Obama Says We're A Muslim Nation, Not a Christian One?

You have to wonder about the sanity of a guy who simply lies about verifiable statistics.

Earlier this week, while pandering to Arabs in his speech in Egypt, Wonderboy declared that America is one of the world's largest Muslim nations, and no longer a Christian nation.

Really?

If you do what I did this morning, and simply Google two phrases, 'american muslim population,' and 'american christian population,' you will find what I did.

The American Muslim population is estimated at between 2-5MM in a country of now over 300MM people. Thus, at most, they are 1% of the nation.

So, no, we're not a Muslim country, and we're certainly not a 'large' Muslim country, if one means by large, 'largely.'

As Glenn Beck noted on his Fox News program earlier this week, two faster-growing groups of Americans are non-denominational Christians ands witches.

As for American Christians, one site provided a 2007 survey result which estimated the various sects to account for 78.4% of Americans.

So how can Wonderboy assert that a nation of 78% Christians and, at most, 1% Muslims, is now one of the world's 'largest Muslim nations?'

Is it purely pandering to Arabs and other Muslims?

Let me put it this way.

If Wonderboy ran last year as a the Muslim he now identifies himself to be, and loudly proclaimed that he would be the president of one of the world's largest Muslim nations, do you think he'd be president today?

Not a chance.

He'd have gotten the 3MM or so adult Muslim votes, and some portion of the usual liberal Democrats. But in an election which he won by less than 7 percentage points, there's no way the broad central swath of largely independent voters would have put him in the White House.

This man is a fraud and a danger to the nation. He's either completely lost touch with reality, simply lies when convenient, or is attempting to radically change an America that never wanted change like this- to be suddenly, wrongly declared to be a Muslim nation.

Frisco Nan In China- Then & Now

The Wall Street Journal published an insightful editorial contrasting House Speaker Frisco Nan Pelosi's visits to China years ago, and now.

Consider these passages,

"Back when Mrs. Pelosi was a rising liberal star her signature issue was human rights in China. In 1991, she famously unfurled a pro-democracy banner in Tiananmen Square. During the Clinton Administration, she argued against normalizing trade relations with China unless linked to human-rights progress. Yet throughout last week's China tour Mrs. Pelosi said nothing of note about human rights -- despite the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre this week.

Mrs. Pelosi told us in a brief interview in Hong Kong that she had raised human rights "privately" with Chinese leaders. She explained that her previous human rights lobbying had been in a "personal capacity" as a mere Congresswoman, but now that she is Speaker she "speaks for Congress" and has to take a softer approach. That argument would be more credible had Mrs. Pelosi not regularly excoriated Republican Presidents for not doing more about Tibet and the other billion or so Chinese who lack basic political freedoms.

The reality is that her former convictions have fallen to the new liberal imperative of saving the world from carbon: "Workers rights, human rights, people's rights are part of environmental justice," she declared, in language that the leaders of a "People's Republic" can appreciate. With China now the world's No. 1 CO2 emitter, Democrats are desperate to sign up China for the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol lest the exercise again be pointless.

A student at a Beijing university returned fire, asking Mrs. Pelosi what could be done that might convince American voters and Congress to cut back on emissions. "We have so much room for improvement," Mrs. Pelosi replied, according to the Associated Press. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory . . . of how we are taking responsibility."

Whatever Chinese leaders do collectively on climate change, they must be relieved that Mrs. Pelosi no longer wants to press very hard for individual rights."

So much for convictions and values. This is a fine example of what's wrong with our national politics in both parties.

Republicans capitulated on spending after Gingrich was ridden out of town as Speaker. Democrats switch from issue to issue, depending upon whose is in power and what they feel is most damaging to Republicans.

It's awfully chilling, is it not, to envision the absolute Green Police state Nan has in mind for all of us,

"Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory?"

Tax-cheat Geithner isn't the only one at whom Chinese must be laughing.

With Frisco Nan bent on handicapping her own country's economy, and Geithner overseeing crippling 'stimulus' spending and further national indebtedness, the Chinese are, I'm sure, salivating at the prospect of defeating American global hegemony without firing a shot.

They simply have to slow-roll Congress on the environment while ditching the dollar as a reserve currency. In time, the US will suffer unemployment, high taxes, low productivity, energy shortages, crippling inflation and debt.

All the while China will continue to employ military prisoners as workers whose product is exported to America and the world at large, while persecuting political dissenters.

Sotomayor's Second Chance

I happened to be watching a news channel today when Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont solemnly intoned that, after asking racist Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor the meaning of her oft-quoted remarks about 'wise latinas,' she provided him an answer that has completely set his doubting little Democratic mind at ease.

Oh yes, because Pat was really- I mean, really- considering voting against her nomination.

Somehow, Leahy assured one and all, Sotomayor just forgot to add that she meant a 'wise latina' could interpret how to apply the appropriate law better than a white male.

See the difference?

Before, Sotomayor's remark was clearly racist, and something in which she reveled, being, well, you know.....a wise latina. With appropriate minority life experience, including poverty, struggles, and all the things that only non-white, or non-males can claim as valuable qualifications.

But, now that she's up for the high court, she is of course accorded a second chance on every utterance, written word, etc., that has been recorded and might trip her up.

So, no surprise, Sotomayor now she remembers that she meant to refer to applying the law as a wise latina.

Apparently, the life experience stuff was misinterpreted by all of us.

Yes, indeedy!!

Now that Sonia has had help donning the white, fleecy garments of innocence, her wolfish fangs are hidden, as is the truth of anything she said in her former judicial, or the rest of her life, that might possibly cause some Democrat in the Senate to have such shame at voting for this racist jurist that s/he'd actually decline to confirm her.

Appearances must be preserved!

Aren't second chances wonderful? Just the best! You get to take back anything you said, did or wrote in the past that actually got you to where you are. Now, you can just renounce it all, as the Omega job in your profession appears within reach!

And it's logical to believe that they will for the liberal Senators. After all, didn't voters swallow Wonderboy's speedy move away from Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, after which he denied ever really having been close to either of them, or sharing their views? Essentially repudiating what got him elected state Senator from South Chicago?

Hey, if it worked for the First Rookie, who is a certified minority, why shouldn't Sonia try it, too?

Buckle up and grab an airsick bag. It's going to be a disgusting confirmation hearing, as Wonderboy tries to frog march the Senate to meet his demand that this racist be confirmed for the Supreme Court prior to its summer recess.

What Goes Around....Comes Around

Seems to me that last year, Hillary Clinton blasted then-President George W. Bush for asking the Arabs to moderate oil prices and pump sufficient quantities to alleviate our supply issues. No doubt Wonderboy did much the same to criticize Bush's administration.

How the worm turns!

Now, as Wonderboy's minion, tax-cheat Geithner is imploring the Chinese to keep buying Treasuries.

Sound familiar?

Now, this administration, after debauching the dollar in just three months, is out begging other countries to continue to support our unsustainable spending habits.

Guess it's different now, huh, Hill?

Czar-Crazy!

Last week, Fox News channel's Glenn Beck discussed the concept of federal "czars."

Being the humorous, tongue-in-cheek kind of guy that he is, Beck treated the topic with a great degree of levity- initially.

Seriously, though, he identified some 19 or so "czars" in the current administration. They involve autos, healthcare, cyber security, to name just three.

My question is, why does Wonderboy have a cabinet, if he has all these czars? Are "czars" even constitutional?

After all, cabinet-level administration officials must be confirmed by Congress. "Czars" are not. They only report to the First Rookie.

Thus, they are paid by, but unaccountable to voters.

Is there no proscription involving appointing powerful administrators in the executive branch without the need for Congressional hearings and confirmation?

Especially when these people seem to be more powerful than most cabinet secretaries?

Something seems seriously amiss here. Starting with, as Beck pointed out, referring to these people as "czars," which is decidedly not a good thing at all.