President Barack Hussein Obama today issued an official statement "U.S. President on the Occasion of Ramadan." Most of it is the mushy, post-Orwelllian P.C. that has sadly become part of our daily political discourse. You can read the text here.

What is particularly fascinating to me is the last paragraph, in which Obama ascribes one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity to Islam:


"Times like this remind us of the lesson of all great faiths, including Islam -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In that spirit, I wish Muslims around the world a blessed month, and I look forward to again hosting an iftar dinner here at the White House." (Emphasis mine).

All great faiths teach us to "Do unto others?" That sounds a lot like Mt 7:12 to me: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Or perhaps Luke 6:31: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

And what does the Quran say about "doing to others?" Let's see:


Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers..."

Terror? Really...


Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."

Murdered and crucified? Indeed!


Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them..."

And who could forget the famous Sura 9:5, which Osama bin Laden cited as justification for killing "all Americans, civilian and military" in his 1996 manifesto "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"?


Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."

The question is this: Is Obama deliberately lying about the nature of Islam, or is the commander-in-chief really that ignorant?

It could be said that the USA is only just over 40 years since it's last civil war.. over racial equality. Still in the 70's the KKK (an American terrorist group) and other Nazi style groups were bombing on US soil.

Is it true that Ex-Grand Wizard David Duke has been asked (as he claims) that thousands of Tea Party members want him to run for President after all that has gone on in the past??

Debt Deal Delivered

President Obama signs bill raising debt ceiling into law


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz1TuVQH7J5

(V): While the British Wonderland has experienced the peaceful talks between the nice unionists and the nicer nationalists…

On Monday, Glenn Beck wrote an op-ed for The Blaze that had a simple warning: despite an impending debt deal, the U.S. could still be downgraded, and probably would be. No plan out there “comes close to solving our long-term problem,” he wrote. Guess what? A major rating agency agrees.

Pedro Martínez: Yes they did and the war there apart from some extremists is over.

It always seems there are a few odd ones who love to fight.

Pedro Martínez: exactly

The Fibonacci Sequence has to be a bit of a puzzle for atheists to solve.

http://youtu.be/e9MwNm0gXd8

Artful Dodger: that is really interesting...thanks :)

Bernice: I thought so too. Gotta love how so many pieces fit together so perfectly.

Artful Dodger: OMG...whom does she remind you of???

Bernice: I love Lucy?    There's no mistaking Joy Behar.  She's so nasty.  I love it when Bill O'reilly comes on The View and her body language is SO LOUD.  Bill tells her to smile and live up to her name.  She hates that.  Once he told her to be quiet and listen and she might learn something.   She has her own talk show now.  It's a hoot.   I'll give her this though:  She has a great smile and she IS funny!

She got mad at Bill once and walked off the set.    But later they made up.  I was watching the whole thing unfold on TV and as you can see, I was glued to the set! 

Artful Dodger: LOL

Bernice:  I love that monkey pic.  Obama kinda looks like that but he has more teeth. 

Artful Dodger: hahhha

Pedro Martínez:
yeah, and mostly funded by the good old US of A.
(Northern Ireland is not part of Britain by the way).

Artful Dodger:

> Well clearly the current powers aren't going to do that. So what's your solution?

The USA has put itself in an untenable position by putting all of its power in the hands of two political powers. There is no alternative. The Tea Party is not really an alternative, but a repackaging of similar right wing views of the past. We have seen it before. There are certain ideological elements in the Tea Party that remind me of the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump were trying to run for president (Pat Buchanan ultimately won the nomination). It is symptomatic that Ron Paul (called the "Godfather" of Tea Party philosophy) was once courted by the Reform Party.

The right has tried its hand at finding an alternative, but it does not seem to crystallize. Likewise the left opted for the Green Party. However, neither the Reform nor the Green Party seemed to capture the imagination of the American public.

Is there a solution? Not while the legal framework and the power structure remain unchanged. Even if a third party were to win the election, the basic structure of the Executive branch (White House, Congress, Senate) remains the same. The lobby system remains the same too, as do political contributions by wealthy donors.

This simply means that the most the USA can hope for at this time is to pass laws that force the government to balance the budget (that ammendment to the constitution is part of the latest debt ceiling deal). However, there is no law that tells the government to put the average citizen ahead of special interests and welathy donors.. The government might balance the budget, but at the expense of the poor. Then the military remain unchanged and they will continue to syphon the largest chunk of the budget.

I see no party changing things, because it would take an uphill legal battle to redo the way the budget is designed and managed. There is no legal guanrantee that the government will not shape the budget for the benefit of a rich few rather than the majority of the population. The Tea Party might choose a fiscally responsible approach, but will that include eliminating tax cuts for the rich? I doubt it since tax cuts are central to their philosophy, as is big military spending. The Green Party might sound nice (to the left at least) on environmental issues, but theri website makes no mention of the debt problems or how they would change things or manage the problem.

Übergeek 바둑이:  Lobbying should be outlawed.

Obama Issues Statement Marking The Beginning Of Ramadan, But Hasn't Issued Statement For Easter Since Elected To Office

From CNSNews.com (via BigPeace, emphasis mine):

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama on Monday issued a statement marking the start of Ramadan, the month devoted to prayer and fasting in the Muslim religion.

“As Ramadan begins, Michelle and I would like to send our best wishes to Muslim communities in the United States and around the world,” the statement reads. “Ramadan is a festive time that is anticipated for months by Muslims everywhere.”

Obama did not issue a statement marking Easter this year [...]

A review of presidential statements documented at whitehouse.gov indicates that Obama has apparently not issued a statement specifically about Easter since taking office in January 2009.

Obama issued Ramadan message and hosted a special Ramadan White House dinner in 2009 and 2010.

Now, maybe I am the only one who thinks this but the president should issue no religious statements at all. If Obama made a mistake, it is to be wishing happy whatever to whatever religion. He should have issued no easter message, no passover message and no ramadan message. A president should start by being completely impartial.

Übergeek 바둑이: Ha! We agree on that one. It's the safest way. Too many people get all bent out of shape when he says it and when he doesn't. Better not to say anything at all and only have one side mad at you. Eventually they shut up about it.

I've read some good books on history recently and am convinced that while America was guided by Judeo - Christian principles, in no way was this nation founded as a Christian nation. There were religious differences from the beginning and if you didn't belong to a certain sect, you were ostracized. Israel is a secular country. So is America. Iran is mostly a religious country (guided by their religious beliefs and laws etc). So what I mean is that America is not a Christian nation in the same way that Iran is a Muslim nation. I'm not bothered by saying that. That said, we are a good nation (when you get down to the "folks.") We're a nation that gives billions of our dollars away each year to the needy (I'm talking about the folks giving their money away - not the government doing it for them). The biggest problem in America's image is all the kooks get the press and the people that do good don't get noticed. Just as there are morons out there acting in the name of Christ, there are people actually doing very good things in the name of Christ. AND the key to understanding which is the more consistent example of Christian charity, one only needs to read the message of Jesus and see what he said. He said LOVE your enemy, take care of widows and orphans. There are millions of people doing just that. Just as an example, our community of churches work together (Catholic AND Protestant) to help the needy in our community. That's how it should be.

And it certainly isn't necessary for any president to wish us happy holiday this or that. I for one don't care about it. I just want him (the prez) to do his / her constitutional duty. Wishing me a Merry Christmas isn't one of them. ;)

"So what I mean is that America is not a Christian nation in the same way that Iran is a Muslim nation. "

Right.... The primary religion of America.... ...

As to laws.. in all that is a quagmire mix up of Muslim/Christian and other values... how else do you explain that being Gay was a crime!!

AUSTIN, Texas - The debate over teaching evolution in public schools flared up again at the Texas State Board of Education yesterday, with supporters and opponents of the approach sparring at a meeting over supplemental science materials for the upcoming school year and beyond.

The Republican-dominated board drew national attention in 2009 when it adopted science standards encouraging schools to scrutinize “all sides’’ of scientific theory, a move some creationists hailed as a victory.

The board’s new chairwoman, former biology teacher Barbara Cargill, disputes the theory of evolution. First elected in 2004, she was appointed chairwoman earlier this month by Governor Rick Perry, who is considering a run for president. Cargill is considered one of the panel’s more conservative members.

The new teaching materials are necessary because the state could not afford to buy new textbooks this year, leaving students to use some that are several years old. The board is considering materials recommended by state Education Commissioner Robert Scott. A vote is scheduled today.

One conservative group, Texans for a Better Science Education, put out a call to pack yesterday’s public hearing with testimony urging board members to adopt materials that question Charles Darwin’s theory on the origin of life. But much of the day’s testimony was dominated by people who support teaching evolution.

“I don’t want my children’s public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom,’’ said the Rev. Kelly Allen of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. “True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science.’’

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-22/news/29804037_1_creationism-evolution-in-public-schools-intelligent-design

Übergeek 바둑이: It won't happen. Especially as many Presidents will exercise their right to say "So help me God" when they are sworn in.

The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. The top 2% pay 38%. The bottom 51 % pay NOTHING.

Those are facts.

So Obama LIES when he talks about those who do not pay their fair share. Shouldn't the bottoms pay at least something?

AND, since we can make MORE MONEY in taxes with a flat tax, why isn't that happening?

answer: Lobbyists.

'So Obama LIES when he talks about those who do not pay their fair share.'

If they pay their fair share.. fraud, loopholes and offshore accounts. Plus dirty auditors mean that doesn't happen.

We all pay tax in the west, at least those countries with a VAT or fuel based duty.

... which circles back to company fraud of taxes and the wonderful system of fixed bids on projects for the likes of universities, schools and public buildings.

But the lobbyists like to blame the poor.

Yes, OBAMA LIES.

because what he says is NOT TRUE


We ALL have loopholes. They are legal. Fix the loopholes. But the stats I offered are TRUE.

But ignored.

Perspective... If 25% of the rich defraud 25% of their monies it makes a big difference... if 25% of the poor defraud 25% of their.. oh yes.. it makes no difference.

In New York, you have MORE taxes than just Federal to worry about. In Texas there are no State taxes. So in SOME states, the rich pay even MORE than they would in other states. They pay MORE than their fair share and many at the bottom pay NOTHING>

Better would be a national tax. Everybody must buy something. The rich buy more stuff. Tax that. Get rid of the IRS and income tax. It's such a sham anyway.

A person making 400 thousand a year would pay ALL THEIR WAGES TO THE GOVERNMENT up until May 31. That's nearly half a year of working and getting nothing for it.

That's a verifiable fact that the left ignores.

51 states arguing and no national rates... Guess the masters love that

The UK does. on VAT and Income Tax.. only variation is Council tax.

Everyone pays here!! Is that too socialist though?

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

***** Don't pay or get back for working?? *****

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay
other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security
and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and
cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and
property.

So do the rich who pay their federal taxes.  So they pay more.  It's a myth that the rich don't pay their fair share (generally speaking) 

Where there are loopholes, that's on the government.  Close em up.  Don't blame people with money for the incompetence of government.  The tax laws were designed by lawmakers, not CEOs.

Do those on the dole pay taxes....only the GST or VAT....they should be made pay income taxes like the ordinary person who works for their money...make them appreciate the value of their dollar/pound more.

Bernice: Only sales taxes I suppose. I know a lot of people that work "under the table" and pay nothing. There are many ways to hide one's income. Probably many people who say that the rich should pay more, pay nothing themselves. I know this is true in many situations. But even some of the rich say they should pay more. But when pressed (only Fox News presses them on this) they back down. Seems there are actual government agencies where you can both "donate" extra cash into the general fund or to help pay down the debt. The fat cats in Hollow-wood, when told of this, never take advantage of it.

Because they really don't want to pay it themselves. They want others to pay it and they want the government to confiscate this extra cash by law! Scoundrels!!!

A Stampede of Support!

We are thrilled to be given the opportunity to help support our soldiers serving overseas, now our goal is to get the soldiers as many remote controlled trucks as we can, and get them there as soon as possible. These trucks are not just toys, they can help save lives. With your donations, we will continue to send these trucks to support our troops.

http://www.fuelmybrain.org/index.html

Artful Dodger:

> The tax laws were designed by lawmakers, not CEOs.

Really? And I wonder who is giving the biggest campaign donations to law makers? And who can pay the most to lobbyist so that they can influence law makers into passing tax breaks?

Your idea that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes is quoted over and over. What is not quoted is how income has increased for the top 10% of the population in the last 40 years, while the poor have had their income effectively eroded. It might seem tah the rich pay more in taxes. They also have made the most money, and at the expense of the poor. But then, right wingers think it is OK to use the poor to get rich.

Artful Dodger: If the CEO's and people with money were honest they wouldn't abuse the tax system would they. Our countries wouldn't have to spend millions chasing after billions in lost taxes.

Btw.. it's a fact that over the same period the income of the rich has risen by 100% and of the poor by less then 10%. Yet (another fact) ... the level of taxation on the rich has dropped by 35% since 1980 (the trickle down lie)

Plus in the current "The rich pay half"... deductions?

Bernice: Maybe you'd like to start taxing charities as well. But.... in understanding how they work.. as I work for one... would that be fair?

Some churches that are big... mmmmmm ... The Greek Orthodox owns so much of Greece...

(V):

> Some churches that are big... mmmmmm ...

The church should be taxed. No question. Quite a few churches operate like businesses and their church leaders make a lot of money. If they are honest they will put it back into their church. If they are dishonest they will buy big homes, expensive cars, and trophy mistresses. By not taxing the church, the state is subsidizing their work. If they work for the benefit of the poor, there is a logic to the tax exemption. If they work for the benefit of a few church leaders, then there is no excuse.

Übergeek 바둑이: Why are you so eagar to have the government forcefully take other people's money?

Übergeek 바둑이: The church should NOT be taxed. What you describe may be true for some churches, but it's a gross overgeneralization. Most churches are small and operate on a very tight budget. There are thousands of small communities with small churches scatter here and there. There are no mega churches within 50 to 100 miles of me.

People who give to the church are giving of money that has already been taxed.
And if people like you (atheists) continue to cry out for the seperation of church and state, then you ought to mean it in every way. Or do you only want their money?

Better is to have certain restrictions on churches (and they have them here) that in order to remain tax free, they have to meet certain criteria. Otherwise you lose it.

In a speech at a campaign fundraiser Wednesday night (August 3, 2011), president Obama said "...we have made some incredible strides together" but "...we're not even halfway there yet". Excuse me! Half way to where? Where are we going? Do we have to go? Or are you going to drag us kicking and screaming by the scruffs of our necks?

Do you mean you will take us to 18% unemployment instead of the current 9%, $28 trillion in debt instead of the current $14 trillion, $8 per gallon gasoline prices instead of $4? Will taxes double?

No one can say we haven't been warned.

Übergeek 바둑이: The 'Christian' TV networks here are always asking for money.. many claim that God & Jesus will through a small donation (or large) help you find financial security.

... I object to those abusing charitable status.

Artful Dodger: Scaremongering.. isn't that a liberal trait?

(V): Many of those are charlatans.

(V): It's the only thing they know.