As Obama runs ads in Pakistan apologizing for free speech, Pakistan Minister offers $100,000 reward for death of US filmmaker

As Obama runs ads in Pakistan apologizing for free speech, Pakistan Minister offers $100,000 reward for death of US filmmaker:

Pakistani policeman looks at injured rioter

What did Obama achieve by running apology pro-sharia campaign ads in Pakistan? He sanctioned the motive. He sanctioned the brutal, anti-human blasphemy laws under the sharia. The more he fails .... the more he fails. There will be catastrophic consequences to the disastrous foreign policy failures of our anti-freedom president.
Deadly Anti-U.S. Riots Despite Obama's Ad Denouncing Video ABC News 

Deadly anti-U.S. protests erupted in Pakistan despite an unusual ad on
Pakistani TV featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton denouncing the movie "Innocence of Muslims," the anti-Islam video that has fueled much of the Pakistani fury.

The ads have been running this week on seven different Pakistani
television stations in an attempt to cool tempers over the film, but
today's protests were the largest seen so far since the controversy
began in Pakistan last week with the attempted storming of the U.S.
embassy.

"Pakistan Minister offers $100,000 reward for death of US filmmaker" Breaking News.ie

A Pakistani Cabinet minister has today
offered a US$100,000 reward for the death of the US filmmaker whose
movie features a depiction of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.

Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilor said he would pay the reward out of his own pocket.

He also urged the Taliban and al-Qaida to perform the “sacred duty” of helping locate and kill the filmmaker.

More than 20 people died yesterday in clashes with police in cities throughout the country.

The
film has sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world that
resulted in the deaths of dozens, including the US ambassador to Libya.

Scores
of people were injured today in a clash in Bangladesh’s capital between
police and hundreds of demonstrators, as protests continued in the
Muslim world against the film.

Police fired tear gas and used
batons today to disperse the stone-throwing protesters, who were from
about a dozen Islamic groups.

The protesters burned several vehicles in Dhaka, including a police van, witnesses said.

Dozens of protesters were arrested at the demonstration and inside the nearby National Press Club, where participants took refuge, a Dhaka Metropolitan Police official said.

Police and witnesses said scores of people were injured.

The clash erupted when authorities attempted to halt the demonstration, police said.

Authorities
have banned all protests near the city’s main Baitul Mokarram mosque
since yesterday, when more than 2,000 people marched and burned an
effigy of President Barack Obama.

The protesters announced a nationwide general strike tomorrow to protest the police action.

In
Pakistan, protests continued today, with more than 1,500 people,
including women and children, rallying in Pakistan’s capital. The crowd
was peaceful but angry over the release of the video called Innocence of
Muslims, which portrays the Prophet Mohammed as a fraud, a womaniser
and a child molester.

The protesters – from the Minhaj-ul-Quran
religious group – marched through Islamabad’s streets and then gathered
near Parliament, chanting slogans against the filmmaker and demanding
stern punishment for him.

Thousands of people also protested
today in Nigeria’s largest city, Kano. The crowd marched from a mosque
to the palace of the Emir of Kano, the region’s top spiritual leader for
Muslims.

About 200 students
in Srinagar, the main city in Indian-controlled Kashmir, chanted “Down
with America” and “Long live Islam” in a peaceful protest.

Some carried a placard that read: “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.”

White House Prevented IG From Pursuing Lead In "Fast and Furious"

White House Prevented IG From Pursuing Lead In "Fast and Furious":



goprapidresponse



During the House Government Oversight Committee Hearing, the Department of Justice IG says that the White House refused to share internal communications on Fast and Furious (September 20, 2012).

Letterman asks Obama if national debt is around $10 trillion, impreciseness ensues

Letterman asks Obama if national debt is around $10 trillion, impreciseness ensues:
**Written by Doug Powers
President Obama went on David Letterman’s show last night, and when the conversation turned to the national debt, Dave was once again happy to help by resetting the national debt back to the level it was when Obama took office:

“Here’s what I found troubling [at the GOP convention]. They had the clock, the debt countdown clock and, I mean, this thing is going like crazy and it’s several trillion dollars. Now, what is that?” Letterman asked, after admitting he is ignorant of many political matters.
After blaming Bush for starting two wars “on a credit card” and saying that we had to spend money to prop up fledgling industries during the recession, Letterman asked of the debt: “Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?”
The Washington Post notes that the debt is growing so fast there is no such thing as a precise recollection, but Obama certainly could have said, “closer to $16 trillion.”
Instead, the president seemingly let the group continue to think our national debt is roughly $6 trillion less than it is, saying simply: “I don’t remember what the number was, precisely.”

“I don’t remember precisely” is understandable. It’s not as if Obama was going to throw that gift back in Letterman’s face by saying “you’re way off, Dave. It’s $6 trillion higher than that — over $16 trillion total!” Instead the president claimed to be unsure about the exact amount. But I’ll bet anything he knows precisely how much his campaign took in at Jay-Z and Beyonce’s fundraiser last night:


All politicians should be required to wear clocks around their necks, except instead of the time these clocks would display the national debt.

national debt


Update: On the same show, President Obama told Letterman that it isn’t right to refer to political opponents as “unpatriotic.” Naturally Obama didn’t say that he’s the one exception to that rule:


(h/t Weasel Zippers)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Demoralized as Hell, The poll the media isn’t talking about edition

Demoralized as Hell, The poll the media isn’t talking about edition: For the last two weeks we have been treated to the narrative that Barack Obama is surging at the polls, Mitt Romney is in trouble and unless there is a massive change in direction it is all over. Simply put this is a lie. Of all the polls you have seen, there is one poll [...]

mercenaries for hire because our leader's are corrupt

what good does it do to get a larger amount of college tuition when colleges and university's have raised the cost of going to college? a student wouldn't get any more for his buck except being deeper in debt. what good has it done for our government to have spent 15 trillion dollars since 1964 and poverty not having improved? each year the government spends more. in the case of poverty, the g

overnment has at least eight agency's to dispense aid to the poor...many of those agencies doing the same thing.

each agency has a staff, offices, supplies, vehicles and other expenses that have to be paid and the money goes to paying for those government workers and preparing to give out aid. this results in spending more preparing to give out aid than actually giving out aid to the poor. doesn't this provide jobs for those government workers that wouldn't otherwise have a job? what it does is take away more tax dollars from the private sector. the private sector makes things or provides a service that people want and pay for. the owner of that private sector business for example may spend $10 dollars to make a gadget to sell. they sell it to the person that wants it for $15 and makes a profit of $5. they are happy for having made $5 for each gadget they sell and the person that wanted and bought the gadget is happy.

the maker of the gadget does the same thing again and again. his gadgets are so popular that he needs help. he hires people. now, let's compare that to the government. the government takes money from gadget makers and service providers all over the country to hire government workers. those workers provide a service as well. they don't make and sell gadgets or provide services at a profit...they provide a service that makes no money. that service is then given away with the exception of some fee's that the government charges which with along with the money they take from gadget makers and service providers in the private sector, goes towards paying the bills for all the things the government needs to provide that service and then give it away.

there isn't enough money coming in from fees and there aren't enough gadget makers and service providers to take the money from to keep up with government spending. some say take more from the gadget makers and service providers. that will help, they say. they say this instead of saying let's make the government stop giving away more than we have to give. the gadget makers and service providers can't give more and then make more gadgets or provide more services if it's being taken away by the government to pay for government workers and the stuff they need to help give services away. the government doesn't produce anything. they don't make gadgets or provide services that make a profit where that profit can make more gadgets and provide more services that will require more jobs.

no, they take more and give more away. they spend more and hire more to help give more away. this can't go on and is why our nation is now borrowing money from the federal reserve and other country's because they have run out of people to take money from. now they are looking at the wealthy. in a nation of 315 million people, the percentage of wealthy is relatively small...if it was easy to become wealthy, everyone would be wealthy. it's much easier to remain middle-class or poor than it is to become wealthy, so there just aren't that many of them. yet, they have what the government needs and wants...money. so the government sets about to take more so they can give more away...but before they do, they need to hire more people who will need more stuff so they can more easily give more money away. once they've taken from the wealthy, the government then looks to the middle class to finance their jobs.

doesn't this sound like a racket? doesn't this sound like the people who we've elected, then hire more people? doesn't it sound like they write more laws that will help them give themselves more money so they can do a better job of giving more money away? it doesn't just sound that way, it is that way. as the government takes more from the gadget makers and service providers who make a profit and then hire people, it makes the gadget makers and service providers poorer and they can no longer hire as many if any at all. they can't meet the demand for those gadgets and services either.

when the government takes money from the wealthy to be able to give more to the poor and middle-class, the wealthy become poorer and can't even think about opening a business that makes gadgets or provides a service that will eventually hire people. eventually there are fewer and fewer jobs. fewer and fewer gadgets and services. the government has to look to then borrow more from the federal reserve and other countries to start giving that borrowed money away. eventually the wealthy start hiding their money or moving away to another friendlier country to keep what they made from selling gadgets or providing a service.

then when the government can no longer borrow money to maintain their own jobs and then give whatever is left over away...what will they do? they must create a war to put people back to work...but that too costs money that they will have to borrow. they must sell themselves to a smarter country as mercenaries, so that they can then reduce the numbers of people who get free stuff from them when they go off to war to die...but

the government workers who put them in this situation in the first place still have jobs. they don't go off to the war they create to have more money to give away. all of this just to keep a job when they instead could have gone to work making gadgets or providing a service instead? why would they...when they can just learn to lie about their intentions? it's much easier for them to do it that way. they've put you in bondage just to work for them while you're being kept on a chain. free your mind, vote for peace and prosperity; then let's get back to the constitution what our founders wrote to protect us...which our current leader's have chose to ignore.

i've been watching the protest in the middle-east. pres. obama and his other two stooges have claimed that arabs are just upset with us because we "offended them". no. they hate us. they hate us because we are not muslim. this is the ultimate prejudice. liberals defend blacks, hispanics, gays, the poor and women against prejudice here. a type of prejudice that has not existed since the 1960s. 

yet, they don't and won't defend american's against prejudice coming from arabs that kill us around the globe and in our own lands. what kind of sh_t is that? now liberals want to make us fearful once again. no. we won't cower in fear so our own government can steal more of our rights and more of our freedoms. no. we will not give up our rights to free speech in worry of offending arabs as they burn our flag and kill our people. if they're that mad...they know where we live...let them come and get some of this all american ass whupping and then they will have something to be mad about.

Obama Administration Claims Libya Attack Was Spontaneous While Libyan Officials Insist It Was a Planned Assault

Obama Administration Claims Libya Attack Was Spontaneous While Libyan Officials Insist It Was a Planned Assault:
The Obama administration is saying that the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya last week was spontaneous. Four people were killed in the attack, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., claimed that the violence stems solely from reaction to an anti-Muslim video, saying, “The best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack, that what happened initially is that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.”
Libya’s president, however, disagrees claiming that the violence was indeed planned, and was likely the work of militants linked to al Qaeda.
KT McFarland and Stephen Hayes joined America’s Newsroom to comment on the situation.
McFarland asserts that the Obama administration knows that this was not a spontaneous attack, but ahead of the election is trying to place the blame elsewhere, “so that nobody can blame them for a failed Middle East policy.”
Hayes said that throughout the president’s time in office, his administration has repeatedly tried to downplay any previous attacks and to suggest that there was nothing that they could have done to prevent them.