Oct 1 2014

Christians are so hypocritical; they’re…wait…defending a Muslim’s right to pray?!?

By Todd Starnes…

The player intercepted a pass and ran it back 39 yards for a touchdown. While his teammates celebrated, the player dropped to his knees to pray.

The referee threw a flag.

He said the prayer was a violation of the NFL’s rule governing celebrations.

Unsportsmanlike conduct.

Football fans erupted on Facebook and Twitter – denouncing the referee’s decision. And while the penalty did not affect the outcome of the game – there was something a bit unsettling for punishing a player for offering a prayer to his God.

The player was Husain Abdullah, a 29-year-old safety for the Kansas City Chiefs.

Mr. Adbullah is also a devout Muslim. USA Today reports that Abdullah walked away from professional football during the 2012 season to take a spiritual pilgrimage to Mecca.

So when he dropped to his knees in the end zone, he was not celebrating. He was practicing the Sajdah.

As a Southern Baptist, I’m not all that familiar with the Islamic faith – but I am familiar with religious liberty, freedom of religion.

Under our system of government people of all faiths are able to practice their religion in the public marketplace. And it’s because of those Judeo-Christian concepts that a Muslim and a Buddhist and a Hindu can worship whatever God they choose to worship.

Read the full OpEd at FoxNews.com.


Google Adsense


Oct 1 2014

Obama’s Move…

untitled.2014.09.27.11


Oct 1 2014

How the pervasive, societal stupidity in our culture has kept Obama in office and alive

secret-service 500x200

From the Denver Post

Under withering criticism from Congress, the director of the Secret Service on Tuesday admitted failures in her agency’s critical mission of protecting the president but repeatedly sidestepped key questions about how a knife-carrying intruder penetrated ring after ring of security before finally being tackled deep inside the White House.

Despite the extraordinary lapses in the Sept. 19 incident, Julia Pierson asserted: “The president is safe today.”

Hours later, reports emerged of yet another failure in Secret Service protocol, this time in President Barack Obama’s presence.

On Sept. 16, an armed federal contractor rode on an elevator with Obama and his security detail while the president was visiting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the Washington Examiner reported. The Washington Post reported similar details and added that the man had three convictions for assault and battery.

Why then with the unpopularity Obama has and his lax security is he still alive?

The same reason he was re-elected, or elected in the first place, for that matter.

There’s a correlation between insanity and stupidity. The more crazy a person is, the less intelligent they are, and thus by the time they get crazy enough to do something like assassinate a president, the odds are they’re too stupid to actually do it. Exceptions do occur, which is why we actually have a Secret Service. But since it’s painfully obvious now that Obama’s security are as moronic as he is, the only thing that’s kept him alive has been the overall stupidity of society in general, which is also why he was elected twice.

An ironic catch-22.

Intelligent people understand that besides being wrong, the assassination of a president, regardless of their politics, would do far more to hurt the nation as a whole than the president himself could do by remaining alive. That’s why any time you read someone popping off about how Obama should be shot, hung, etc. is a sign that that person is an idiot.


Oct 1 2014

ISIS Briefing…

untitled.2014.09.27.16


Oct 1 2014

Creators of Asset Seizure Law Admit It Was a Mistake and Want It Repealed.

asset civil forfeiture 500x200

By John Yoder and Brad Cates

John Yoder was director of the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Office from 1983 to 1985. Brad Cates was the director of the office from 1985 to 1989.

The idea seemed so simple: Seize the ill-gotten gains of big-time drug dealers and remove the financial incentive for their criminality. After all, if a kingpin could earn $20 million and stash it away somewhere, even a decade in prison would have its rewards. Make that money disappear, and the calculus changes.

Then, in 1986, the concept was expanded to include not only cash earned illegally but also purchases or investments made with that money, creating a whole scheme of new crimes that could be prosecuted as “money laundering.” The property eligible for seizure was further expanded to include “instrumentalities” in the trafficking of drugs, such as cars or even jewelry. Eventually, more than 200 crimes beyond drugs came to be included in the forfeiture scheme.

This all may have been fine in theory, but in the real world it went badly astray. First, many states adopted their own forfeiture laws, creating programs with less monitoring than those at the federal level. Second, state law enforcement agencies and prosecutors started using the property — and finally even to provide basic funding for their departments.

The individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic, and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to “prove” anything to the government. If the government has probable cause of a violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be proclaimed by 12 peers.

Read the full OpEd at the Washington Post.


Oct 1 2014

Taxes are collected at gunpoint…

untitled.2014.09.27.13


Oct 1 2014

Frank J. Fleming: California

liberal-logic-101-1045


Oct 1 2014

The UN bias toward Israel…

untitled.2014.09.27.15


Oct 1 2014

Useless, Talking Heads.

liberal-logic-101-1044


Oct 1 2014

Moms Demand a Fourth Reich?…

untitled.2014.09.27.17


Oct 1 2014

Cause & Effect?

liberal-logic-101-1043


Sep 30 2014

Politics…

untitled.2014.09.27.20


Sep 30 2014

Liberal Media Hiding Polls Showing Even Democrats Don’t Want Amnesty

obama indecisive 500x200

Many Democrats and swing-voters strongly oppose President Barack Obama’s immigration policies, according to previously unreleased information from a poll by George Washington University’s Battleground poll.

The August survey of 1,015 likely voters showed that Obama’s immigration policy faces lopsided opposition, 57 percent to 38 percent.

One of the polling firms sent The Daily Caller data showing how many demographic groups strongly opposed or supported Obama’s immigration policies. That’s valuable data, because campaigns can persuade voters with strong opinions on an particular issue to switch their ballot.

The new data showed that 114 “conservative Democrats” split 28 percent strongly against and 23 percent strongly for Obama’s immigration policies.

The data shows that of 163 “mod[erate]/conservative Democrats” 25 percent disapprove and 21 percent approve. Eighty-eight “soft Dems” are split 20 percent strongly against, 34 percent strongly for.

Large slices of critical Democratic-leaning blocs also strongly opposed the president’s immigration policies, the data showed.

The sample of 204 low-income voters in the poll split 46 percent strongly against, 24 percent strongly supportive, even though 51 percent approved of Obama’s job performance.

Union households gave Obama a 59 percent to 39 percent overall positive job approval, but also reported 39 percent strong negative to 24 percent strong positive rating on immigration.

Those deep splits in the Democratic base could be a major problem for Democrats if the GOP decides to rally independents and base voters for the November election.

Read the full article at The Daily Caller.


Sep 30 2014

The True Selfie…

untitled.2014.09.27.21


Sep 30 2014

The Fence Jumper…

untitled.2014.09.27.18