Yes, according to Islam, the seed of the faith is passed down from the father. So it would be correct to say that Muslims would believe that Obama was born Muslim if his father was Muslim. If that were the case, they’d also consider Obama to be an infidel of the highest order for converting to Christianity, as he claims to have done.
But Obama’s father was Atheist. Obama’s mother, and her parents were also atheist, and quite vocal about it. They were, stereotypically, also outspoken Marxists. So at the time of Obama’s birth, his father was not Muslim, so there was no “Muslim seed” to pass to his son. According to Islam, that made the elder Obama the infidel apostate. Of course, Islam does not recognize conversions from Islam. Those claiming to convert are simply labeled apostates and often killed. Presumably, this means that they would still consider Obama Muslim even though he has no ties to Islam other than that his father had been born into the faith. But that would also mean that they do not recognize his conversion and so label him a apostate.
It was floated around during the Clinton administration, but the idea is even older than that. Obama lost the house last year, but only needs the senate to ratify a treaty. Fortunately, however, he needs not just a majority, but two thirds majority. I doubt he can get that is the republican side of the two faced republicrat party knows they are being watched.
William R. James The trick we need to watch for is a treaty that doesn’t do anything obviously evil. I expect them to attempt a treaty with very benign outward intentions but one that obligates the US to some foreign body’s rules, such as the UN. Then the foreign body can later order a ban on firearms and supposedly “force” the congress to pass the ban under the guise that the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable.
According to the NY times, GE pays no taxes. Let’s do the math, shall we?
GE Employees number around 300,000 who pay taxes. Assuming their average pay is say $30k, and depending on the state we pay at least 50% of our income in various taxes, 300,000 employees X $30,000 X .5 = $4.5 BILLION in taxes.
GE stocks pay dividends to perhaps 100 million shareholders who pay taxes. There are $13.5 Billion shares, and GE pays $0.14 per share per quarter, or 56 cents per year per share X 13,500,000,000 = $7.56 Billion paid to shareholders of which at least 50% will eventually go to government. So that’s at least $3.78 Billion in taxes.
That’s $8.28 Billion in tax revenue generated by GE per year.
Taxing the corporation itself only cuts the corporation’s ability to pay dividends to shareholders and salary to employees, and or increases the price of products and services. This just passes the tax on to the consumers, of course, but businesses have to do that. All taxes on business are merely hidden taxes paid by their customers.
And who are the shareholders of GE? They are mostly investment funds of various sorts, owned by millions of Americans with 401Ks, etc. They are primarily working people and retirees, not mega-rich Wall Street pencil pushers.
If we take the twisted ideas of the leftist radicals like the NY Times and place heavy taxes on companies like GE, they’ll pay less to employees, less to share holders, and charge more to consumers. GE’s profits will remain the same unless the taxes run them entirely out of business. Either way, the tax bill paid by GE would likely be the same or less than government would cease to get from the shareholders and employees. And with higher prices of the goods and services, there would be decreased sales, fewer employees. And with lower dividends, a lower stock value, which would also hurt investers, including retirees and working people.
The NY Times should have their people learn economics before attempting to critique it.
Climategate Whitewashed instead of investigated.
They belong in prison, of course. But don’t expect politicians who make their names and careers scaremongering and leeching from taxpayers to turn on their own kind.
“The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee Report, the first of three investigations into climategate, produced its report after only a single day of oral testimony.
The report concludes that UN IPCC affiliated scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, led by director Phil Jones, did not tamper with data in an effort to exaggerate the threat of global warming.”
Those of us who read the leaked emails and other documents saw the proof. Had this gone to a jury, Jones would be rotting behind bars where he deserves to me. He is a crook, a fraud, a scammer. To call any of these criminals “scientists” is an insult to science.
This is, however, another good reason the USA should pull out of the UN. It’s not only that the UN serves no useful purpose, it also bleeds American taxpayers to fund these scams.
U.S. fires on Libyan air defense targets
Obama Authorizes Military Action Against Libya
Where are the crackpots who spent the last two presidential terms ranting and whining about “unjustified wars”? Did Libya attack us? Was Libya responsible for 9-11?
Don’t get me wrong, this is one of the few times I agree with Obama. But his speech is virtually identical to the one Bush gave when invading Iraq. The difference is that unlike Obama, Bush got aproval from congress, who’s job it is to declare war.
Is it? According to whom?
If we take the position that it is illegal to invade or interfere with the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, one might argue that Gaddafi is right. However, one would be incorrect.
A person is not a sovereign nation. Gaddafi is just a criminal thug who has taken millions of people hostage ad held them for decades. Libya is not a nation, it’s a piece of land infected by a bandit thug imposing his will on the people there. Helping those people repel attacks from said thug after they have escaped his grip has nothing to do with the sovereignty of any “nation” because there is no nation in Libya.
Of course, the same can be said of any other dictatorship, such as Cuba, China, or Saudi Arabia.
Questioning the legality of such a thing is really rather silly. There are reasons to get involved and reasons not to get involved. Those deserve discussion. But the claims of a dictator should never be part of the equation.
This is the main problem with the “United Nations”. Most of the seats in the United “Nations” are not occupied by representatives of nations, but by employees of thugs who only represent their thug employer. Libya has no seat in the UN. Gaddafi has a seat in it, but the people of Libya have no representation in the UN at all. Neither do the people of China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the list goes on. We shouldn’t participate in the UN either. It has never served any useful purpose and only extracts money from civilized nations’ taxpayers to benefit third world dictators who make of a majority of the body.
NPR shouldn’t get tax dollars for the same reason the Rush Limbaugh doesn’t get tax dollars. They have their own agendas, let them or those they whore themselves for pay their bills.
I guess if you live in NY and own a dog that isn’t housebroken, or birds and need paper to catch their droppings then you might have a reason to subscribe to the NY Times. But for news? That would make a great parody for SNL.
As usual, the NY Times publishes a radial opinion rag under the pretense of reporting newsworthy events. In this case they are going to rather extreme stretches to try and associate criminals with immigrants.
This kid did nothing wrong. Yet he’s suspended. In spite of showing superhuman restraint and far better judgment than most people three times his age, and walking away as soon as it was possible instead of pounding his attacker as he had every moral right to do, he was suspended from school.
We should have seen this coming, of course. It was clear that the aussies had decided that people have no right to defend themselves when they took away the guns from decent people.
Casey Heynes, you get two thumbs up here.
Old but more accurate than ever.