he would “invade any country at any time with or without the country's permission to hunt down the terrorists.” He is more bellicose that Pres. Bush ever hoped to be. And by the way, NATO still has troops in Afghanistan, not just us. And, yes, he is handling it all wrong. He completely ignored the advice of the ground commander that he himself appointed. Then, rather comically, he replaced Gen. McCrystal with Gen. Petreaus who left called Gen. 'Betray Us' when Pres. Bush was in office.

* The president has thrown us into too much debt. Hm-mm. Now when did the bulk of this debt come into existence? Let's see. It took someone eight years to take this country from a surplus to a deficit and now the current administration did it all on its own? Hm-mm.

I'm assuming he's referring to the “alleged” $15 trillion+ surplus at the end of Clinton's term of office. Here's a news flash, bucky, it never existed. That 'surplus' was simply the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO – which has always been mathematically challenged) estimate of the surplus before 9/11, before the housing meltdown (which I have already explained), before Wall Street crashed (thanks to the Democrats). While the economy had started to recover before the end of Pres. Bush's term. Obama maxed out the federal debt and more than tripled it in less than one year. There's an old saying, 'when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging'.

* The president is a Socialist with his socialistic health care reform. I wonder what these pundits would have said when the government historically created a program called "social" Security? But of course I must be confused because none of these pundits would ever have or had any use for anything at any time called Social Security, let alone a viable health care system.

It was another socialist president, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who created Social Security and we're still paying for that horrendous mistake. Not to sound like a broken record, but every country that has tried socialized health has failed at it miserably. Sweden, the model of socialism, is now privatizing its health care. Great Britain's health care system is bankrupting the country while patients languish and die due to the lack of proper health care. And why do so many Canadians come here for medical treatment at their own expense?

One more point Mr. Dunn conveniently forgot to mention – unemployment. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate was between 4.5% and 5%. So how did jump all the way to 10% in the short time that Obama has been in office. It has been over 9% for quite a few months already. He  promised that the 'stimulus bill' would create 2,000,000 new jobs. Where are they? He also had the audacity to promise that the unemployment rate would never go above 8%?! What's with that? BTW, we're still hemorrhaging jobs thanks to Obama and his pet sycophants.

It is honorable and a constitutional right to be of one political party versus another one. But to condemn and constantly be vitriolic solely because one, in political office, has a different letter after his or her name, be it an R or D, is borderline bigotry.

Good point. Too bad you haven't learned it.

So the next time you hear one of your favorite pundits spinning a tale, like Chicken Little and "the sky is falling, the sky is falling," please try to remember that it is nothing more than a tale. A bedtime story for the bigots and the narrow-minded and for those who believe in the Fox in the Henhouse and drink the Fox Kool-aid and have tea parties. And not too Rush for and to conclusions.

Nope, no bigotry here. (I'm being sarcastic.)

And for those of you who are in the zone and have stoically read through this and consider it nothing more than liberal socialist babble, I am reminded of some of the words of one of Greta and Urban Van Susteren's closest family friend, who often said when his political career was in disarray: " .... I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the secretary of state as being members of the Communist Party ...," according to Haynes Johnson's "The Age of Anxiety."

I'm still trying to figure out where he's going with this one. BTW, Joe McCarthy did prove that the administration was riddled with Communists.

Needless to say, as reality and history finally came to light, the list never existed. Seems like history is repeating itself, once again.

Actually, you're just rewriting history, something liberals love to do.

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20100727/VIEWPOINTS02/7270303/1120/History+lesson+for+Obama+critics
I don't know how long this link will remain accessible. Newspaper editors like to clean up after a while.

With all of the controversy surrounding Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, the Democrats are already calling the Republicans racist enough the weak-kneed  Republicans haven’t even taken a stand yet.

Never mind that Sotomayor has already demonstrated that she is a racist hard liberal judge, the Republicans are “racists” if they even asked Sotomayor a hard question; they are “racists” if they dare to, God forbid, vote against her, they are “Latino-hating racists” and they will attacked relentlessly by the Democrats, the MSM, the Hollywood celebrities and every sanctimonious liberal; and they will be attacked as vile “racists” and divisive for daring to challenge one of Obama’s nominees. And don't forget that Democrat Senator Chris Dodd ws stated that he "will never allow a Latino on the Supreme Court" when Bush nominated Manuel Estrada. The liberals even referred Estrada as that "guy from CHiPs." As if this blatant race-baiting isn’t bad enough, Obama had the audacity to claim that a President has every right to nominate whoever he wants. (He must have been brain-dead all during the Bush administraton.

The Republicans need to stand-up to Obama and the Democrats; they need to make it clear that they are challenging her because she is clearly unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. If the Republicans don't start fighting back, the party will be finished.

Gun advocates ignore meaning of 'bearing arms' through history

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is to give a little insight into this matter which is so blatantly misinterpreted by the "Blathering Class" and other "federal authority" opponents. In the United States, the meaning of "bear arms" is a matter of recent dispute and political debate. One argument is whether the right to "bear arms" relates to the right of an individual to have arms, or whether it relates to a military service meaning, as with the functioning and maintenance of a militia, which is the introductory portion of the amendment.

Many historians have published peer-reviewed research which shows that prior to and through the 18th century, usage of the expression "bear arms" referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians.

In late-18th century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. A review of the Library of Congress' database of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals the 30 uses of "bear arms" and "bearing arms" in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.

As an example, the expression "bear arms" is contained in the Declaration of Independence in the sense of military service on a warship, as part of an indictment of the king of Great Britain for conscripting colonial sailors to serve on British warships: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."

For those who maintain that every able-bodied man in the country is a member of the "militia," check Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides explicit authority and character for the Militia: "The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Historical Background

It is quite obvious that the author is highly biased against gun owners – those he calls the "Blathering Class" and other “federal authority” opponents. I would also guess that he does not understand the meaning of "federal." Advocates of private gun ownership are typically conservatives who support federalism – the division of authority between the federal, or national, government and state governments.

His historical understanding of the issue is decidedly lacking. He states that “[m]any historians have published peer-reviewed research” but fails to mention any of them as reference. He refers to the debates of the Continental, Confederation, and the United States’  Congresses [sic] between 1774 and 1821 but it is obvious that he hasn’t bothered to read them. The quotation from the Declaration of Independence has absolutely no relevance to the 2nd Amendment; it deals with the status of prisoners of war – the first thing a military force would do when capturing an enemy combatant is to disarm him.

Let’s look at some of the historical background of the 2nd Amendment. The first place to start is with James Madison – the Father of the Bill of Rights. Madison authored the Bill of Rights and then proposed them to Congress. His wording for the 2nd Amendment was “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”1 He makes it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms was not predicated on an established militia; notice that the first clause is separated from the rest by a semicolon meaning that it stands on its own, it is not dependent on the rest of the sentence. He also states that no person who bears arms can be compelled to render military service. I should point out that until the Civil War, standing state militias were rare, mostly the southern states had militias to maintain public order and capture escaped slaves; the inadequacies of the state militias during the War of 1812 lead to the establishment of a standing federal army. Besides, pre-Civil War state militias did not provide weapons to soldiers or training in their use, they had to provide their own and were expected to know how to use them.

Next, it would do well to actually refer to the Congressional debates that the author mentions. The following is from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789: "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defence, shall not be infringed."2  This wording would have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to members of a militia. The Senate rejected this wording in favor of the wording as it is now.

Court Cases

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)3  – This was the first 2nd Amendment case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Miller had been convicted of transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. Part of the ruling reads “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shot gun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.  Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” While the court did not address the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it held that a sawed-off shotgun was not a typical weapon in a militia. The court also emphasized that when men were called for service, they were expected to provide their own arms. This ruling governed the type of weapon, not the right (and duty) to keep and bear arms.

There have been a few other cases that cite U.S. v. Miller: Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977).

United States v Emerson (2001) of the 5th Circuit4 - this case stated that “the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear arms... regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.” This is an obvious affirmation that the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Further Reading

An excellent discussion of the 2nm Amendment is the Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right5 

1. http://PatriotPost.US/histdocs/madamend.htm

2. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj001133))

3. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

4. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9910331cr0

5. http://justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Brent Bozell, of the Media Research Center, posted an article on May 6, 2008 titled "Roseanne vs. Rush". "On April 28 she suggested leftists should ignite riots at the Democratic convention in Denver. 'We should, a bunch of us, go there and repeat the Democratic Convention from Chicago. Like, let's just cause a bunch of trouble!' There's even a leftist group called "Recreate 68" building up the rioting nostalgia." However, local news media accused Rush Limbaugh of inciting the riots. Even Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado bought into the left-wing media and sent an angry letter to Clear Channels radio asking them to reprimand Rush. Apparantly, even he can't stomach Rosanne or he would have known who really inciting the riot.

What is really striking is that the liberals would conduct such a violent protest of their own party's nominating conventions. Rosanne's suggestion that the liberals recreate the riots of '68 makes absolutely no sense. With her comment "Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained", is she accusing the Democratic party of allowing unrestrained imperialism and racisom? (Considering Obama's candidacy and the left's fawning over him, the charge of racism is obvious.) Have the liberal's forgotten that Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, largely because the Democrats couldn't nominate an electable candidate?
 
While I'm all for abolishing the Democratic party, it only makes sense to attack your opponent; but then liberals were never known for being insightful. Also, the lefts' attack on Rush only proves their willful blindness to their party's dysfunctional schizophrenia.

Syndicated columnist DeWayne Wickham wrote a column "Voter photos make sense - but not the way it's done in Indiana" on May 2, 2008. He says he agrees that voters should show a photo ID. He just thinks that Indiana's law goes too far.

"Most members of Congress and state legislatures, however, are ignorant of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. They generally are unable to distinguish between the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's Farewell Address, and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Their knowledge of freedom of speech, the Commerce Clause, habeas corpus, or separation of powers is sophomoric. They do not appreciate that the Constitution nowhere mentions political parties or hints that voting rules could be skewed for the sole objective of favoring one party over another."

He is a bit confused by the Constitution himself. He also seems to be ignorant of the concept of "original intent." He claims that "The establishment clause of the First Amendment similarly prohibits laws inspired to advance religion." It does not. The original intent of the Establishment Clause, according to our Founding Fathers, is to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion. He also parrots others who so often wrongly expound upon the "wall of separation between church and state" by forgetting that there is more to the Religious Freedom clause of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To get back to the issue of Indiana's voter photo id law, Mr. Fein would do well to recall a couple of other provisions of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 4

The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make of alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.

To put it in plain English, as if it isn't plain enough, each state makes its own laws regarding elections and only Congress, not the Supreme Court or any other Federal court, can change those laws.

Article II, Section 1, para 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Again, the Constitution makes it quite clear that each state legislature makes its own laws regarding elections.

Mr. Fein, just like Mr. Wickham, accuses Indiana's legislature of partisan politics. He also parrots the fact that the law disproportionately affects the poor, elderly, disabled and minority Democrats.

Inconsistencies and Irregularities

“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,” said Sen. John Kerry, a Navy combat veteran who served in Vietnam.

“In a sense, there's nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought,” Kerry said.

“If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.”

Vietnam Service Medal

Purple Hearts