Hussein corrects mistake.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama admitted on Tuesday he was wrong to say his uncle helped liberate the Nazis' Auschwitz concentration camp after Republicans said Soviet troops freed the camp.

Obama's campaign said the candidate meant to say that his great-uncle, Charlie Payne, had helped liberate a part of the Buchenwald camp, not Auschwitz.

Okay, he misspoke. Again.

But the real issue is.... so what? He had an Uncle in WWII?

Wow. That settles the patriotism issue for me. Yessir. No doubt.

Why the sacrifices Hussein must have gone through for the country...

Oh.... Yeah... It was his Uncle who sacrificed...I wonder if he ever heard of the Sullivan brothers....

Link

Gore won't debate this guy

because the guy would clean his clock.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Of course they will. Being elite they know that they have the answers and that any who disagrees must be suppressed.

Nothing new in that, but it is nice to see someone who has experienced the actual domination of a fales religion pointing it out.

They just don't get it

They, of course, is the Left. They don't render respect to the flag, they make complaints and comments that encourage the enemy, they demand that we surrender..

In short they whine and complain.

But a least you would think that a man who wants to be President would have a staff who knew what Memorial Day is about.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to respond directly to McCain, saying only: "Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing."

Memorial Day is to honor those who have died protecting us.

Not for those who served, although they deserve to be acknowledged. But for those who died.

There is a difference. Hussein should get a spokesman who understands that.

An important question

"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."

The above demonstrates the problems that Sharia law brings into the assimilation of Muslims into another culture. Simply put, some refuse to obey the law.

This obviously cannot be accepted, it appears the Canadians would like to ignore the problem, just as Minnesota is trying to ignore its school problem.

Islamic Reformation?

One of the most difficult things that anyone finds when seeking to understand Islam is the many "papers" that may, or may not, be part of the original faith, and if not, what part should they play?

Daniel Pipes has written:

Its unusually named ministry of religion, the "Presidency of Religious Affairs and the Religious Charitable Foundation," has undertaken a three-year "Hadith Project" systematically to review 162,000 hadith reports and winnow them down to some 10,000, with the goal of separating original Islam from the accretions of fourteen centuries.

The hadith reports contain information about the sayings and actions of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. They augment the Koran and have had a major role in shaping the Shari‘a (Islamic law), thereby deeply influencing Muslim life. Despite their importance, Muslim reformers have devoted little scrutiny to them, due to their vast size, unwieldy nature, and the challenge of discerning "sound" from "weak" hadiths....

Mehmet Görmez, a senior lecturer in hadith at Ankara University and the vice-president of religious affairs, heads the "Hadith Project."

Mehmet Görmez, a senior lecturer in hadith at Ankara University and the vice-president of religious affairs, adds that the purpose is a scholarly one, to understand the hadith better: "We will make a new compilation of the hadith and re-interpret them if necessary." More broadly, Görmez explains, "The project takes its inspiration from the interpretations of the modernist vein of Islam. … We want to bring out the positive side of Islam that promotes personal honor, human rights, justice, morality, women's rights, respect for the other."

This means, for example, reinterpreting hadiths that "present women as
inferior beings," such as those that encourage female genital mutilation, honor killings, and the prohibition of women traveling without their husbands. One participant, Hidayet Sevkatlı Tuksal, goes so far as to declare some hadiths as bogus because they intend "to ensure male domination over women." However, despite the intense current debate in Turkey over the headscarf, the project avoids that particular issue. Another sensitive topic concerns the right of Muslims to convert out of their faith; the project permits such conversions.

If Islam is to live peacefully with the rest of the world then this must be accomplished at some point in time. But given the terrorists devotion to other aspects, and even "moderates" belief in such things as "honor killings," then it is difficult see this as an easy happening.

Indeed, just by remembering the problems of the Christian Reformation it is difficult to see this happening at all.

But we can hope.

Are Democrats stupid?

Given that Democrats are not stupid, and given that their Masters, aka the Far Left, is not stupid, you just have to wonder why they oppose drilling for oil in the US. I mean it is obvious that the economy is going into the tank, and it is obvious that this won't be a short term problem if we don't do something to strengthen the dollar by taking the pressure off of it by buying non-OPEC oil.

So why are the doing this?

Some speculate that they believe that by depressing the economy they can win the election. So this isn't about "saving the planet" but electing Demos. I desperately hope that is wrong because that means we have a large number of totally despeciable polticians and their supporters.

I think it has to do with their belief that, as good elitists, they know what is best for the American people, and since the American people haven't embraced the proper life styles they intend to force them into it by keeping gasoline prices high. Hussein let the cat out of the bag here.

Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for his party's presidential nomination, has made fighting climate change a key issue of his campaign, and as fuel prices soar, he has repeatedly called on car makers to increase fuel efficiency standards.

Without specifically telling Americans to stop buying gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, the Illinois senator said higher fuel prices would lead to a shift.

"We've seen that this quarter. People are changing their behavior and we've seen a slump in the sales of SUVs and big trucks and a drastic spike in cars both medium size and small," he told reporters on his campaign plane.

The problem is that if the economy continues to go south, people won't be able to replace their existing vehicles, so higher fuel prices will merely result in less and less dollars to be spent on things besides transportation and utilities.

Hussein obviously doesn't understand that with most us there is something called a "budget" that we have to live with.

Or perhaps he does, but doesn't care what pain his knuckle headed policies would cause the ordinary citizen. After all he clearly told what he sees for the future. No new technology. No new sources. Just less and less. Just as long as it makes the third world happy.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ...

Are we electing a President, or a delegate to the United Nations?

Crude oil at $200

Both sides lately have been fond of playing what I call the "worse/better than when us/you came into power.

The Democrats especially enjoy it because they can go back to 2001 and say:
"When George Bush took office oil was selling for about $20.00 a barrel. It broke $132.00 a barrel this week. That's a 650 percent increase."

And this is true enough. But let us look at the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey says.

In the first six (6) years that Bush was President, with a Republican Congress, oil climbed from about $20 a barrel to about $55.00 a barrel. That is about a 270 per cent increase. Said another way that is a $35.00 barrel increase, or about .48 cents a month. Of course the increases weren't steady. There were increases and decreases as you expect any commodity market to have. But that's the rate of increase.

Now I cut the Republicans no slack for that. And even though they had no real hope of getting new drilling and new refinery construction going due the lack of a filibuster proof majority, they didn't really try. No bully pulpit. No demands for Congress to act. They didn't do squat.

Now some may say that Bush was defocused by the war and the Democrats opposition to the war, and that is why he didn't act, just as Clinton was said to be so defocused by Monicagate he didn't act to, as Clinton admitted, pick up bin Ladin when he could have. And while I see some small logic in both claims, I cut neither any slack. They're big boys and girls and have staffs and should be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

But the real question is, why, after the Democrats took control, did the price go from $55 to $132?? Let both sides admit to the facts. Oil at $55 a barrel was no particular problem. But now, with a solid Democratic Congress, we have a huge problem. A $132 a barrel problem. That is about a 240 per cent increase, or about $77in 15 months or about $5.13 a month. And the increase has been steady, no up and downs, just a linear $5.13 each month. Something you wouldn't expect in a commmodity market.

And yet the Demos "we don't give a shit" attitude continues. They compounded it two weeks ago by, again, turning down a Republican attempt to drill in ANWAR and off shore....

That was highly stupid. The country is being bled dry and the Democrats won't try to protect it. That is damnable at best.

But let's return to the question. Why did it take 6 years for oil to go up about 270 per cent, yet less than 15 months for it to go up 240 percent? That is a huge difference. The difference is in the rate of change. About 270% increase in 72 months under Bush and a Republican Congress. 240% in less than 15 months under a Democrat Congress. You are getting 2014 prices, today. The shock to the economy is terrible.

So what happened? Well, a theory. OPEC and the oil companies are not stupid. As long as Bush and the Republicans were in power, any real radical rate of change just might generate enough public out rage and heat that a bill could get passed to build refineries and start drilling to increase supply.

But. As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress there was absolutely no chance of that happening. And the results speak for themselves.

That anyone would even think about voting for a Demo is beyond me. Of course there are large numbers of stupid people in this world.