Did you read the bill?

Congressman Tom Perriello touts his vote for ObamaCare as a good one. He’s proud the new law covers children to age 26, has no lifetime coverage limits and nobody can be denied health insurance because of a precondition. Oh yeah, it supposedly reduces the deficit. But truly, Congressman Perriello, did you read the bill?

If you had, you would have discovered that the administration costs weren’t included and will have to be paid with future appropriations. This has already eliminated any deficit reduction, and ObamaCare’s mandates have forced health insurance companies to raise premiums by double-digits just to stay in business.

President Obama promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” ObamaCare gives employers punitive mandates, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, and a burdensome regulatory compliance regime which is already thwarting economic recovery. Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin argues that as many as 43 million people covered by employer-sponsored insurance may lose their current coverage.

The fast-food restaurant chain McDonalds has already announced that its mini-med plan can’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 85% of its premium revenue on medical care because it’s simply unrealistic. So, that’s another 30000 to be added to the oft quoted millions of uninsured with another 1.4 million in jeopardy. Congressman Perriello, did you read the bill?

ObamaCare also drastically curtails health savings account (HSA) and flexible spending accounts (FSAs). According to the New York Times, “Flexible Spending, a Little Less So,” in 2011 OTC medicines won’t be reimbursable without a prescription. In 2013, ObamaCare will also reduce contribution limits to $2500.

In order to make this trillion dollar new entitlement (with $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities) look deficit neutral, Obamacare pretended to cut doctors’ Medicare reimbursement payments by 23%. Congress has already delayed these cuts to December and probably will delay them again in the lame duck session after the election exasperating the growing deficit.

If the cuts do go through, it will only accelerate the dropping of Medicare patients. For example, after Obama touted the Mayo Clinic as a national model for efficient healthcare, they stopped accepting Medicare patients in 2010 at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the government’s reimbursements were simply insufficient.

ObamaCare will also make it next to impossible for doctors to establish their own hospitals and will burden them with thousands of hours of new reporting requirements along with overburden emergency rooms. The massive expansion of Medicaid, which reimburses doctors at only 56% of the private practice rate, will result in a shortage of 300,000 nurses and 100,000 doctors by 2020. Congressman Perriello, did you read the bill?

Obamacare imposes a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices (like powered wheelchairs, hearing aids, breast-milk pumps, prosthetics, replacement joints, and diagnostic tools like MRI and CT scanners) as well as additional annual fees on health insurance providers. And these fees only increase every year. Only the cruel and heartless would hike taxes on much needed medical devices. Congressman Perriello, did you read the bill?

Medicaid spending already is about 21% of the typical state budget. Obamacare will significantly increase that. Of the 34 million Americans who gain health insurance through Obamacare, over half (18 million) will receive it through Medicaid. Only a state with a “Cornhusker Kickback” will avoid the looming budget crisis, and neither Virginian senator was smart enough to hold his vote until he got it.

Obamacare gives states bailouts through 2016. But in 2017, state taxpayers will have to shell out for Medicaid’s ever-expanding expense. If Medicaid spending increases by the projected 41%, in 2011 it could consume nearly 30% of the average state budget.44 states report that they’ve already exceeded projected Medicaid enrollment and spending targets for this year, and Obamacare will only make that worse. Congressman Perriello, did you read the bill?

The President’s own Medicare Actuary projects that the record-breaking payment reductions will hit hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes. ObamaCare will make 15% of these providers unprofitable and possibly “jeopardize” seniors’ access to care.

On top of that, payment cuts to Medicare Advantage plans will hit seniors especially hard. Enrollment in these plans is expected to drop from 14.8 to 7.4 million. By 2017, the average annual per-capita cuts for Medicare Advantage enrollees will be about $3,700, a 27% reduction from today’s levels.

Congressman Perriello, did you ever read this bill? You probably didn’t and just accepted without question the lies like a good little Poodle of Pelosi, who actually said, “The bill must be passed before we can know what’s in it.” But even if Perriello had read the bill that would be worse since he would have been well aware of the horror being wrought upon America that’s fast becoming an ObamaMare.

Hillary on the Hunt

Recently, “Secret-ary of State” Hillary Clinton, former predestined candidate for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination, uttered in a question and answer session that the burgeoning debt was detrimental to national defense. Apparently, America can’t attack another nation and still expect that country to continue lending us money. Still, Hillary’s “lapse into reasoning” leads some to suspect that if Obama continues dropping in the polls, she may be positioning herself for another run for the office she covets most.

One of Obama’s smartest decisions (and it is probably his only one) was choosing for Vice President, Joe Biden. Biden is a true “gaffe-omatic” and a total nut-zoid who nobody in his right mind would ever want to be president. Even Democrats aren’t that crazy… Maybe? To be more precise, Obama’s VP decision is truly fateful in that he didn’t pick Hillary Clinton.

Some speculated that Hillary wasn’t chosen because she didn’t get along with Michele “my belle” Obama. Obama chose Biden even though Hillary on the ticket would have better unified the party. Well, it might have made those “birthers” happy. That’s right. Those pesky people who want to see Obama birth certificate (not necessarily on his forehead though) were all originally Democrats who strongly supported Hillary Clinton.

Hillary supporters were the original “birthers” who wanted to win regardless of repercussions. People like Attorney Phil Berg, who has tried to have his case heard in the US Supreme Court. Coincidentally, Justice Clarence Thomas admitted in congressional testimony that the court was evading the issue of presidential eligibility of non-naturally born citizens.

But, getting back to Obama’s forehead for a moment, dropping poll numbers and if Democrats lose big this November, Obama will be the first president to be a lame duck in his first term. Many Democrats would be out for the kill politically speaking that is, but some might want a kill literally especially if Hillary were the VP.

Oh, they’d never say it out loud, and if it ever happened, they’d reflexively blame some racist right wing tea partier without any proof whatsoever. Yet, secretly they’d thank whoever did it, for as Vice Hillary would immediately assume the mantel of leadership.

Since she’d be serving only the last half of Obama’s first term, she could be “officially” elected for another two full terms or the maximum of 10 years. At her age, that would practically make her dictator for life. And Democrats sure do love dictators like Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and otherwise hate leaders who support liberty and freedom.

Obama could also have learned a lesson from Bill Clinton who chose Al Gore as his VP. When Bill was impeached by House Republicans, Senate Republicans became squeamish on his trial. They never even called one witness to testify against then President Clinton. Many pundits speculate that the reason was because polls showed Americans were against the impeachment. So, Senate Republicans were just trying to do the minimum constitutionally to dispatch what had become a political albatross.

But it also could have been Clinton’s VP, Al Gore, who had a reputation of being a global warming zealot. For Gore is also a nut with a mansion in Tennessee that not only used 20 times the national average in power consumption but also was made to look like the White House after his loss to George W in 2000. Senate Republicans had they convicted President Clinton would have made Gore President, and that possibility probably scared them to death.

Chris Matthews, Mr. “Obama Puts a Thrill Up My Leg” MSNBC host, postulated that the reason why women tea party candidates like Sharon Angle (R-NV) and Christine O’Donnell (R-DE) are doing well is that women are angry over Hilary’s loss to Obama and are “going genitally gung ho.” (Notice didn’t write “going ho” which would only have caused even more trouble genitally speaking.)

In his words, “There are an awful a lot of women that felt frustrated by Hillary Clinton's failure two years ago and I'm telling you it’s popping up, I'm hearing it anecdotally, I admit … these are women and they may be conservative women, but they are women nonetheless.” But, it’s a stretch that they’re voting for women who are Hillary’s polar opposite politically speaking.

Finally, there is a real reason for Hillary supporters to be angry. A website called wewillnotbesilenced2008.com with an associated documentary by Gigi Gaston details the many way that the Obama campaign did dirty tricks in the Democrat primaries to disenfranchise potential Hillary voters.

The website’s homepage claims that they are “Americans, not [just] angry liberals.” But, there’s this feeling from the site that they aren’t very happy, and they don’t plan on going away. Who knows, maybe they’ll become a “tea party” like movement in 2012.

O-blame-a

What a difference two years can make. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the slogans were “Hope,” “Change” and “Yes, we can.” But, after almost two years as president, Obama is having difficulty actually governing. With poll numbers dropping, Obama has put into overdrive what will be his strategy to win in 2010. Hence, his new campaign slogans are “Hope we can still blame Republicans” and “No, we can’t because of Republicans.”


This Labor Day, Obama stood in front of his union buddies and called for a $50 billion investment in long term infrastructure projects. This expenditure is finally the one we’ve been waiting for. The administration claims that this will finally “stimulate the flailing economy, create jobs and refill the exhausted highway trust fund.”


If the original $814 billion “Stick it to us” stimulus package didn’t do the trick, why should another $50 billion i.e. “son of stimulus” work. The administration claims that 3.5 million (or was that billion) jobs were either created and/or saved. Yet, the unemployment rate still exceeded the 8% that Obama promised would never go above if his “going deeper in debt” stimulus plan were passed.


What never seems to occur to Obama and his most non-business administration in history is maybe the stimulus caused more jobs to be lost than it gained. Even if it were one step forward, it has definitely been two steps back. Hence, that’s why people, who call themselves progressives, are really “pro-regressives.” It isn’t what you believe and how it makes you feel good that matters. It’s the results of those beliefs.


Undoubtedly, Government doesn’t spend money as efficiently as the private sector. If the government creates a job, it removes resources that could have created more jobs. One example is a recent Los Angeles audit where $111 million of stimulus money only created 55 jobs. It perfectly demonstrates that more government always results in less “real economy,” which is why another $50 billion will buy a cheap thrill but never a recovery.


Still, Obama will blame Republicans for not going with his ideas like a ham sandwich. Obama has to find a villain for his failures because blaming Bush no longer works. So, he’s trying to blame any Republican leader he can. House Minority Leader “Boogeyman” Boehner (R-OH), who hardly anybody knows, is now Obama’s bad guy who’s stopping Obama’s new stimulus that even Obama won’t call a stimulus. Only problem, Democrats have the majority in the House and not one Republican there can stop it.


Other Obama loser ideas include a $100 billion research and development tax credit, a hiring incentives package for small- and medium-sized business and a $42 billion small business package. Ron Bonjean, former communications director to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, says Obama is attempting a “hail Mary” pass.


Bonjean believes that Obama is throwing out ideas just to change the subject from his own failure. Obama knows that Congress has no appetite to enact a second stimulus. So, it’s all talk, a sham.


It’s not like Obama hasn’t perpetrated a few of those in his short tenure. One just occurred in Iraq. Obama made this big announcement that, despite Iraqis having difficulty forming a new government, the US has on time ended combat missions, and its forces have entered into an “advisory” role.


Yet, “former” combat solders are reporting that despite the name change, they’re going on the same old missions and doing the same “combat like” actions that they did before. Obama has the audacity to complain that his critics wouldn’t believe him even if he said the sky was blue or that there were fish in the sea. I have to admit I’d doubt those statements too given his record of “truth-less-ness.”


And most of Obama’s new stimulus isn’t even for the average American worker. Instead it’s for his union buddies. Just like a lot of things Obama does. In ObamaCare, unions with Cadillac healthcare plans are exempt from taxation while the rest of America will have to pay on top of their gross salary.


That’s what billions of dollars buys with Obama, for he has said, “I owe these unions.” But payback won’t be just jobs. It’s also filling up their coffers from all their campaign donations to Democrats. That’s right. They begged, borrowed and stole to get Democrats elected, and in return Democrats borrow and steal from taxpayers to reward unions. Obama wants another $50 billion for “union” infrastructure.


However, very little of the original $814 billion actually went to so-called shovel ready projects. Apparently, the only thing ready to shovel was manure. Yet, Obama complains that keeping Bush’s tax cuts will cost $700 billion, but that’s just letting the people who will do more real economic stimulus than the government could do even with 10 times that amount.

To ACTA or Not To ACTA

That is the question this September where 27 nations including the US will try to enact the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA deals with “piracy over the Internet,” which includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines, censorship and downloading. This treaty would create a global organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, to control globally copyright and intellectual property rights.

President Obama earlier this year has already expressed support for the agreement, saying it was necessary to protect American businesses and technologies. If that’s the case, Obama is justified for it’s his job to protect American interests. When intellectual property is copied by foreign entities it’s means lost jobs for American workers.

U.S. movie, music, software and other copyright-based industries calculate a loss of more than $16 billion in sales every year from pirated versions of their products. Many of these counterfeit and pirated goods are made in China.

Unfortunately, China, where in 2006 the US filed a complaint to the World Trade Organization for inadequate enforcement of copyright protections, is not part of ACTA. In fact, China just might use ACTA to justify their “great firewall” of censorship, and many ACTA critics here fear that any signatory nation could use it to justify censorship as well.

But, ACTA critics also fear far worse. According to www.anti-acta.com, ACTA would overrule any law in a signatory country, and deal harsher, unfair and ineffective punishment to anyone suspected of piracy, all without a court trial. And it could be anyone who is just suspected of listening or uploading a song illegally. Watch out teenagers. It’d be better to be a stopped as an illegal on his way to getting an ice cream cone in Arizona.

But, ACTA doesn’t just go after an errant urchin or two. It also makes Internet Service Providers (ISP) legally responsible for their user’s downloaded content. ISPs could become worse than Windows Vista, but instead of the constant, “Did you initiate that action?” Questioning instead would be, “Do you own this song’s legal copyright?” Or worse still, “Are you the artist formally known as Prince?”

If not, an otherwise innocent Internet interloper could quickly find himself a criminal and incur a huge fine. Recently, the RIAA (Recording Industries Association of America) sued a 12 year old girl for downloading. And RIAA only seeks $150,000 per song violation.

International negotiations on ACTA have largely been done secretly. It’s another ObamaCare moment. We’ll only find out what’s in the treaty after it’s be ratified. Luckily, the agreement has been leaked and already several European privacy organizations have wrote an open letter that stated, “The current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy.”

One organization went further arguing, “ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.” Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, argues that “ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties.”

For its part the European Commission in 2008 denied that negotiations were undertaken in secret. Their explanation was, “For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public.” In other words, it’s not secrecy; it’s efficiency that things are done without public scrutiny.

Their idea of public disclosure is simply announcing negotiations are taking place but not the results. Now that’s where Democrats got the idea on how to pass ObamaCare. However, it’s not like ACTA is the war plans for the D-day invasion. Secrecy only breeds distrust, and from the agreement’s leak now we see why.

Terms like piracy use too broad of a definition, which could be interpreted as any “willful large scale infringements.” Legitimate entrepreneurs and civilians can be criminalized with excessive penalties. The following are examples of such infringements:

• a newspaper, whistle blower or blogger revealing a document,
• ambiguous cases of trademark confusion,
• parallel importation buying and selling of genuine products,
• making a product or medicine where patents have unclear scope and validity
• same with unexamined design right on the production of spare parts,
• an office worker emailing a copy of a market research report to another coworker,
• emailing a list of people violating an unexamined database right,
• a library, preserving digital sound recordings for posterity, unlawfully breaking technical protection each time it lawfully receives a sound recording,
• Youngsters enthusiastically sharing their favorite music with friends.

The end result may be a total shutdown of the Internet, one of the last vestiges of liberty on this planet. And that may very well be the true intent of ACTA.

references:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/americas/07iht-piracy.1909766.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100315/0229228556.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67J5A220100821

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php?title=ACTA#Actors_and_lobbies

Leaked documents reveal draft text of top-secret global copyright deal
montrealgazette.com ^ |

That Anomalous Arctic

The stories have been in the news but not necessarily on the front page nor been the newspaper headlines, and they’ve not been the lead stories on television news. But make no mistake. These stories have been around and have become the counter attack to ClimateGate and the not all too surprising follow-up to 2009, currently the supposed warmest year on record.

Now the alarmists claim that since March each successive month has been the warmest ever. And if this trend continues, then without a doubt 2010 will eclipse 2009 and become the new banner record year for global warming. In fact, they already claim 2010 will be unless a deep La Nina develops quickly. But, questions remain. Were they truly the warmest months?

Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in conjunction with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claim that. But, as of late these scientific as well as governmental organizations have lost much of their credibility. GISS under the command of its director, Dr. James Hansen, has become more “govern-mental” than anything else.

In 2008, Hansen had proudly announced that particular October to be the warmest ever. Yet, quickly afterwards busybody bloggers discovered that Russian September’s temperature data had been copied to October’s verbatim. Since temperatures in this Northern region are rapidly cooling, this little “trick,” as alarmists are apt to do, produced the desired results as well as the headlines except those blasted bloggers botched it.

Hansen still claimed that October 2008 was the hottest. He just managed to find hotspots over the Hudson Bay in Canada that conveniently nobody especially busybody bloggers could verify. Hansen apparently seems to be at it again only the part of the planet in question is different.

Many Americans probably believe that it was the temperature in the Eastern and Southern United States as well as Russia that are the climate chaos culprits. While they were indeed hot, they weren’t the fault. One place on the planet was just sizzling, well maybe just a little less chilly, the Arctic. The high Artic that is, specifically the area north of eighty degrees latitude, was according to GISS this June up to four degrees warmer than its long-term average.

The so-called normal global temperature for June is 59.9°F, but because of the high Artic heat it was 1.22° above or 61.1°F. It was so hot, that from space steam could be seen rising over the North Pole. It was so hot, that polar bears were seen sunning themselves on floating icebergs naked. Who knew they could just take off their fur coats.

What’s interesting is that there aren’t any thermometers there. That’s right in the high Arctic GISS just guesses. So, the warming is entirely fabricated. Now, there are lies. There are damn lies. There’s statistics. But in the advent of the computer age, there are computer algorithms that can lie at over a billion calculations a second. In the end as will be seen, a lie is a lie is a lie.

To determine the temperatures of the Arctic, GISS takes measured temperature data from lower latitudes. A mathematical method known as extrapolation can be used to determine values outside a known range. But GISS isn’t just guesstimating here. Instead it’s data manipulation to the extreme. They literally take it to the point of “ex-CRAP-olation.”

GISS smoothes the temperature data using a box that can be as much as 1,200 kilometers in length. Where there are more temperature stations, actual readings overlap, and the weight of any one station is averaged with others around it. So, the effect of any one station is mitigated.

But in areas where stations are sparse, i.e. the high Arctic, one thermometer can really skew the calculations. Using a 250 degree smoothing factor to generate the Arctic temperature “data,” the truth is shocking as well as appalling. GISS has very little actual data above 60 degrees and none above 80 degrees latitude. That four degree temperature Artic anomaly that’s driving this banner year of warming is based on data that simply doesn’t exist.

In fact, Hansen admits that Arctic warming is the main factor in driving global warming. One would think as a scientist he would want to verify that the estimated data was accurate by placing more temperature stations in the region, but Hansen has shown it only the result that counts not whether it’s real. It seems that the alarmists aren’t giving up their old tricks.

Incidentally, Artic ice over the last three years has been returning despite the “warming.” It’s probably because all that extra CO2 is somehow raising the freezing point of water. And while the Arctic ice is still below average, Antarctica’s has been way above normal. Wasn’t global warming supposed to melt both polar icecaps?

Recovery, What Recovery?

Obama and his many mighty minions are convinced that Americans will believe there’s an economic recovery if they just say it’s coming back often enough. Obama constantly insists that his $862 billion “Stick It to Us” stimulus plan has yet to make its biggest impact and that we’ve “turned the corner” economically speaking. VP Joe Biden always good for a gaffe that’s a laugh called this “The Summer of Recovery. ” Well, that’s only true for people who were chronic workaholics.

Meanwhile, the oft-quoted unemployment number continues to hover at almost 10% while real unemployment is more like 19%. The “official” rate has dropped but mainly because many are giving up what has become a futile search.

In addition to dismal unemployment, housing starts rose 1. 7%, but at a much weaker rate than expected in July, and that figure will more than likely be revised downward. Permits for future home construction plummeted 3. 1% to the lowest level in more than a year. Home sales have dropped 27% much worse than expected, the worst in 15 years.

According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, food stamps recipients hit a record high in May 2010 with 40. 8 million Americans receiving subsidies. That is more than one in eight citizens of this once great nation even though many receivers are probably illegal, i. e. “Undocumented on the dole. ” And, the USDA projects the number of people using food stamps will reach 43. 3 million in 2011.

Now there’s the second quarter GNP growth that has been revised down from a not-so-great 2. 4% to an anemic 1. 6%. Housing starts in June, which were originally reported to have dropped 5%, were revised to a fall of 8. 7%. Interestingly, the numbers are always revised downward, which leads to a conspiracy theory that they are manipulated in an attempt to make Obama look better. The DNC sycophant media dutifully reports the initial better numbers, but the worse revised ones are either barely reported or just sort of forgotten.

Still, the “recovery” what little there’s been has apparently sputtered. Economists have begun to utter that dreadful phrase “double dip,” and unfortunately they aren’t referring to ice cream, which would not have melted away as quickly as the recovery even in this summer’s sweltering heat.

Recently, the UK Guardian reported, “Even the criminals have fallen on hard times in America’s poorest city as the long-term unemployed struggle to keep a grasp on normality. ” The British newspaper continued which even more somber news. Over the past three months alone more than a million Americans have effectively lost hope in finding a job.

They join the already 4. 9 million disparaged unemployed who are likely to grow many millions more as “their jobless status becoming a permanent state of hopelessness. ” Surveys show that with every passing week the unemployed chances of finding a job only get slimmer and dimmer.

It’s amazing to listen to Democrats still complain about Bush taking Clinton’s budget surplus into deficit. But, Clinton didn’t achieve a balanced budget. Congress did because they control spending. The Republican controlled congress under Newt Gingrich briefly achieved this milestone unless pro-regressives want to believe Republicans were just a rubberstamp for Slick Willy. That would be the very Republicans who impeached him.

And while deficits under Bush weren’t good, they were a result in part to two simultaneous wars, both initially supported by Democrats. Yet, Obama in 18 months has super sized the deficits to over $1. 4 trillion, and he is on track to more than double the total debt he inherited in 10 years. It took Obama to make America realize that Bush’s deficits weren’t so bad.

Except for spending trillions on useless stimulus and passing so-called entitlement with trillions of unfunded liabilities with hidden tax increases on the middle class, what are Democrats proposing now to lift America out of this Jimmy Carter like malaise? Why the “The Americans Want to Work Act (S. 3706). ” Leave it to pro-regressives to come up with a bill title to disguise what are basically their same old, failed ideas.

One old idea is extending unemployment insurance another 20 weeks to the already 99 weeks (almost two years) that a layoff worker is eligible in states with 7. 5% or higher unemployment. Republicans have balked at that notion not because they hate the unemployed as the DNC sycophant media tries to portray.

Instead they wanted Democrats to follow their promise of PayGo, cutting spending elsewhere to pay for any new proposed benefits. Not many remember them making that promise that they have yet to follow even once. And as far as unemployment benefits go, they should probably just be extended until Obama exits office because that’s how long before Bush’s tax cuts get extended and ObamaCare’s massive tax increases get repealed. Then, the economy can truly recover.

Curse Those Camels

Much ado has been made on the “Ground Zero Mosque” (GZM) to be built just two blocks from the World Trade Center (WTC) memorial. The issue was just a smoldering sore spot for many, but then Obama entered the fray coming out in support of its construction.

Leave it to Obama to throw gasoline on the fire igniting to only his surprise a firestorm. Of course, it’s Bush’s fault. On the positive side, property rights, a freedom Obama has only been undermining for the last 18 months, he seems to have rediscovered if only for a moment.

Compounding the issue and making sure it’s in the headlines for weeks to come, not to be outdone Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that all opposition to the GZM should be investigated. Only a complete idiot would think that then suggesting that investigating where the $100 million for building the mosque is coming from (actually a good idea) would then quell Pelosi’s initial idiocy. She’s someone who could even make a camel seem incredibly intelligent.

Of course, Democrats blame everyone else but themselves for the problems they create. The GZM was a local issue of the New York Port Authority. They apparently had no problem giving a mosque a green light while at the same time denying a Greek Orthodox Church a rebuilding permit. The church was damaged on 9/11 and has been waiting nine years for approval.

Yet, the Port Authority complained that the church, 24,000 square feet and topped with a grand dome, would be too large and the height of the proposed dome too high. They said it couldn’t rise higher than the WTC memorial. The proposed mosque will be 13 stories, far above the height of the WTC memorial. Interestingly, how they chose not to impose any height restrictions on it.

Because Obama stepped in camel’s crap again (another beer summit?), Democrats and their media operatives went into the usual attack mode, name calling. Opponents of the GZM are not only racist but also “intolerant.” The New York al Timezerra published an article, “Obama’s Mosque Tolerance Upsets Those Who Want a 'White and Largely Christian’ America.”

Leave it to the obsolete media, who in their minds are the only ones who understand journalism, to ratchet up the racist rhetoric instead of just reporting the news. Well, Islam is not a race, and as a religion many of its adherents are the most intolerant followers on the planet.

The “Ass-ociated” Press (AP) released an advisory memo ordering its journalists that they must immediately stop calling the controversy “The Ground Zero Mosque Story.” Instead AP recommends these possible titles “mosque 2 blocks from WTC site,” “Muslim (or Islamic) center near WTC site,” “mosque near ground zero,” or simply “mosque near WTC site.” Why not “Magnificent Muslims Just Want To Build Meek Mosque near WTC Yet Fear Massive Infidel Intolerance?”

What’s intolerant is that this mosque will be called the “Cordoba House.” For historically challenged pro-regressives, that’s the Spanish city where Muslims established their caliphate conquest in Europe. It would be like building in Mecca or Medina, Islam’s most holy sites, a “Crusader Church.”

Oh wait, Christians and Jews are forbidden to enter these cities and can be murdered by Muslims for doing so. Saudi Arabian road signs warn infidels of this overwhelming tolerance. But, it takes two for tolerance. In other words, tolerance is a two way street. If they aren’t going to tolerate America, then in no way should Americans tolerate them.

According to recent polls, one in five Americans believes Obama is a Muslim, and the numbers who believe he’s a Christian are dropping. Obama constantly praises Islam while at the same time denigrating Christianity. Still, many in the media portray “Muslim-ers” like the “Birth-ers” as being just one hump short of a full camel.

Even over four in ten Americans are uncertain what religion Obama is. Making incredulous the White House assertion, “The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day.” Yeah, but to who? Himself? Is Obama just another modern day Mohammad?

The president may be professing faith in Christ to cover his true beliefs, an allowable offense for Muslims under certain circumstances. It’s called “Taqiyya,” lying to advance the agenda of Islam. In fact, the Quran, the Hadith, Islam’s holy books, as well as Shariah law permit a Muslim to falsify his identity to non-Muslims a.k.a. those wacky intolerant infidels.

Finally, Obama had a Muslim father and attended an Islamic school in Indonesia. In Islam, the father determines the religion. Once a Muslim, conversion to another religion is punishable by death which is another “tolerant” aspect of Islam. Undoubtedly, Obama is either a Muslim or an Islamic apostate, and nothing can change that camel’s nose under the proverbial tent.