16 Sep

Obama makes the US Shari’a compliant. He must resign- now [Reader Post]

                                       

There once was a Constitution in this country.

There once was free speech in this country.

No longer. Shari’a is the new law of our land, and Barack Obama has brought it to us.

The less bright among us still believe that the unrest in the Middle East is consequent to a ineptly produced movie denigrating Islam.

Utter boneheads such as Anthea Butler tell us that “Sam Bacile” should be arrested because his movie

denigrates the religion by depicting the faith’s founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers.

Butler, who is either addle-brained or ignorant conveniently ignores events and items such as Piss Christ

and Virgin Mary complete with elephant dung.

Butler finds no offense in the offense of Catholicism, just like Barack Obama.

Michael Moore made a factually impaired movie about the Bush administration and the left loved it. If making movies with false premises was a crime Michael Moore would be death row.

It’s called free speech. It was guaranteed by the US Constitution. As Votlaire is attributed with saying, I disapprove of what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Until now.

Now it’s pretty much over.

Obama’s jackbooted a**hole Eric Holder and the DOJ have made the US Shari’a compliant. If someone offends Allah, he is screwed.

Someone professing to be named Sam Bacile made a terribly terrible movie about Mohammed. The Islamic prophet is broadly insulted in the movie. It turns out that Sam Bacile is actually an Egyptian Coptic Christian named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Like him or not, Coptic Christians are and have been under attack by Muslims in Egypt for some time. A guy can get sensitive about his brethren being killed and burned.

Well, he made this movie and by allah counts it’s terrible.

But that’s irrelevant. He had a right to make the movie under the Constitution of the United States.

At least, until Barack Obama came along. Obama’s DOJ is after Nakoula.

Firstly, they made sure everyone knew who he was. Holder’s Nazis first identified Nakoula and then they painted a target on Nakoula’s back by first identifying his house and car ( I am not about to post the link).

Now he’s been picked up by the Feds for “questioning.”

Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a scarf over his face. He kept his hands in the pockets of a winter coat.

Sheriff’s officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told KNBC News that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriff’s substation in Cerritos for interviewing.

By golly, there must something Holder can nail him with:

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California was reviewing whether Nakoula, who has been convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the Internet.

Probation my ass.

Let’s not kid ourselves with this garbage. This is about placating Islam. This is about apologizing for America. Shari’a gains its footholds through umbrage and outrage and dins its opponents into submission. In fact, that’s what “Islam” means.

Submission.

And submit is precisely what Obama and Hillary have done.

I agree with Glenn. Obama should resign.

NOW

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Freedom, Islam, Liberal Idiots, Politics, Radical Relationships, Religion, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, September 16th, 2012 at 6:00 am
| 1,336 views

71 Responses to Obama makes the US Shari’a compliant. He must resign- now [Reader Post]

  1. Redteam says: 51

    @Greg:

    Republicans don’t really seem to want a republic. They seem to want an oligarchy. Or maybe a plutocracy. It’s a little hard to tell sometimes.

    Only if you are loaded up with dumbass. I didn’t say a damn thing about Republicans. I said the US is a Republic, not a democracy. Did you skip grade school? They teach that there.

    ReplyReply
  2. johngalt says: 52

    @Greg:

    Republicans don’t really seem to want a republic. They seem to want an oligarchy. Or maybe a plutocracy. It’s a little hard to tell sometimes.

    That’s quite amusing, Greg. Especially considering that conservatives support State’s rights while liberal/progressives want a strong, central government to give them everything. In that sense, I’d say that Republicans strongly favor a republic, while liberal/progressives would rather have a dictatorship based on Socialist principles. And it’s not very hard at all to tell what you lib/progs wish you had for a government. You tell us daily all about it.

    ReplyReply
  3. Smorgasbord says: 53

    Obama shouldn’t resign. Our Illegal-In-Chief should be in Guantanamo with his friends.

    ReplyReply
  4. liberal1(objectivity) says: 55

    @Redteam: Do you really believe the two are mutually exclusive?

    ReplyReply
  5. liberal1(objectivity) says: 56

    @johngalt: Do you really believe that states should have all rights, and federal government none.

    The idea is that states can render injustices, if the federal government doesn’t have some say so in their activities—that was the reason we had a Civil War.

    There is a delicate balance between state and federal control. If we agreed with your ideas completely, it would be the same as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—without the Socialists—just a group of Republican dictatorships.

    ReplyReply
  6. liberal1(objectivity) says: 57

    @Smorgasbord: Why is he illegal? Wasn’t Bush illegal when the Supreme Court as good a installed him as supreme monarch?

    ReplyReply
  7. liberal1(objectivity) says: 58

    @Lightwave: Would you care to document that “million fraudulent votes of Obama”; or are you just repeating right-wing talking points, without any forethought.

    ReplyReply
  8. liberal1(objectivity) says: 59

    @retire05: I think what Greg may be trying to say is if you remove all the hyperbole from you comments, you have nothing factual to say.

    ReplyReply
  9. Nan G says: 60

    @liberal1(objectivity): Wow!
    Lib1!
    I had no idea there was anyone left who even imagined (in the fantasyland of their own head) that Bush lost even ONE recount in Florida!
    There was not even any potential recount where Bush would have lost.
    None!

    ReplyReply
  10. Lonesomebri says: 61

    When Sharia Law comes to the US, it will have a nice Christian name.

    Stating that Obama makes the US compliant to Sharia law is a lie, and then you expect to be taken seriously…… Pathetic. All these terrible things Obama has done, but you have to resort to making things up? That’s the water you swim in, the only world you know; fantasy.

    ReplyReply
  11. Dc says: 62

    The position of the admin is that these people have protested and are being violent towards the US and it’s embassies (and people) over a violation of Sharia law concerning certain forbidden depictions of Muhammed. The US has issued no less than 3 statements suggesting that the US gov does not support such purposeful denigration against any religion. (which is inherently untrue…given the US gov routinely funds art that is offensive to Christians and Jews the world over).

    The US gov has called the preacher Jones in Fl to ask him not to speak or act in such a manner as to provoke muslims (he’s the preacher that threatened to burn Koran’s resulting in violent protests around the world). The reasons given for this…is that it the speech could incite violence against US interests or people.

    So, I ask my liberal friends….do we have such freedom here or not? Already the WH position runs contrary to the supreme court decisions on the matter….that such speech is protected EVEN if it is thought that such speech may provoke a riot or violence. And certainly…most liberals I know make a sport out of insulting religious persons..specifically Christians of all makes and models. Hell, one I know says Jesus is technically a zombie. …died..came back. That we are all worshiping a zombie..and waiting to become one (if you are Pentecostal). I can’t count the number of times I sat at a table and listened to a well educated person absolutely desecrate anything and everything “holy” to religion and suggest that any person who would believe in it is just stupid. What don’t my liberal friends reading this search your own mind/hearts for how you feel/talk to anyone you know is devoutly “religious”?

    My question to you though is different….”why” this exception for Islam? Or any other religion? Why is that different? Because if the answer is…simply because of the violence that comes from others violating Sharia law in front of them….I dont’ think it’s too far off to suggest what the author of this post is suggesting.

    ReplyReply
  12. johngalt says: 63

    @liberal1(objectivity):

    Do you really believe that states should have all rights, and federal government none.

    Are you this ignorant all the time, Lib1. When did I ever say that I believe state’s “should have all rights, and federal government none.”

    Do you even understand what is meant by the term “State’s rights”? No, it is obvious that you do not. Look it up. Google is your friend. Or not.

    My response to Greg was precipitated by a similar ignorance displayed in his comment.

    ReplyReply
  13. Nan G says: 64

    @johngalt:
    Obama is training his “useful” idiots to think in terms of straw men, too.

    ReplyReply
  14. Aqua says: 65

    @ lib1 #56

    do you really believe states shoul have all the rights and federal government none.

    I would recommend you google Patrick Henry’s argument against ratification at the Virginia convention. It’s as if he looked into the future. Your comparison to the USSR is totally ignorant.

    ReplyReply
  15. Dc says: 66

    I would add….if the republicans were anything like the democrats….they’d be sending senators and former political figures (including Bush) to the ME to undermine Obama and his admin’s efforts there…and celebrating it on Fox news as a triumph of democracy and patriotic dissent.

    ReplyReply
  16. Redteam says: 67

    @liberal1(objectivity): Lib: #59

    I think what Greg may be trying to say is if you remove all the hyperbole from you comments, you have nothing factual to say.

    Lib, even with your hyperbole, you have nothing to say. I find this interesting: #56

    The idea is that states can render injustices, if the federal government doesn’t have some say so in their activities—that was the reason we had a Civil War.

    Seems as if you likely have the concepts of States and Republics exactly backwards. Actually the founding fathers were afraid of injustices by the Federal Government, so they limited their rights via the Constitution, leaving all other rights to the States. The original theory was that, if it wasn’t delegated to the Fed Gov to control, it was supposedly 100 % left to the States to do whatever they pleased. The reason we had a civil war was because the Federal Gov thought that slavery was outlawed via the Constitution, some states did not agree. There were some other issues also that the Fed Gov wanted to control that the States felt as if they had no business interfering. Seems as if you are a prime example of someone educated in the days of teachers unions, when all they consider to be important is keeping a job without having to actually educate anyone. (at least that is a good reason for you not knowing)

    ReplyReply
  17. BABY GLOCK says: 68

    TO THE TUNE OF “LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL”

    Beware of, creeping Shari’a,
    We see our liberties fraying away,
    Remember, somewhere, an Imam’s speaking,
    Shari’a, creeping–throughout our land,
    INTO OUR HOUSE.
    Jihadists work hard, without complaining,
    They think those virgins are coming this way!
    So always look for, Shari’a creeping,
    They claim we’ll be soon be a new Islamic U.S.A.

    ReplyReply
  18. from what we are observing, THE UNITED STATES POSESS MORE WISDOM THAN THE FEDERALS,
    THEY KNOW BETTER HOW TO RUN THEIR STATES THAN THIS GOVERNMENT RUN BY OBAMA’S UNIONS.
    I COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IF OBAMA AND CREWS ARE RE-ELECTED,
    YOU WILL SEE MANY STATES DECIDE TO LEAVE THE OBAMA FEDERAL AGENDA, AND GET HIM OUT OF THEIR BUSYNESS AND RUN THEIR STATES WITHOUT OBAMA,
    IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT, JUST WAIT, I can think of more than 3/4 of the STATES, AND THEY HAVE POWERS THEY NEVER
    HAD TO USE BUT IT’S THERE JUST IN CASE, SO THINK AGAIN

    ReplyReply
  19. Dc says: 70

    If the RNC cannot win this election….they should disband the party and never use any symbols, names or planks of it again. We need a new independent AMERICAN party that focuses entirely on issues that affect all americans in all areas…and leaves all partisan/social/divisive issues, etc..to the hacks in other parties to club each other over the head with.

    ReplyReply
  20. Marine72 says: 71

    @liberal1(objectivity):
    NOW ABOUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
    >>HOW NO ONE GETS
    >>A REASSIGNED SS NUMBER
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose
    >>Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama:
    >>
    >>
    >>Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the
    >>United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s
    >>current SSN) on or about March 1977.
    >>
    >>
    >>Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of
    >>that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select
    >>few reserved for Connecticut residents.
    >>
    >>
    >>Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no
    >>reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042.
    >>None whatsoever!
    >>
    >>
    >>Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in
    >>Hawaii , where he died.
    >>
    >>
    >>Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked
    >>part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and
    >>therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.
    >>
    >>
    >>The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s
    >>death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there
    >>were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.
    >>
    >>
    >>The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not
    >>a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen
    >>of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the
    >>probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving
    >>Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for
    >>Obama.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site