Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (134252)	6/2/2012 10:19:54 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Desperate Dems Still Blaming BushJune 01, 2012 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Folks, the Democrats are losing it. They're starting to lose it. There's a story here from TheHill.com, Chris Van Hollen, he's from Maryland, and he's ranking member of the House Democrat leadership, slammed Jeb Bush today. Jeb Bush is out there criticizing Obama's economic policies and Van Hollen says, (paraphrasing) "Why don't you criticize your brother? Your brother is the reason we're in this mess, your brother. Go back and take a look unemployment before your brother left office." That was after Obama's election, Mr. Van Hollen. These people are losing it, folks. They're literally losing it. "Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, noted that hundreds of thousands of Americans were losing their jobs in the months before former President Bush left office in 2009, and said Bush's policies tipped the scales toward the wealthy and Wall Street. 'I’ve searched the record, and as far as I can tell, during that eight-year period you did not challenge the Bush administration’s handling of the economy.'" Van Hollen's right about this, and we have talked about it. We have chronicled it. You can track massive layoffs to November and December of 2008 and January of 2009, and they coincide with Obama's election. Those numbers don't get big before Bush leaves office. They get big after Obama wins election but before he's inaugurated. But these people are so fixated. We're now three years in, three-and-a-half years in. The Democrats have long taken credit for this. David Plouffe has said Obama owns the economy. Obama has said he owns the economy. Biden has said in the past 18 months, two years, that the economy is all Obama's. But common sense-wise, we're three-and-a-half years now into the Obama administration, and the idea that any of this is lingering from George W. Bush is absurd. But they're cracking up now. They are lashing out. They're getting venomous because they've locked themselves into a corner by blaming Bush and by not talking about anything positive, 'cause they've got nothing positive to talk about. They're flailing away wildly, and they're looking like absolute jerks, and they're sounding like jerks. I mean even Democrat websites today, even the MSNBCs and the CNNs, they're not blaming Bush today. They are so low when they look up they see the gutter. That's how depressed they are. They're not happy. They're not excited. They're not trying to blame this on Bush. By the end of the day I think they'll get their act together and resume the program. But when these job numbers hit today, these left-wing media people were absolutely depressed as they could be. They know what this means. They've been hoping to be able to carry forward a lie, a deceit. But there's nothing. There's not one shred of good news. Bush has been off the radar for three years. Bush has not been out there, by design. These guys want to try to continue to make him a target, I'm telling you right now, it is going to fall flat. Bush long gone. Bush not in public. Bush's picture, Bush's face is not out there. Bush isn't tied to any of this. This is all Obama. This is all the Democrat Party. Steny Hoyer. Grab me sound bite six. This morning on CNBC, Squawk Box, Becky Quick to Steny Hoyer, another ranking member of the House Democrat leadership. "Why haven't we grown faster? What's the problem?" HOYER: Under George Bush's economic program that was adopted, eight years later what happened? We lost four million jobs in the last year of his administration. This administration inherited the deepest recession anybody at this table and most of our viewers -- QUICK: Got no argument. HOYER: -- have experienced. It was a financial meltdown, which are the longest recoveries after those kinds of meltdowns. RUSH: Did you hear her say there "no argument?" "No argument." So they're locked into this. You know, I got a suggestion, Steny Hoyer, Chris Van Hollen, all the rest of you, let's just cut to the chase, just blame George Washington. He started it all. He's the first president. Blame it on him. Or, if you want, blame it on Lincoln. Or go back and blame it on Nixon. What a bunch of gutless wonders. Pure gutless wonders, sit around and blame Bush, yet all these three years all of you Democrats have tried to claim whatever imaginary credit you wanted to try to make up for all the wonderful things that were happening in this country. One jobs report and all of a sudden all's lost. One jobs report and all of a sudden George Bush rears his head, poisoning the Democrat Party well once again.

To: FJB who wrote (134252)	6/2/2012 10:24:54 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224729

Court: Marine can't challenge Shariah But judges admit tax funds used 'for arguably religious purposes' by Bob Unruh Saturday, June 02, 2012 wnd.com A federal appeals court says a Marine can’t challenge a U.S. government subsidy for a program that promotes Shariah, that radical Islamic law that includes chopping off hands for theft and beheading for leaving Islam. The ruling came today from Alan Norris, Eric Clay and Allen Griffin, judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They explained that the federal TARP funds given to AIG were exempt from such challenges because the authorizing legislation didn’t consider giving money to aid religious outreaches such as AIG’s Shariah programs, and that the money was directed there by “executive” decisions. Thus, the taxpayer lacked “standing” even to complain about the issue. And they came to their conclusion even though the court opinion admitted that shortly after the Treasury Department acquired an interest in AIG, the “department sponsored a conference entitled ‘Islamic Finance 101.’ The stated purpose of the conference was to provide government policymakers information about Islamic finance. The presentation materials from the conference discussed topics such as the source of Islamic finance, how Islamic finance works, and the market factors that caused its growth.” The plaintiffs argued that Congress could or should have known its bailout money to AIG would go to Shariah “since AIG was well known as the leader in [Shariah complaint finance].” No matter, the judges ruled, This “falls well short of supporting a reasonable inference of congressional intention that a portion of the [federal bailout money] might support [Shariah].” The appeals judges affirmed an earlier decision from a trial court judge who concluded the $153 million of U.S. taxpayer money spent supporting Islamic Shariah really isn’t anything worth mentioning. The case was filed against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others and is over the nation’s bailout with taxpayer money of AIG insurance, which operates multiple companies promoting Shariah-complaint insurance products. The specific lawsuit was filed on behalf of taxpayer Kevin J. Murray over the bailout, which has involved billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s being handled by Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center. At the district court level, the case was dismissed by Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who ruled that the case needed yet to prove that “the diverted funds were not de minimus in relation to the total amount…” Read “The Stoning of Soraya M.” – the true story that inspired the movie The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines de minimus as “so minor as to merit disregard,” but the plaintiffs attorneys noted in their appeal brief that “even the district court had to concede that after cash-strapped AIG received billions of dollars in taxpayer money … it provided two of its SCF [Shariah-compliant] subsidiaries with at least $153 million.” The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. According to American Freedom Law Center’s investigation, AIG has five subsidiaries that promote and practice Shariah in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bahrain and the United States. Those companies hire Muslims to tell them how to meet the demands of Shariah, and the U.S. government has placed no controls over the billions of dollars in taxpayer money delivered to AIG. Yerushalmi and Muise said they would appeal the case alleging the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It claims specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products. As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion today, “‘Shariah’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran. It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.” As argued by AFLC, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, Shariah. And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to his tax money being used to support Shariah because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.” Muise said, “This decision by the Sixth Circuit is troubling on many levels. First, it is contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which allows a taxpayer to challenge a congressional spending program that violates the Establishment Clause. And second, this decision permits the federal government to continue its practice of promoting and supporting Shariah through the use of taxpayer funds. We intend to request a rehearing by the full court, and if that does not succeed, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.” The court ruling admitted, “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Shariah-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Shariah Supervisory Committees.’ The members of these committees are authorities in Shariah law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Shariah law.” The court acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.” Yerushalmi said, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s Shariah businesses.”