Controversy and Chaos: Sexual Molestation and Radiation: The TSA Has Gone...

Controversy and Chaos: Sexual Molestation and Radiation: The TSA Has Gone...: "3-year-olds have been subjected to physical pat-downs! Meanwhile, while average American citizens are being forced to choose between being ..."

Sexual Molestation and Radiation: The TSA Has Gone Too Far!

3-year-olds have been subjected to physical pat-downs!

Meanwhile, while average American citizens are being forced to choose between being seen naked or be groped by the TSA, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has recommended that Muslim women traveling in a hijab forgo the scanners, and only be searched around their neck and head. This is in accordance with their religion…and Janet Napolitano is considering the request!
The TSA and Napolitano have gone to far!

Let the airport screeners know how you feel!

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attempts around the world, air travel passengers have grown accustomed to increasingly bizarre and invasive travel security procedures. Only the looks of terror on our children’s faces as they walk through security remind us of the cost of homeland security.
First, in 2001, there was the failed shoe bomb plot masterminded by deranged Richard Reid. End result: 10 years later, air travelers risk foot fungus and cold feet as they relinquish their shoes for security scans. Then, in 2006, there was the failed liquid explosives plot in England. End result: The banishing of liquids over 100 ml, with the exception of baby formula which no longer feels very safe to feed to infants after it’s gone through a strict security screening.
Travelers accepted these new security regulations as the terror alert levels changed and climbed the colors of the rainbow, but this Thanksgiving season, the TSA finally seems to have gone too far in infringing upon civil liberties in the name of the war on terror.
Both pilots and consumers are concerned about the invasion of privacy and health risks of repeated x-ray exposure in the new full body x-ray scanners recently implemented in many US airports and are calling for all consumers to request pat downs instead of being scanned on the day before Thanksgiving. Having to scan the majority of travelers on the biggest travel day of the year will be a crushing blow to TSA operations.
Yet pat downs hardly seem like the answer because of the invasive enhanced pat down procedure recently implemented by the TSA that includes buttocks, genitalia, and breasts. Erin Chase, author of the $5 Dinner Cookbook, went through the pat down procedure last Thursday at the Dayton, Ohio airport and felt sexually violated by the inspection. John Tyner refused to go through the enhanced pat down procedure over the weekend at the San Diego airport, and was escorted out by airport security.
Although we’ve put up with the inconvenience of security inspections for close to a decade since 9/11, with this new wave of changes, the TSA has gone too far, stripping travelers of too much dignity. When I fly home for Thanksgiving on Tuesday alone with my children, I’ll have to choose between exposing them to unnecessary radiation or having them see me be groped by a stranger in uniform. Travelers shouldn’t have to feel sexually molested in order to earn the right to fly.


Don't Touch My Junk!

 By: Vanessa Druckman
http://controversyandchaos.com

Controversy and Chaos: BARNEY FRANK HAS GOT TO GO!

Controversy and Chaos: BARNEY FRANK HAS GOT TO GO!: "Frank’s fingerprints were all over the financial fiasco The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in t..."

BARNEY FRANK HAS GOT TO GO!

Frank’s fingerprints were all over the financial fiasco

The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector,” Frank said; the country is in dire straits today “thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best.” And that philosophy goes “back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, ‘Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.’ ”

In fact, that isn’t what Reagan said. His actual words were: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits — many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be — they weren’t the ones who “got us into this mess.” Barney Frank’s talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn’t wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so – or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor,” the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as “valid income sources” to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn’t take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. “What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?” I asked in this space in 1995. “Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today’s self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?”

Frank doesn’t. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that “these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the “systemic risk” is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: “The private sector got us into this mess.” Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

By Jeff Jacoby

http://controversyandchaos.com/

Controversy and Chaos: IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?

Controversy and Chaos: IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?: "IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM? Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Black Muslim) of Nyangoma-Koge..."

IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?

IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?  

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Black Muslim) of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas. (White atheist).
When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro — a Muslim — moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language. Obama spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school” in Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also attended a Catholic school. 

Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham-a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Obama, Sr. and Dunham divorced when Barack, Jr. was two.
Obama’s spin-meisters have made it appear that Obama’s introduction to Islam came from his father and that influence was temporary at best.  In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya immediately following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education.

Dunham married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro who educated his stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.

MUSLIM or not Obama is deceitful, deceptive and will do and say anything to gain and keep power.
LET’S SEND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PACKING IN 2012!

http://controversyandchaos.com

Controversy and Chaos: DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRAD...

Controversy and Chaos: DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRAD...: "DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRADEEmbraced some years ago in Europe and a few other countries, cap and trade creates an art..."

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRADE

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRADE

Embraced some years ago in Europe and a few other countries, cap and trade creates an artificial market for various industries to buy, sell, and trade allowances that permit a certain amount of carbon output.  It has long been on the wish list for American liberals and extremist environmentalists. 



OBAMA and the DEMS want to suck us all dry!



Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade  

1. It will raise energy costs:  While different nuanced approaches continue to surface, any analysis of any cap and trade scheme comes to the same conclusion; energy costs will go up.  The latest serious attempt to enact cap and trade in the United States, America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), serves as a good example.  An analysis of this legislation cited during a Senate hearing held by the Committee on Environment and Public Works estimated the costs to the average American household would be between $800 and $1,300 by 2015, and then increasing to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.
 
2. It doesn’t help the environment:  If energy costs are going to go up for Americans, shouldn’t there be significant environmental benefit and progress towards reversing climate change?  You would think so.  But even if the most aggressive of cap and trade schemes were properly adhered to, scientists that both advocate and oppose a cap and trade program widely agree that the maximum drop to the earth’s temperature would be no more than 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050.  To give some sense of just how negligible this decrease would be, we cannot even estimate the absolute mean surface temperature of the earth within 0.07.  What’s worse is that cap and trade actually provides incentives to emit more carbon, not less.  An article by the Christian Science Monitor explains: “By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions.”  In other words, if industries understand they are working within a legal framework when they output carbon, the public pressure for them to cut down is weakened.  Evidence of this can be seen in Europe where most countries have seen carbon emissions go up, even though the European Union has had a cap and trade regime in place since 2005.   

3. It doesn’t work where it has been tried:  Speaking of Europe, let’s take a closer look at how cap and trade is fairing.  As mentioned earlier, the EU is watching carbon emission levels rise despite the fact that they have had a cap and trade system since 2005.  Furthermore, the Heartland Institute reports that 12 of the 15 EU nations taking part in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a program that sets greenhouse gas reduction targets and serves as a precursor to cap and trade, are failing to meet their reduction targets, with three going over by more than 10 percent and another three going over by more than 20 percent.  In fact, emissions for all EU countries went up on average 2.1 percent between 2000 and 2004.  Compare this with the United States where currently no such regulatory regime exists and yet emissions went up only 1.3 percent during the same time period.  Nonetheless, President Obama has announced an aggressive set of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promising to “work expeditiously with key stakeholders and the Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.”

4. It will cost Americans jobs:  This calculation is a pretty simple one.  For U.S. industry to comply with a cap and trade scheme, they have to reduce their carbon emissions.  There are two ways to do this: (1) produce less – this obviously hurts jobs as companies would seek to streamline their workforce to compensate for a drop in production, or (2) buy carbon allowances in order to keep production up – this, too, would threaten jobs as companies would be forced to devote more internal resources to allowances, negatively effecting their bottom lines and potentially putting workers on the chopping block.  In either case, the rising costs of energy under a cap and trade system, as mentioned earlier, only add to the problem.  An analysis conducted by Charles River Associates in 2007 estimated anywhere from 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs would be lost under a cap and trade scheme. 

5. It is in effect a hidden regressive tax:  We’ve talked about how cap and trade causes energy prices to go up.  That doesn’t just hit American industry, but American consumers as well.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) correctly notes that as these prices go up in the form of higher gasoline, heating oil, and electricity, the poor are hit hardest with what is in effect a hidden regressive tax.  President Obama promises to return revenues to vulnerable communities, families and businesses, but that leaves taxpayers at the whim of government to redistribute income rather than letting taxpayer keep their hard earned dollars.

6. It sets a dangerous precedent:  While extremist environmentalists and their liberal allies have been whining about climate change for years, most stop short of declaring cap and trade the silver-bullet solution.  Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council are generally supportive of the concept of cap and trade.  However, as The Heritage Foundation has pointed out, these groups have found fault with actual proposals such as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, criticizing them for not going far enough and willing only to endorse them as “a good first step.”  As much damage as a cap and trade scheme would cause in its own right, this posture by extreme environmental groups foreshadows even more draconian regulations in our future.

7. It prevents market forces from working for the environment: The market distortions imposed by a cap and trade system would be significant.  Recently, major energy companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in technologies that capture and store carbon as well as lower carbon alternative energy sources.  A cap and trade system however, sets up perverse incentives that will distract these and other companies from market-based solutions to curb carbon output.  Resources instead will be funneled to the artificial market for carbon allowances that cap and trade sets up.

8. It threatens to put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries: Though the E.U. and the United States may be buying into cap and trade, industrial giants like China and India are not.  Remember the lost jobs we talked about in point #4?  In addition to China and India, nearby Mexico (another country where cap and trade is not even a remote possibility) are more than willing to pick up the U.S. slack and bolster their already robust manufacturing sectors.

9. It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption:  As energy companies look to game the system, cap and trade would open the door wide for fraud and corruption that could devastate U.S. investors and the economy as a whole.  This has been seen already in the UK, a country currently participating in cap and trade.  In a recent article by the British-based Guardian newspaper they report: “Britain’s biggest polluting companies are abusing European emissions trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.”  In the United States we have seen what happens when companies engage in creative accounting measures to hide losses and the staggering domino effect it can have on Wall Street investors and the larger economy.  If you need more proof of this threat, look no further than this report by The Competitive Enterprise Institute that discusses Enron’s support for a cap and trade scheme that would allow them to dominate this new, made-up market for carbon.

10. It threatens to bust the federal budget at a time when the United States can scarcely afford it:  Federal spending continues at a breakneck pace.  The recent passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill along with even more taxpayer funded bailouts looming on the horizon add to U.S. budget woes and sink us deeper into recession.  And as if times weren’t tough enough, the CBO reports that cap and trade would heap additional undue pressure on our fragile budget.  According to their report, government would face the same challenges with higher energy costs that consumers do.  Additionally, the fall in production for U.S. industry would lead to a loss of federal government tax revenues.  Further increasing spending while decreasing revenues makes cap and trade a tough sell in the current economic climate.

http://www.freedomworks.org

http://controversyandchaos.com

Controversy and Chaos: WHY EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO GET BEHIND THE TEA PAR...

Controversy and Chaos: WHY EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO GET BEHIND THE TEA PAR...: "The purpose of the Tea Party movement has been to stop wasteful government spending, excessive taxation, and overreliance on regulatory bure..."

WHY EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO GET BEHIND THE TEA PARTY & VOTE OUT THE BUMS!

The purpose of the Tea Party movement has been to stop wasteful government spending, excessive taxation, and overreliance on regulatory bureaucracies.  Please forward this blog to as many people as you can and GET INVOLVED!



Support the Tea Party & VOTE OUT THE BUMS!



Contract with America   

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty
Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government
The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom
The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

 Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

Demand a Balanced Budget Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. 

Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning.

6. End Runaway Government Spending
Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries.

Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy 
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs.

Stop the Pork
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

Stop the Tax Hikes
Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

If you would like to learn more or get involved to TAKE BACK AMERICA go to: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

http://controversyandchaos.com

Controversy and Chaos: DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: OBAMACARE

Controversy and Chaos: DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: OBAMACARE: "Democrats are the Party of Screw You: Obamacare Many of the Democrats who are either up for re-election or are seeking political office for..."

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: OBAMACARE

Democrats are the Party of Screw You: Obamacare

Many of the Democrats who are either up for re-election or are seeking political office for the first time are claiming that they oppose much of Obamacare and plan to fix it if elected/re-elected.
Don’t believe any of this rhetoric. There is an ulterior motive to these specious statements: to win election by whatever it takes. After that, expect most of these Democrats to toe the party line, either by coercion or personal convictions, and therefore not repeal Obamacare.

Only the Republicans can be trusted to attempt to repeal or defund Obamacare.

Vote Republican in November if you want to fight Obamacare … and to take back our country from the arrogant, elitist and radical Democratic politicians.

http://saveyourrights.com

THE TOP SIX REASONS TO REPEAL OBAMACARE

1.     ObamaCare makes health insurance MORE expensive for Americans:



Vote for Tea Party candidates this November!



a.     After having proclaimed, “If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that’s not a bill I can support.  It’s going to have to control costs,” President Obama has recently admitted that he “knew” the Democrats’ health care law would increase costs. 

b.    According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the Democrats’ health law will increase premiums for millions of families by up to $2,100 on average, by 2016.  This means that coverage will be $2,100 more expensive than it would have been if Congress had just left the current system alone.
c.     On September 8th the Wall Street Journal reported that health insurance companies are having to increase health insurance premiums by up to 20 percent next year, in part to comply with new federal mandates resulting from the Democrats’ health overhaul.
d.    Today, the New York Times reported that in California, rates could increase as much as 19 percent for individual policies, while in Connecticut, due to the new law, some premiums could rise as much as 22.9 percent.

2.     ObamaCare forces millions of Americans out of the health plan they have and like:

a.     Obama Administration officials predict the Democrats’ health law could force up to 117 million Americans to lose their current health plan.
b.    The effects are already being seen, as residents in Virginia have already lost access to one health care plan and many residents in Maine could lose theirs as well.
c.     ObamaCare encourages employers to eliminate worker benefits.

3.     ObamaCare discourages employers from hiring new workers, increasing wages, or retaining existing employees:

a.     The Democrats’ health care law slams employers with job killing taxes and increased costs, providing less money to small businesses to hire new workers and retain existing ones.
b.    Leading employer groups such as National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as Business Roundtable & Business Council call the Democrats’ health care law “destructive” and “dangerous” due to the fact it has created massive economic uncertainty, will increase the cost of doing business, and does nothing to control the cost of health care.
c.     With unemployment continuing to hover close to 10 percent, Congress should work to ease the heavy burdens our small businesses have been facing.  But buried in their health care law, Democrats included a $17 billion tax increase that requires small businesses to file a 1099 tax form for every business to which they make total payments in excess of $600 for all goods and services during the tax year.  According to NFIB, “at $74 an hour, tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden placed on small businesses by the federal government.”

Vote out the Dems that passed OBMACARE!

4.     ObamaCare jeopardizes seniors’ health care: 

a.     The Obama Administration’s own actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated the Medicare cuts contained in the Democrats’ health law could threaten seniors’ access to care and cause providers to stop treating Medicare patients.
b.    7.4 million Medicare beneficiaries who would have been enrolled in a Medicare health plan will lose their plan because of the $206 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) in the Democrats’ health law.  Next year alone, 1.2 million seniors will be forced out of their MA plan or prescription drug plan.
c.     Obama Administration officials predict 9 out of 10 seniors will lose their employer-sponsored retiree drug coverage and seniors enrolled in a MA plan can expect to see their benefits slashed by $816 a year in just a few short years as a result of the Democrats’ health law.
d.    CBO has estimated that Medicare prescription drug coverage premiums will increase by 9 percent as a result of the Democrats’ health law.

5.     Massive tax increases:

a.     The Democrats’ health care law contains $570 billion in tax increases and a dozen violations of the President’s pledge to not raise taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 for singles and $250,000 if married.
b.    Through the individual mandate, Americans are forced to buy health insurance they may not want or be able to afford.  The Democrats’ bill empowers the IRS to verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage, and, if you fail to prove you have purchased “minimum essential coverage,” the IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,085 or 2.5 percent of your income (whichever is greater).  The IRS will need to hire up to 16,500 new employees to enforce this and other tax increases in the bill.

6.     The cost of ObamaCare keeps growing & growing and America can’t afford it:

a.     Obama Administration’s own actuaries predict that the Democrats’ new health law will increase national health care spending by over $300,000,000,000.
b.    CBO predicts that federal health care-related spending could increase by an additional $115,000,000,000 or more over 10 years to just to implement the Democrats’ new health care law.
c.     The Obama Administration recently asked Congressional Democrats for $250 million in additional funding to “increase the primary care health workforce” after finally admitting their new law will lead to a shortage of doctors.
By Dave Camp, Ranking Member Committee on Ways & Means Republicans

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov
http://controversyandchaos.com

Why I Support Sarah Palin

I support Sarah Palin, the following are reasons you should too! 

1. She articulates the common sense and practicality of
conservatism better than anyone else.
2. She knows energy like the back of her hand.
3. She is an inspiration to young women everywhere,
showing it is awesome to be conservative and a woman.
4. She doesn’t give 17-minute answers.
5. Her natural charisma drips off her leather jackets.
6. She is bold and lives her life like that.
7. She calls it the way she sees it.
8. She is confident in her abilities, yet not arrogant.
9. She shredded Obama in her RNC speech, after “family
scandal” was supposed to cripple her.
10. She tore Joe Biden apart in front of an international
audience.
11. She won’t run and hide even after all of the ways the Left
has attacked her.
12. She is tougher than nails but with a soft heart.
13. She has a steel spine.
14. She makes people say things like: “We are not gonna pull
the plug on Granny.”
15. She is not a D.C. politician.
16. She has sacrificed tremendously to fight for our country.
17. She leads by example.
18. She will stand with us and for us and protect us.
19. She is faithful, strong, caring, trustworthy.
20. She makes sound decisions without checking with all
voting blocks first.
21. She makes the Obama administration wear adult diapers.
22. She rose to power without the help of a party machinery.
23. She displays strength and resolve, important qualities of
a commander-in-chief.
24. She does things her own way.
25. She made history as the youngest ever and the first
female Governor of Alaska, and first female GOP VP pick.
26. She is the best person to lead this country back from the
brink of madness.
27. She reminds us of Abraham Lincoln who was similarly
pilloried as neither smart nor establishment fashionable.
28. She stands tall with her head held high.
29. She is a great leader for the hardworking American.
30. She stood up to the political establishment.
31. She is the reason many in the Tea Party started to get
involved politically.
32. She proves that real change is possible.
33. She supports fiscal conservatism, the sanctity of life, and
strong national defense
34. She shares many Americans’ values and ideals.
35. When she talks about smaller government, lower taxes, a
strong national defense, and the sanctity of life, she really
means what she says.
36. She’s the only one we can trust to undo what Obama has
done.
37. She believes that the government that governs least,
governs best.
38. She has the right message at the right time for America.
39. She uses sarcasm to make her points.
40. She has inspired record numbers of GOP women to run
She says, “backasswards.”

41. She will bring Reagan Conservative vision to Washington.

42. She supports Tea Party ideals.

43. She makes Obama, the LSM, and the GOP establishment
crazy.
44. She continues to drive the political news cycle.
45. She drains the joy right out of Joy Behar.
46. She uses Obama’s words against him every chance she
gets.
47. She makes Andrea Mitchell and Norah O’Donnell whine
and look petty and jealous.
48. She is the opposite of President Obama and Obama
knows it and can’t stand it.
49. She is dangerous to the pundits and to the establishment
because she does not operate according to their playbook.
50. She thought it would be funny if Andrea Mitchell got
smelly, fish water on her. And admitted it.
51. She doesn’t call her opponents “my friend”!
52. She fights with the intensity of a warrior.
53. Her faith guides her.
54. She doesn’t shove her faith down anyone’s throat.
55. She gave birth to Trig.
56. She is not ashamed to say that God is at the center of her
life, and the decisions she makes.
57. She balances self-confidence and humility better than
most anyone we’ve seen.
58. She is the first politician many of us believe is a better
person than us.
59. She is one of the few “politicians” who will do what is
right, even if she has to go against her party.
60. She demonstrates integrity, humor, humility, love for
God, family and country.
61. She stands on principle.
62. She doesn’t shift with the political wind.
63. She is someone I trust with my children’s future.
64. She is real – not a fake or a phony.
65. She was the same person August 29, 2008 as she was
when she ran for the city counsel, mayor, and the
governorship
66. She’s a fearless principled conservative, the People’s
Politician.
67. She resigned knowing that could possibly have
irreparably damaged her future in politics.
68. She always looks on the bright side of life.
69. She glows with true joy.
70. She loves her family.
71. She is a mom, wife, daughter, sister, and aunt.
72. She runs, played point guard in high school, and played
the flute.
73. She is not blinded by an Ivy League degree, or a lawyer’s
sheepskin.
74. She is one of us, but with the ability to go all the way.
75. She love sports.
76. She uses sports analogies.
77. She is family.
78. She makes everyone she touches part of her family.
79. She likes to eat meat.
80. She likes beer.
81. She rides snowmachines!
82. She named her kid after Van Halen!
83. She is a citizen-politician in every sense of the word.
84. She speaks the language of ordinary people, and she does
it all with a smile on her face, always upbeat and optimistic.
85. She’s almost single-mindedly pro-freedom in a world of
wannabe socialists.
86. She has common sense.
for office, and unlike Obama, she supports contested
primaries.
87. She loves America – and Americans.
88. She will do whatever it will take to keep
America/Americans safe.
89. She will not stop fighting for this country.
90. She has a strong love and respect for our Founding
Fathers, and the Constitution.
91. She stands for those who can’t.
92. She loves the military and knows that they are
responsible for our safety and freedom.
93. She will take out terrorists in the blink of an eye.
94. She upholds the Constitution.
95. She sees elected office as public service, not self-service.
96. She always puts the people she serves first.
97. She doesn’t like to talk about herself, and prefers writing
about the people in her life that have inspired her.
98. She thinks more of the others around her than herself.
99. She walks the walk with a true servant’s heart.
100. She doesn’t have an “I know what is best” -paternalistic
attitude that is pervasive all throughout government today.
101. She sacrificed her power for the best interests of her
state.

Run Sarah Run!!!

Please share this with your friends and family!

Nicole Coulter
Founder of EdgyConservative.com

Let your voice be heard and seen! 
For details go to: http://controversyandchaos.com/

Controversy and Chaos: Top Ten Reasons Obama's Presidency is Failing!

Controversy and Chaos: Top Ten Reasons Obama's Presidency is Failing!: "Journalist Gives Top Ten Reasons OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY is FAILING!Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the econo..."

Top Ten Reasons Obama's Presidency is Failing!

Journalist Gives Top Ten Reasons OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY is FAILING!

Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.

On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Regime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

4. The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

Niles Gardiner, columnist for the British Daily Telegraph sums it up. See the full column for details:

Controversy and Chaos: EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE AGAINST THE GROUND ZERO M...

Controversy and Chaos: EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE AGAINST THE GROUND ZERO M...: "Every American should be against the Ground Zero Mosque! September 11, 2001 In Jerusalem, triumphant Muslims built the Al-Aqsa mosque on to..."

EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE AGAINST THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE!

Every American should be against the Ground Zero Mosque!

  

September 11, 2001

In Jerusalem, triumphant Muslims built the Al-Aqsa mosque on top of the Jews’ revered Temple Mount. They transformed what had been for a thousand years the largest cathedral in Christendom, Constantinople’s magnificent St. Sophia basilica, into a sprawling mosque complex. And the Moorish Umayyad dynasty in Spain, made the city of Cordoba its capital, and installed an immense mosque on the site of an ancient Christian church there.
Now, an imam in New York, who has suddenly come into $100 million from undisclosed sources, wants to build a 13-story Islamic Cultural Center adjacent to the site of Shariah’s greatest triumph to date in America: Ground Zero, the place where the World Trade Center’s twin towers proudly stood until they were destroyed by Shariah-adherent jihadists on September 11, 2001. It is not a coincidence that the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has called his project “the Cordoba House.”
Such a mosque on 9/11′s hallowed ground would not only constitute a durable, symbolic taunt by our enemies about their bloody victory. In accordance with Shariah, once ground has been taken for Islam, it can never revert to the non-Muslim Dar al-Harb, literally the House of War.
In other words, the Ground Zero mosque is designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful and eroding resistance to their demands for separate and (for the moment, at least) equal treatment in America. — Frank Gaffney
Muslims came to America nine years ago, brutally murdered 3,000 men, women and children in the name of Allah, and yet the burden is on us, their families, their widows and children, to exhibit tolerance for Muslim insensitivity. Shame on the politicians, whose moral vanity knows no boundaries. We will fight this. — Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America and the sister of hijacked American Airlines flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame
No one is disputing that America stands for – and should stand for – religious tolerance. It is a foundation of our republic. This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense. To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks. Just days after 9/11, the spiritual leader of the organization that wants to build the mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, suggested that blame be placed on the innocents when he stated that the “United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” Rauf refuses to recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of our ally, Israel, and refuses to provide information about the sources of funding for the $100 million mosque. Rauf also plays a key role in a group behind the flotilla designed to provoke Israel in its justifiable blockade of Gaza. These are just a few of the points Americans are realizing as New York considers the proposed mosque just a stone’s throw away from 9/11’s sacred ground. — Sarah Palin
The proposed “Cordoba House” overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.
Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to “symbolize interfaith cooperation” when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.
…America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.
No mosque.
No self deception.
No surrender.
The time to take a stand is now – at this site on this issue. — Newt Gingrich

Is this what's on the way?

 The owner is certainly not required to build a Muslim center and mosque on that site. Because it is a choice, it’s not wrong for the community to ask: Why are you making this choice? Why are you doing something that feels so painful to us? The community isn’t wrong to plead with the owner to choose to do something else with that property. It’s not enough of an answer to say we are doing it because we have a right to do it.
What troubles me about the way the NYT presents the problem is that it tries to make it seem as though the people who question the choice to build the mosque don’t understand or don’t support the principle of freedom of religion — that they just hate (or dislike) Muslims and, for that reason, would deny them the same freedom other religious persons enjoy. Rights don’t work like that. But we can completely understand and support a principle of freedom and still be critical of the way someone chooses to behave in this world. For example, I’m a big supporter of freedom of the press, and I don’t feel the slightest bit hypocritical condemning something stupid I read in the newspaper. — Althouse
In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.
Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right. — The Anti-Defamation League
If you read no further, know this: RedState supports the Anti-Defamation League in its opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” The ADL is right on all counts: in its rejection of bigotry, its affirmation of American religious freedom, and its declaration that common decency demands the end of this effort. As the ADL notes, this is “not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.”
…The fact is that the groups behind the “Ground Zero mosque” / Cordoba House / Park51 chose the site explicitly for its proximity to Ground Zero, and then spent months boasting about it in the press.
…A “Ground Zero mosque” — even if only near Ground Zero, even if a “community center” rather than a mosque — is the opposite of reasoned restraint. It tramples upon the principle of a public square marked by democratic consideration. It displays a grotesque lack of generosity, while demanding extraordinary generosity toward itself. It insists upon rights — which no one disputes — and ignores responsibilities. It is, in short, a bitter vindication of the critics of American democracy at our nation’s Founding. — The Directors, Redstate 
We feel that Ground Zero is a war memorial. It’s a burial ground, and it is an offensive idea of a mosque, to put it here, where thousands of people died, where their remains are here. It’s humiliating, it’s demeaning. — Pamela Geller
(Building a mosque at Ground Zero) sends a particularly bad message, particularly (because) of the background of the Imam who is supporting this. This is an Imam who has supported radical causes, who has not been forthright in condemning Islamic (terrorism) and the worst instincts that that brings about. So it not only is exactly the wrong place, right at Ground Zero, but it’s a mosque supported by an Imam who has a record of support for causes that were sympathetic with terrorism. Come on! We’re going to allow that at Ground Zero? This is a desecration. Nobody would allow something like that at Pearl Harbor. Let’s have some respect for who died there and why they died there. Let’s not put this off on some kind of politically correct theory. I mean, they died there because of Islamic extremist terrorism. They are our enemy; we can say that, the world will not end when we say that. And the reality is it will not and should not insult any decent Muslim because decent Muslims should be as opposed to Islamic extremism as you and I are. — Rudy Giuliani
When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt. Build it someplace else. — C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter, was killed in the attacks
Equally opposed (to the Ground Zero mosque) is Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, a devout Muslim and director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington.
Schwartz notes that the spiritual leader of the Cordoba Initiative, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, describes himself as a Sufi — a Muslim focused on Islamic mysticism and spiritual wisdom. But “building a 15-story Islamic center at ground zero isn’t something a Sufi would do,’’ according to Schwartz, also a practitioner of Sufism. “Sufism is supposed to be based on sensitivity toward others,’’ yet Cordoba House comes across as “grossly insensitive.’’ He rejects Rauf’s stance that a highly visible Muslim presence at ground zero is the way to make a statement opposing what happened on 9/11. Better, in his view, is the approach of many Muslims “who hate terrorism and who have gone privately to the site and recited prayers for the dead silently and unperceived by others.’’ — Jeff Jacoby

We will never forgive or forget!

They are not using (the Ground Zero Mosque) to lead the war like Americans need to see us do and they are wasting our resources, not to mention that being close to the hallowed ground that is so sensitive in the souls of the families of 9/11. I think it is extremely poor judgment. — Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy
I’d say I’m troubled by it, but I don’t know enough to say that it ought to be prohibited. But frankly I’ve heard enough about it and read enough about it that I wish somebody in New York would just put the brakes on for a while and take a look at this.
I’ve also read some things about some of the people involved that make me wonder about their motivations. So I don’t know enough to reach a conclusion, but I know enough to say that this thing is only going to create more division in our society, and somebody ought to put the brakes on it. Give these people a chance to come out and explain who they are, where their money’s coming from.
If the people building this large Islamic center are just looking to build a large facility — a house of worship and center — in New York, why so close to 9/11, with all the sensitivity associated with that? — Joe Lieberman
The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.
Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday. — New York Post
New York City voters oppose 52 – 31 percent a proposal by a Muslim group to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 17 percent are undecided.
Opinions about the proposed mosque range from 46 – 36 percent support among Manhattan voters to 73 – 14 percent opposition in Staten Island, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
Opposition to the mosque is 56 – 31 percent among white voters, 45 – 34 percent among black voters and 60 – 19 percent among Hispanic voters. Opposition among religious groups is 66 – 22 percent among Jews, 66 – 24 percent among white Catholics and 46 – 36 percent among white Protestants. — Quinnipiac
Most voters in New York (58%) oppose the building of an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds that just 20% favor the building of a mosque near the 9/11 Ground Zero site, while 21% are not sure. These findings are very similar to those found nationwide. — Rasmussen Reports
Such was the violence on 9-11 that my brother’s remains were never found. He was killed by Islamists and now they want to build a mosque on his grave. Their victory will be complete. — Christina Regenhard
That is a burial ground. I do have a problem with having a mosque on top of the site where [terrorists] can gloat about what they did. — Retired FDNY Deputy Chief Al Santora, who lost a son on 9/11
This is my only son. He was a firefighter and he went into rescue people that day. I’m upset about the building of the mosque, because Muslim terrorists murdered my son and 3,000 Americans at this site. — Eileen Tallon

 NO MOSQUE ON SACRED GROUND!

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT TO STOP THE MOSQUE...LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD AND SEEN!

http://controversyandchaos.com