Saturday, August 27, 2011

Shariah Law ‘Will’ Reach Inside Your American Home

Under Islamic Sharia law you could be arrested just for eating the wrong kind of food…

By de Andréa

You've seen on television the so-called "Arab Spring" riots in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. The British street riots, the riots in Paris and many other countries that have looting and killing in their streets. Many have been reported as "youth gangs"--- however, the truth is, the rioting is done by those who want the evil law of Shariah to reign over the earth!

That includes YOUR HOME!

Yes, ISLAM is infiltrating ‘your’ town, ‘your ‘community, ‘your’ schools, ‘your’ courts, and ‘yes’, eventually even your home. It starts very slow---just like they have been doing for more than 1400 years. Part of that is now the infiltration of the United States Court system.

It has already begun in your state

Here are the facts: Islam possesses a religious law called "al-Shari'ah" which TOTALLY governs the life of everyone, yes even you. Muslims consider this law to be the embodiment of the "will of Allah."

Their goal is that one day the whole world will be governed under Shariah law!

The Quran is the source of Shariah Law. These strict Islamic laws are responsible for the death of literally MILLIONS of people around the world. It served as a guide for the 9/11 attacks. It drives the consistent attack on hundreds of thousands of Non-Muslims in every country in the world.

Shariah Law is now a genuine threat to the United States of America; and yet, few Americans even know about it, or can say what Shariah really is! Muslims embrace this evil Law and adhere to an all-encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as Shariah. Shariah obliges them to engage in Jihad (Islamic Holy War) to achieve the triumph of Islam worldwide through the establishment of a global Islamic State governed exclusively by Shariah, under a restored 12th Caliphate.

This means that the freedoms that you enjoy under our U.S. Constitution are no longer valid if Shariah Law infiltrates our court system--- and it has already begun! Shariah Law supersedes every law---including the laws that protect your rights.

If you don’t believe it can happen, then let me ask you --- what would it take to convince you? How about the fact that the Islamic population in Europe is growing at twice the rate of the indigenes European population? And in many areas in Europe Sharia already rules. How about the fact that every Islamic countries in the world today, were once Christian, Jewish, or Pagan? Not’ Islamic. How about the fact that Australia and Canada are fast moving away from the western culture of freedom and rapidly moving toward the Islamic oppressive culture of Islam? How about the fact that the Islamic culture and ideology, rather than Christianity is taught in the public schools all over America and in some schools, it is now mandatory? How about the fact that court cases are now many times decided according to Sharia law? No… not just in Saudi Arabia, right here in America. How about the fact that there are already ‘Sharia only’ courts in three states in America where you can be tried under Sharia law? In the state of Michigan Americans have already been arrested and tried for violating Sharia law. Yes! I ask you again…What would it take, to convince you that Islam is a bigger threat to America than the Nazis were in the 1940’s, and then, we were fighting for our very survival. What would it take??? I can tell you this’ my friend, by the time the majority of the west is convinced that Islam is bent on taking control of the world and destroying their freedom…. it will be too late to stop it, just as it was in Indonesia and Lebanon in recent history.

We must STOP SHARIAH LAW from continuing to enter our U.S. court system. U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) has introduced H.R. 973 which forbids foreign laws (including Shariah Law) from our Federal Court system. However, there are ONLY 68 co-sponsors! Many more Congressmen must be held accountable! How about your Congressman? Where does he or she stand? Is he or she a Co-Sponsor of this necessary bill?

I can guarantee you that Mr. Obama is NOT going to stop Shariah Law, because he is himself a Muslim watch his video. Besides it would spoil his 80 percent "approval rating" among Muslim Jihadists in the United States! Shariah Law is being introduced in the American courtroom---and you and I must fight back! Will you help keep Shariah Law out of the U.S. Courts by contacting your congressional representative?

The heart, soul, and survival of America are at stake. The American way of life---as you and I know it---is at stake!

In addition to crucial campaigns on FACEBOOK and GOOGLE, a potent television ad will be shown in key areas, as well as on various networks and, of course, the Internet. CLICK HERE TO VIEW TV SPOT!

In the United States, there have been multiple reports of Islamic "HONOR KILLINGS" where Muslim fathers have literally murdered their own sons and daughters for leaving the Muslim faith or violating Sharia!

On July 28th 2011, local police, not the military, stopped a Muslim soldier from killing more service men and women at Ft. Hood.(The DOD didn’t learn anything about Muslims in our military the first time or the second time and will not at anytime.) Far from investigating the Muslim soldier, the Army had given him "conscientious objector" status because he said he could not go to Afghanistan to fight Muslim terrorists. (What was he doing in the military? Answer…He wanted to kill Americans. An ‘awake’ gun shop owner notified the Killeen, Texas police of the Muslim's purchase of gun powder. PFC Naser Abdo, who was AWOL at the time, had weapons and bomb making materials in his motel room near Fort Hood when captured. The U.S. military ignorantly recruits Muslims to prove its political correctness. Rule number one: one just doesn’t put one’s enemy in one’s own military! But we do… That should give you some indication that after 300 years of war with the Nation of Islam, our DOD still hasn’t a clue who this enemy is. And yet, in the first paragraph of the War College manual it says, “Know who your enemy is”. This rule that we have adopted and has served us so well throughout history, is completely Ignored. Could it be that ‘political correctness’ will ignorantly and deceptively, lead to our demise? The New York Times, while immediately claiming the bombing in Norway was done by a Christian, they have yet to identify Abdo as a Muslim, and probably never will. Why is this happening? It is no accident my friend, Click Here watch and listen to Guy Rodgers, Executive Director of Act for America tell you how Obama has eliminated the threat of Islam by simply ignoring it. And then watch and listen to a clip presented by former FBI counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo, tell you how the DOD and intelligence agencies are kept in the dark about whom and what Islam really is…Click Here.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: TWO-THIRDS of the number of people killed during 9/11 is approximately the same number of people KILLED EVERY SINGLE WEEK around the world for their "faith" in something other than Shariah. Do you ever hear about this…NO? Do you think you are being kept in the Dark by your president? Do you want to know why? It’s because he/Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim Jihadist, a friend of the “Muslim Brotherhood”. Please don’t take my word for it, if you haven’t already done so, open your eyes, ears, and listen to Obama tell you himself. Click Here

EVERY FIVE MINUTES A CHRISTIAN IS MURDERED! Every year, 105,000 Christians are killed by Muslims because of their faith. And soon it will happen here. This shocking figure was disclosed by Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne, representative of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) in a report titled "Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians," at the International Conference on Inter-religious dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims, sponsored by the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union (EU) in Godollo, near Budapest. "Every five minutes," Introvigne said in his speech, "a Christian is killed because of his faith."

If one were to research the recent riots on the streets of England, you would find that they are much more than just "youth gangs.” So as not to anger the Muslims Jihadists, they are simply reported as generic youth gangs!

THE BOTTOM LINE: This is Islamic Jihad my friend and it’s coming to a neighborhood near you…

Islam will dominate the West and more, East and West Europe, Russia, Canada, America, Australia, and inevitably, the rest of the world. How? One way is Demographics, watch a Video. And why? Because we are obviously asleep at the switch.

de Andréa

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The Political Left Empowers Islamic Jihad

So why do they do it? FEAR and IGNORANCE…

By de Andréa

Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things without fear of violence.

A recent series of polls indicate that European public opinion is substantially concerned by the increasing aggressiveness that their substantial Middle Eastern immigrant populations have exhibiting. To quote Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group... “The findings – which come as Europeans are waking up to the consequences of decades of mass immigration from Muslim countries – point to a growing disconnect between European voters and their political masters regarding multicultural policies that enable and encourage Muslim immigrants to remain segregated rather than become integrated and assimilated into their host nations culture.” While this may enable and/or address an obvious sociological problem, it doesn’t address the fact that Muslims will not assimilate regardless. It is a large part of their ideology not to assimilate into your culture but to force you to assimilate into theirs.

The notion of why would anyone want to come to America unless they want to become an American and be a part of our culture, might apply to everyone and anyone, but it doesn’t apply to a Muslim. Then why do Muslims come to Western cultures? Because… they are programmed from birth to transform you into ‘their Eastern culture, that’s why! For Islam to move into modernity, it would have to completely change the fundamentals of its ideology, and folks that just isn’t going to happen. The misconception that Muslims don’t like their countries or their cultures and that is why they come to yours is fundamentally ignorant and deceptive. They come to the West to advance the Islamic agenda of supremacy and world dominance. And we ignorantly empower them.

The survey results mirror the findings of dozens of other recent polls. Taken together, they provide ample empirical evidence that skepticism about Muslim immigration is not limited to a “right-wing” political fringe, as proponents of multiculturalism often assert. Mainstream voters across the entire political spectrum are now expressing concerns about the role of Islam in Europe and America.

The ignorant disconnect constitutes one of the most concerning developments in Western culture over the last decade. Between an elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and those who ‘fear’ being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear the future of Islam in the West, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of their Muslim neighbors, are ignorantly told not to be Islamophobic racists. One of the blatant ironies of that is the ignorance of the statement…Islam is not a race!

Honor-shame and Islamism:

In an honor culture such as I remember in Asia, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honor, to save face, to redeem the dishonored face. Public criticism is an assault on the very “face” of the person criticized. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be “polite”; but a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.

Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism – sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy – all make that pain worthwhile.

But such a system represents a crucible of humiliation for alpha males, especially those who believe that the social order depends on the honor of the ruling elite, like the anti-Dreyfusards around 1900, ready to sacrifice an innocent man for the honor of Army and Church.

This is particularly true for an Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim’s contradiction/criticism of Islam is punishable by death. Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity, more importantly it never will.

The voices of contemporary and fundamental Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on manhood and the basic ideology of Muslims.

Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, and that they not use force to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction.

For Islam this is an impossible challenge. For in Islam’s formative period, it dominated Dhimmah laws. Infidels were “protected” from violence and death at the hands of Muslims as long as they accepted a position of slavery and a visible humiliation, an inferior status. And among the key demands made on dhimmahs, was that they not challenge, criticize, or in any way “insult” Islam or Muslims.

Contemporary manifestations of so-called Islamic revival tend to handle the infidel poorly. The peril to contemporary Christians and Jews in Muslim majority nations is mirrored in the behavior of Muslims in the expanding European enclaves, those zones urbaines sensibles, or Sharia zones, where the state no longer governs.

Thus, Islam’s – Muslim – relationship with the (kaffaar, infidel,), is the great problem to resolve in this coming generation, and at the very core of that problem lies the impossible task of Muslims to tolerate criticism from outsiders. If it continues to be ignored as is has been, and not resolved at any cost, as it ultimately must be, it will result in the loss of Western culture completely.

We in the modern (and post-modern) West, who first forged these remarkable rules of self-restraint and created so rich, so variegated, so tolerant a culture, have a right to ‘demand’ that Islam adopt these rules, certainly those who live in and benefit from the civil polities we have created. Indeed, if we treasure these values of tolerance, and freedom, and generosity towards the “other,” we owe it to ourselves and to the Muslims in our midst, to make this demand. Anything else, including the fantasy that this is not a problem, is cultural suicide.

And yet, so far, we are doing very badly, mostly because we ignorantly avoid dealing with the problem. The “thin skin” of Muslims is proverbial, and much public, diplomatic, and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and placates that cultural reality. When Western positive-sum principles (we do everything we can to “get to yes,” win-win) meets Arab zero-sum principles (they can only win, if we lose), ‘we’… most often lose (Oslo “Peace” Process).

In the last decade this has gotten much worse. The behavior of the self-identified “progressive” “left” – traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny, and belligerence – has been overwhelmingly placatory towards touchy Muslims.

Repeatedly, as in the case of Pope Benedict, they step in to prevent anyone (fellow infidels), whom they smear as Islamophobes, from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about “us” provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources of Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.

THE BOTTOM LINE: This brings us full circle, back to the “disconnect of ignorance.” Our journalists, politicians, and academic talking heads are subject to a different kind of Islamophobia: an inordinate fear of criticizing Islam. And as a result they betray their own constituencies, culture, God, and country. Those of us committed to the rules of civil polities cannot defend a modern, tolerant, liberal political culture with such fearful ignorant people dominating the public sphere.

As in Western Europe where Middle Eastern culture is close to dominating the landscape, America is not far behind. While America still has a chance to save what is left of its freedom and Christian heritage without the shedding of blood in the streets, Europe has passed its point of no return if it wants to save its culture without civil war.

We might want to take a long look at fear and the ignorant misguided benevolence of Europe before it’s too late, as ‘if’ --- it is the future of America… because it is.

de Andréa

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Is Rick Perry a Christian or a Muslim?

One cannot be both; one cannot serve both God and Satan.

By de Andréa

In an article written by Husna Haq, a Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, Haq says: “Rick Perry Has Good Ties with Muslims”, what does that mean? Ties with Muslims, good or bad, can mean trouble one way or the other.

Perry, a self-described evangelical Christian and social conservative who recently led a Christian prayer rally in Texas, has had a surprisingly ‘warm fuzzy’ relationship with Muslims as governor, says Mohamed Elbiary, founder of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, a Muslim public policy organization in Texas.

“We’ve seen him for 20 years at the state level, as lieutenant governor and state governor,” Mr. Elbiary says. “Throughout his whole history, he’s never taken an anti-Muslim or anti-Islam position. He’s a live-and-let-live type of Texan, and relations have been good.” This either means Perry doesn’t know what it means to be a Christian or he doesn’t know what it means to be a Muslim. Perry might have a live and let live philosophy, but Islam certainly does not.

In a GOP field crowded with presidential hopefuls questioning Muslims’ loyalty and promising to crack down on Muslim religious Sharia law in America, Texas Gov. Rick Perry enters the race with a distinguishing calling card: a historically good relationship with Muslims in his state.

In fact, Perry’s relations with Ismailis, a Shia sect of Islam whose adherents number between 30,000 and 40,000 in Texas, have been particularly positive, says Mahmoud Eboo, President of the Ismaili Council for the USA. "I believe that Governor Perry’s leadership philosophy has been to serve Texans of all races and religions and his relationship with the Muslim community generally and the Ismaili community in particular has been cordial and respectful," Mr. Eboo says in an email. Well, I have news for you Mr. Eboo…at least I know that Islam is neither a race ‘nor a religion’, it is an all inclusive oppressive militant political ideology. That has never mixed or assimilated into anything in history since its inception in the 7th century AD.

In 2008, Perry helped ‘expand’ the Muslim Histories and ‘Culture’ Project, a teacher-training program spearheaded by Texas Ismailis that introduces Islamic history and culture curricula into Texas schools. Muslim “Culture and History”, are code words for Islamic ideological indoctrination of a host culture and society.

"I have supported this program from the very beginning, because we must bridge the gap of understanding between East and West if we ever hope to experience a future of peace and prosperity," Perry said at the signing ceremony. Question! Have you ever known Islam to be at peace with anyone in history?

Perry supports the infiltration of Islamic Ideology in public schools. Interestingly he doesn’t support Christianity in public schools. Is Mr. Perry a Christian as he describes himself, or is he a Muslim enabler, supporting a political agenda that at its very core is bent on world domination and oppression? In contrast, upon entering the race, most of Perry’s contenders immediately set about distancing themselves from Islam and Muslims.

For years, Perry has been close friends with the head of the Ismaili sect, Aga Khan, whom he met in Paris in 2000. Since then, Perry has attended a number of Ismaili events in Texas, brokered a few agreements between the state and Ismailis (including the legislation introducing Islamic curricula into Texas schools), and even laid the first brick at the groundbreaking ceremony for an Ismaili worship center in Plano in 2005.

Perry’s relatively good relations with Muslims have already sparked distrust among some conservative bloggers. “Scratch him off my presidential list," wrote RoadTest on the conservative site "We have already seen what a Muslim enabler in the White House can do."

Perry’s Christian prayer rally was planned long before he was considering running for president, just the sort of event that would reassure Christian conservatives about Perry’s evangelical credentials. The event, “The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis,” saw between 15,000 and 22,000 worshipers, including several controversial religious leaders, gathered in Houston’s Reliant Stadium for a seven-hour-long Christian prayer rally with a decidedly conservative Christian bent.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Muslims in U.S. say they are looking to Perry to set a more inclusive tone in the nominating contest. Exactly what does that mean given the support Perry has given to the advancement of Islamic infiltration and the oppressive ideology in the once free nation of America?

If Muslims are looking to Perry, I believe America should look elsewhere, unless we want more of the same “Change” that we have had in the past three years. We don’t need “Change”, what we need is to return to a Federal Representative Constitutional Republic, founded on real Christian principals. What do you think?

de Andréa

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Obama's worst Judge yet

Victoria Frances Nourse, Obama’s pick for the 7th Circuit Appeals Court, is a Judge after Obama’s Muslim - Communist heart; she wants to re-write the Constitution.

By de Andréa

My friend Philip Jauregui at JAG…no… not that JAG, the conservative Judicial Action Group. He alerted me to possibly the worst judicial nominee yet by President Obama: Judge Victoria Frances Nourse seeks a promotion to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Nourse is even worse than Goodwin Liu, Robert Chatigny, and Steve Six, all rolled into one.

Judge Victoria Nourse must be stopped now, and one heroic Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has already promised to filibuster her nomination, but Democrats are still pushing for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee to forward her nomination to the full Senate. According to JAG, Nourse is bad for several reasons: Here are just a few…

1) Nourse – An Advocate for "New Legal Realism" – is Critically Opposed to "Textualism" and "Strict Constructionism." Nourse believes that there are two primary camps of judicial thought: formalists (textualists) and the Globalist philosophy of "new legal realists." As a ‘new’ legal realist, Nourse is opposed to the textualists views of Supreme Court Justice Antonino Scalia or any other freedom loving constitutionalist American ...She ‘criticizes’ those nasty textualists who "...contend that judges should be restrained from engaging in politicized 'lawmaking' by standing closely to the text." [The whole point of a non-political, non legislative court system]

2) Nourse Praises the Results-Based "Radical Theory of Judging" that departs from the text of the law and Reaches Decisions Based on Facts Rather Than Law. [A common member of a jury can do that, but a Judge is required by law to judge according to the law. If that were not true we would all be jugged according to a different set of rules.] Nourse writes: "The old legal realists were enormously successful in positing a radical theory of judging as a challenge to formalist [textualist] legal reasoning. This theory's core claim is that [legal] doctrine alone cannot determine outcomes and that judges respond (and should respond) to facts and factual contexts. So, too, each of the varieties of new legal realism builds from this core claim."

3) Nourse Opposes the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In her law review article on so-called "New Legal Realism," Nourse is highly critical of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Washington D.C. case Heller that upheld the Second Amendment's textual grant of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Contradicting the text of the Second Amendment, Nourse asserts that the Heller Court found "new rights, such as the right to bear arms." [Interesting, didn't we have the right to bear arms long ago? When did that 'new' right suddenly appear? Does this lady even have any knowledge of American political history or Constitutional law?]

4) Nourse Errantly Argues That Judges Can Amend the Text of the Constitution Acting As Their Own Mini "Constitutional Convention,” bypassing the congress the states and the people. In an hour long video-taped speech at Emory University (watch video here), Nourse addresses what she calls the problem of "the difficulty of a constitutional text that stays the same and a world that changes." She explains how the constitution can be amended outside of the "arduous" means provided in the constitution: [She believes that if the world becomes criminal and immoral, that the law should change to accommodate it.]

Nourse states: "… the constitution changes as the people who constitute the nation change – as they participate and take control of their government – as they re-constitute themselves." [spoken like an advocate of a true democracy, a government ruled by the majority(mob rule) rather than the rule of law.] She goes on to say: "The separation of powers has always been since our founding – the means by which the Constitution may change [re-written by judges] in practice legitimately short of the far more arduous and almost impossible amendment process [as provided at Article V of the text of the Constitution]...When the people converge through the means of the separation of powers over a long period of time a constitutional convention arises. These constitutional conventions…are embodied not in formal amendments but in what Yale's Bill Eskridge has called small "c" constitutionalism [including] court rulings…which re-constitute the people and their image of themselves. This kind of small "c" constitutional change is as important, indeed, sometimes more important than the more traditional kinds of change through the constitutional amendment process.” [This statement by Nourse screams of the ignorance of history and of Constitutional law and is the embodiment of perverted indoctrination.]

5) Nourse's advocacy in favor of judicial usurpation of legislative power – even usurpation of constitutional power – is anti-constitutional and anti-American. Her view makes a mockery of the constitution and would grant as few as five judges the ability to amend the constitution according to their own political views. [in other words an unfettered dictatorial power ruled from the bench. Yeah I’m sure this is what the framers had in mind…]

6) Nourse is Critical of Constitutional Textualism; She Makes the Claim That the Constitution's Grants of Power "Governs No One." [Nourse is fundamentally wrong, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to govern the U.S. Government. (A government of law)]

Nourse goes so far as to argue that to remove the "vesting clauses" of the Constitution which divide power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branch would have no impact on the meaning of the Constitution. Nourse specifically references the Article I, Section 1 requirement that "All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and argues that [t]hese descriptive words, assumed to be the most important and naturalized text in our Constitution, do nothing in and of themselves. They govern no one." Per Nourse, if that the exclusive grant of legislative power to Congress "govern[s] no one" then judges are free to legislate their own political policy preferences and agendas from the bench.

7) Nourse Advocates that International and Foreign Law Should Supersede the Constitution, in a "New Legal Realism" in Which "The Power of Globalization on All of Our Lives is Recognized." Nourse writes: "State law, including the frame of state constitutional law, is increasingly rivaled by law otherwise spatially extended, including sub-state law, regional supranational law, transnational domain-specific private ordering, hybrid public-private ordering and, increasingly, new forms of a global legal regime that neither claim universality nor obviously emanate from nor respect the aggregative sovereign will.” [I just can’t help but wonder of this means she advocates that Islamic Sharia Law should take precedent over U.S. Constitutional law as part of the aggregative sovereign will of the nonassimilated Muslim people.]

8) Nourse also Discounts The Existence and Influence of Natural Law and Fundamental Rights. The United States Declaration of Independence explicitly states that we have been "endowed by Our creator with certain unalienable rights," yet Victoria Nourse has stated that " the New Legal Realism philosophy, Real life, and reading hundreds of cases, have taught me that the natural in the law is quite unnatural, quite 'made' in the image of human relations, and that this is not simply a theoretical trope, that this 'madeness' is quite real and demonstrable.” [I guess this should be expected coming from a brainwashed Godless individual]

9) Victoria Nourse Describes Herself as a Zealot and a Feminist. Nourse calls herself an "accidental feminist," and looks up to feminist extremist such as Martha Fineman as role models. Fineman believes that caregiving and emotional nurturing are "gendered" activities that cause women to be undervalued. Nourse co-authored the book "Cases and Materials on Feminist Jurisprudence: Taking Women Seriously" and numerous other articles on the same subject.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Well…what can one expect from a brainwashed feminist man hater and control freak. She is obviously someone of considerable intelligence. But also incapable of original thought. She relies strictly on her perverted indoctrination masqueraded as higher education. Victoria Nourse is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley law school founded in 1912.

As is the fate of many universities, sometime between 1912 and today as the rest of U.C. Berkeley, it has become a Liberal academic institution of extreme left wing indoctrination. A far cry from the University of higher learning that it once was, this has obviously created the Marxist foundation that Victoria F Nourse subscribes to.

It seems that if our Muslim Communist president Barack Hussein Obama has his way this unelected Marxist legislator from the bench will be the next judicial appointee.

Another quiet step toward Globalism and oppressive Dictatorship.

You might want to speak up to your representatives and tell them that you have become quite comfortable with freedom and would like your children to experience a little of it as well.

de Andréa

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Global Warming Nut Goes Nuts

Mr. Albert Gore Jr. Goes Nuts in Aspen

By de Andréa

Is Al beginning to believe his own science fiction, and coming unglued because the media doesn’t?

Global warming crusader Al Gore really lost his cool and dropped several b-s and g-d bombs in a recent speech accusing climate change skeptics of manipulating the media, interesting speak from a media manipulator.

Addressing the Aspen Institute in Colorado on Aug. 4, the former vice president declared that skeptics “pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message that: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Manmade CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bulls***! ‘It may be sunspots.’ Bulls***! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bulls***!” This coming from the master of Global Warming science fiction.

The Hot Air Network’s Green Room website, which reported the outburst, observed: “It would almost be fascinating to listen to Gore lash out at those who harbor an opposing view if it weren’t so pathetic.”

New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser was even harder on Gore: “Has the guru of global warming, the Bozo of ozone and pooh-bah of the probably-not-so-endangered polar bear, gone completely off his bleeping rocker? “ I’m talking about Al Gore, the former vice president who, after losing the White House, reinvented himself as a minor deity — a Gulfstream-riding, energy-slurping, air poluting champion of Planet Earth.”

Peyser noted that Gore continued his “potty-mouthed tirade” with this comment: “It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the god**** ‘climate.’ word”

Marc Morano, a skeptic of manmade global warming, refuted Gore’s allegations on his Climate Depot website.

One study he cited noted that a lack of volcanic dust in the atmosphere could be responsible for a rise in average global temperatures since the 1960s if a rise in temperature even exists.

And Morano referred to a “peer-reviewed admission that ‘global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.’”

Several other studies linked solar activity and the sunspot cycle with the earth’s temperatures.

Gore and other global warming crusaders assert that an increase in CO2 emissions is responsible for a continuing rise in global temperatures, when CO2 could actually lead to cooling, as CO2 is food for all plant life which in turn creates O2.

But Climate Depot maintains: “It is not simply the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the sun, volcanoes, tilt of the earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.”

Peyser pointed out that scientist Charles Monnett, who had fabricated that “melting polar ice caps had led to the death of polar bears”, was being investigated for possible scientific misconduct by the federal agency that employs him. “The population of our white fuzzy friends has actually quintupled since 1950,” Peyser writes.

If you couple that with NASA’s revelation that the earth is letting more heat escape the planet than alarmists previously thought, thus blowing a hole large in the global warming Ozone hysteria, and toss it all together, you’ve got one nutty science professor.

Mr. Gore…you might want to stick to science fiction there is more latitude there, maybe more longitude as well.

A little about Al Gore Jr.
Albert Gore enrolled in Harvard in 1965, initially planning to major in English and write novels, but later deciding to major in government. Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories, he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math. His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and smoking marijuana.

Al… you probably should have stuck with government and smoking weed…

de Andréa