Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Monday, September 01, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

Happy Labor Day

How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…

Catholic Eye-opener... Got this from a Methodist friend...

Charity Hospital run by the Sisters of Charity in New Orleans, along with the Upjohn company developed the plasma system in the 1930's that saved so many lives in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and in the middle east now.
During the Civil War most of the nurses were nuns. Even if you are not Catholic, this is eye opening:
When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no hospitals. Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital.
When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no schools. Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic Colleges and Universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic High Schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.
Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world.
The new Obama Health Mandate could end all this and the tax payers would have to make up the loss. Also, all Catholic adoption services will come to an end... a human disaster.
There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country.  It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president.
I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2014 and be united in replacing all Senators and Reps with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all Religions with perhaps the exception of Islam.
Mr. President, you said, "The USA is not a Christian Nation".  You are wrong - we are a Christian Nation founded on Judeo-Christian values allowing all religions in America to worship and practice freely....something that Islam will never do.
Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE IN America ....Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, know of a Muslim charity, ever seen Muslims shaking hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, or ever seen a Muslim Candy Striper volunteering in a hospital?
Have you ever seen a Muslim do much of anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?
Please circulate this to as many as possible. And remember the elections coming up in 2014 and 2016!

Bet you didn't see this on your local evening news ....

Well done to the Dutch Orchestra!

Dutch Orchestral Concert Staged Friday, 09 May, 2014!

Queen Beatrix of Holland attends an Orchestral Concert.

The Conductor, who happens to be Muslim, proceeds to give the Queen a lecture on the "beauty" of Islam.
Then the members of the Orchestra stage a walkout!
Great to see people with the courage of their convictions!

Now that took courage. Good for the people of Holland. Watch the walk out.

Are we Being Betrayed from Within by an Islamist in the White House

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  —Mark Twain
The Islamist Cometh
Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamo-fascist, akin to a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?  Let us pretend he is and see if it helps to explain his mystique.
During the 2008 primary season, Hamas was phone-banking for Obama.  Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama’s Taqiyya
Upholding the Oath of Office would be distasteful to an actual Islamist president.  Supporting the Constitution would mean going against the totalitarian, Islamo-fascist principles of theKoran.  Muslim’s are, however, allowed to lie to non-Muslims—this is called taqiyya.
Obama is a profoundly anti-Constitution president, telling Americans he does not respect their views, as represented in Congress.  “I have a pen, and I have a phone,” he says, threatening to make law by executive action.  In the style of a totalitarian caliph, Obama rejects representative government, exhorting Americans to submit to his will.  Islam means “submission.”
Harming the Military & Military Families
Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 soldiers.  Obama denied it was Muslim terror, categorizing it as “workplace violence.”  The re-designation deprived military families of the “terrorism benefits” they should have accrued.  This demoralization has punished military families who have fought against Islamism for a decade.
Obama punishes Christians in the military for making religious remarks.  Even a military chaplain did not escape censure for stating in a personal blog that “there are no atheists in foxholes.”  Christians risk discharge, if fellow soldiers report religious statements on- or, in some cases, off-duty.
Muslims are more easily promoted in the armed forces.  Submission to Obama, above the Constitution, is desired.  Those who have no problem firing on their fellow, non-Islamist, Americans are put on the fast track.
The US military is forced to fast during Ramadan.  Religious remarks that show Islamic preferences are not punished and sometimes are rewarded.
Obama’s Military Fecklessness
Obama is training 70,000 Taliban in American military methods, in Afghanistan.  Obama released the five most dangerous Taliban from Gitmo in exchange for an away-without-leave, Islamist traitor.  He helped only Muslims in this deal, and harmed America to boot.
Obama has fostered an environment in the Mid-East that has nurtured the birth of the Islamic State.  Obama released their Caliph Ibrahim from US custody in Camp Bucca, Iraq, back in the spring of 2009, when he went by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Obama continues only to stalemate IS.  He will not kill the cancer while it is still easily done.  An Islamist president would not wish to harm or restrain IS more than politically necessary.
Obama has sent Secretary of State Chuck Hagel to Qatar with an $11 billion-dollar weapons deal.  Qatar provides arms to Hamas.
Obama has held up arms shipments to Israel during their war with Hamas.  He has made statements condemning Israel.  He sympathizes with Hamas.
Betraying the Infidels
Obama is cutting the US army to pre-WWII levels and the navy to pre-WWI levels.  He has taken our nuclear missile defense from 5,500 to 1,550 without getting concessions from the Chinese or Russians.
Obama is helping our enemy, Iran, to get nuclear weapons by way of a sham treaty.  Iran, as an Islamist state, lies in its treaties.  Obama has declared Iran off-limits to attack, during the protracted negotiations.  An Islamist president would prefer to help an Islamist regime, rather than aid America—the Great Satan!
In a dangerous world of terror, Obama has canceled the Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs.  He has also opened the US border to terrorists, who are streaming across it.  An Islamist president would gladly jeopardize America.
Harms Against Israel
On April 2, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaked a report concerning Israel’s plan for a possible attack on Iran “in April, May, or June” of that year.  This leak—a first in the history of US-Israel relations—removed any element of surprise Israel might have had, and effectively canceled any potential Israeli strike, while allowing Iran additional time to prepare by further developing its nuclear weapons program.
In June, 2010, Obama leaked information that Israel might use Saudi airspace to fly a more direct route to Iran.  The Saudi-Israeli cooperation was revealed to the London Times, citing “US defense sources.”  An Islamist president would revel in helping a potentially nuclear Islamist state in this way.
The US Defense Department, on June 4, 2013, leaked more than 1,000 pages of details of an Israeli system whose success rests on being totally invisible to enemy eyes.  It was a great blow to the defense of Israel, because the Arrow 3 is designed to seek out and blow up Iranian Shihab 3 and other long-range missiles.  An Islamist president would leak this information, without qualms.
Also, Foreign Policy Magazine has reported—citing an anonymous American source in the Defense Department—that Israel had arranged to use an air base in Azerbaijan as a way to launch an air strike against Iran.  The Christian Science Monitor asked, “Did the U.S. just torpedo an Israeli deal for a base in Azerbaijan?” and began to wonder whether the U.S. was Israel’s “best friend” anymore—at least under this president.
Targeting Threats to Islam
Not only conservative and libertarian groups were targeted by the Obama IRS, Pro-Israel Jewish groups were also targeted.  Obama has said he considers the greatest enemies of the US to be conservatives!
Ultra-liberals have not compared conservatives to terrorists, before Obama.  Why would Obama say this?  Constitutional conservatives believe in an ideal that is an anathema to Islamists— individual liberty, as enshrined in the Constitution!  Pro-Israel Jews believe in the legitimacy of a safe haven for Jews—a Jewish state—something an Islamist president cannot countenance.
Predicting Obama
I have been predicting Obama’s actions for quite some time.  Some marvel at my accuracy.  My secret?  Plain and simple: I imagine Obama to be an Islamist.

Obama Does Have A Strategy, And It’s Awful

On Thursday, President Obama told the world he didn’t yet have a strategy for dealing with the Islamic Front in Syria. Although it’s never good to let an army who beheads your citizens and is hellbent on your destruction know you don’t know how to deal with them – yet, or otherwise – Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary “clarified” his comments the next day. We do have a plan, it turns out. And the plan is awful.
Before we dive into the new statements, let’s take a look back at some older ones.
Back in January, when talking about terrorism, President Obama told the New Yorker magazine, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”
The terrorist group making the biggest waves at the time was ISIS. Was the president referring to ISIS as part of a “jayvee team?” It went relatively unnoticed by the mainstream media then. But in the eight months since, ISIS has become the little jayvee team that could. It has taken over a landmass the size of Indiana – and growing. It has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions and amassed a fortune to fund its continued terror campaign.
But our posture toward this outfit has not changed.
When ISIS beheaded American journalists James Foley and posted the video on the Internet, the media remembered the quote and asked about it. Earnest went on to claim the president wasn’t talking about ISIS, just other groups, and that the White House always has taken the ISIS threat seriously.
That claim, on its face, would be insignificant, perhaps even believable, were it not for the president’s statement Thursday. If, as the White House now insists, it always has taken the threat seriously, how can it have no strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria, or anywhere, 8 months later?
Perhaps the political advisors in the White House have yet to calculate how to use this threat to influence the November elections or to at the very least blame Congress for it. But we already know the president has a phone – right next to his pen – and that the Pentagon has phones, too. If he has taken the threat of ISIS seriously for eight months, why has he not used his phone to call the Pentagon and ask the military to formulate some possible strategies for any number of scenarios?
It’s clear the White House has not been interested in the threat posed by ISIS, either abroad or here in the homeland, or else we wouldn’t still be without a plan.
Which brings us to the “clarification” on Friday.
Josh Earnest, appearing on Morning Joe, said, “We don't have plans in place right now for what we want to do and what we could do militarily in Syria. But when it comes to confronting ISIL, the president has made very clear we do have a comprehensive strategy for confronting that threat that is posed by ISIL. That begins with supporting Iraq’s political leaders as they form the kind of inclusive government that can unite the country to confront the threat that their country faces right now.”
First, there they go again using ISIL—Islamic State in the Levant—as opposed to ISIS, the Islamic State in Syria. This is to sow confusion and distract from the administration’s record in dealing with this crisis.
Second, so our strategy is dependent upon Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurds coming together, putting aside centuries of hatred, forming a drum circle and singing “Kumbaya”? Hmmm … why didn’t we think of that before? Wait, we did.
Earnest wasn’t done. “It includes beefing up our support to Iraqi and Kurdish security forces in the form of training and equipment to help them take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country.” This makes sense, but it would have made more sense before ISIS was the fully armed, disciplined and funded outfit it is now.
Earnest then added that the president has dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to the area to “engage” with the region’s leaders but wasn’t clear on the goal of that engagement beyond engagement for its own sake.
Plus, he threw in that we’re bombing them in Iraq at least, so there’s that.
See, we do have a strategy. It’s a muddled, rudderless, leaderless strategy with no clear directives or goals. But really, is that such a surprise?

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

In all the bad days that opponents of same-sex marriage have had lately, few compare with the one they had this past week in a courtroom in Chicago. Lawyers defending the bans in Wisconsin and Indiana were buried in an avalanche of skepticism and incredulity.
The judges demanded to know what worthy goals the prohibitions serve, and the attorneys had terrible trouble coming up with any. Perhaps the low point for their side came when one was asked why Wisconsin makes it so hard for same-sex couples to adopt and ventured to say, "I think tradition is one of the reasons."
At that, Judge Richard Posner did not slap his forehead and exclaim, "Of course! Why didn't we see that? Everything makes sense now!" Instead, he retorted: "How can tradition be a reason for anything?"
Many states, he noted, had a hallowed tradition of forbidding interracial marriage until 1967, when the Supreme Court said they couldn't. Posner couldn't see how entrenched practice, no matter how ancient, mattered in that case or this one. The argument, he said, amounted to: "We've been doing this stupid thing for a hundred years, a thousand years. We'll keep doing it because it's tradition."
His rebuff betrays a fatal problem for opponents of same-sex marriage. One of their central arguments is that we should limit marriage to male-female couples because that's been the norm in Western cultures for millennia. It's an argument deeply rooted in conservative political philosophy. But conservative political philosophy has never really had much influence in the United States, even among those who call themselves conservative.
In his 1953 book "The Conservative Mind," Russell Kirk expounded a view peculiar to the right. "Even the most intelligent of men cannot hope to understand all the secrets of traditional morals and social arrangements," he wrote, "but we may be sure that Providence, acting through the medium of human trial and error, has developed every hoary habit for some important purpose." It's not an argument often heard in our debates.
Americans do pay homage to our past by invoking the Declaration of Independence, the framers, the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and so on. But the idea that we should be afraid to make changes in our laws for fear of rending the organic fabric of society doesn't command much allegiance on either the left or the right.
Liberals have never made a fetish of obeisance to the past. They agree with the revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine that giving primacy to tradition unjustly places "the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living."
American conservatives largely share that premise. The New Deal has been in place for some 80 years, but conservatives don't believe in conserving that. Their feeling is it was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
None of this means Americans have no use for traditions. We have all sorts of favorites, from fireworks on the Fourth of July to football in autumn. But we feel entitled to alter and embellish them at our whim. The fireworks we see are bigger and better than the ones Americans saw a century ago. Football now starts in August and goes till February.
Marriage morphed repeatedly long before gays got it. Women acquired more rights, divorce became available to anyone who wanted it, and alimony grew less common. People of different races can now marry each other even in places where it was once cause for lynching.
Longstanding arrangements that make sense endure without controversy, and that's just the point: They make sense. Tradition and a good reason will win an argument, just as tradition and $2 will get you a ride on the bus. Americans don't keep doing things unless they serve our purposes, even if they suited our grandparents to a T.
The 20th-century Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. spoke for most of us: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."
The prevailing ethos in this country is that we are the masters of tradition, not the servants. We treasure the customs and practices passed down from our ancestors. And we change them anytime we want.

Saudi King Abdullah speaks before a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at his private residence in the Red Sea city of in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Friday, June 27, 2014. Kerry also talked with Syrian opposition leader President Ahmad al-Jarba. It was not immediately clear why al-Jarba, a Sunni, was in Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Brendan Smialowski, Pool)Saudi king: Islamic State will reach ‘Europe in a month and America in another month’

By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has a stark warning to America: The Islamic State’s terror will visit American shores in one month if it is not confronted in Syria and Iraq.

“If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,” the king said Saturday, Agence France Presse reported. His comments came while he was speaking at ceremony for new ambassadors.

“Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East. […] It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: ‘Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.’”

King Abdullah’s warning for the western world comes one day after a government watchdog reported that a federal bulletin released to law enforcement agencies has warned that the Islamic State group, also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS, has infiltrated Mexico’s city of Ciudad Juarez for an imminent attack on America.

“High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued,” the statement read, Judicial Watch reported Friday.

Earlier in the week, U.S. officials told The Blaze that a “significant increase” in chatter among terrorist groups has been observed in recent weeks.

Cruz: ‘Russian bear is encountering the Obama kitty cat’

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, blasted President Obama over his foreign policy with Russia on Saturday accusing him of being a weak “kitty cat.”
“The Russian bear is encountering the Obama kitty cat,” Mr. Cruz said to a standing-room only conservative crowd at the annual Americans for Prosperity summit in Dallas.
“The reason Putin feels no fear to march into his neighbors, the reason our allies up and down Europe are terrified of what happens next is because our president is leading from behind,” he added, riffing at the end off a phrase the administration has itself used to defend its foreign policy.
Mr. Cruz, widely seen as a possible top contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said that the U.S. should combat Russia economically by approving U.S. natural gas exports, which would dampen world gas prices and hit the Kremlin where it hurts, “in the cash register.”
Mr. Cruz was among a string of potential 2016 candidates at the summit who condemned the president for saying he did not have a strategy to combat Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq.
He quoted President Reagan who said his strategy going into battle was “we win and they lose.”
“It’s almost as if President Obama read that and got it backwards,” Mr. Cruz said and added, “We out to bomb [the Islamic State] back to the stone age.”

Uh Oh: Mary Landrieu Doesn't Own a Home in Louisiana

This is…not what embattled "Louisiana" Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu wanted to read in the Washington Post -- which, as it turns out, is her hometown paper:

In Washington, Sen. Mary Landrieu lives in a stately, $2.5 million brick manse she and her husband built on Capitol Hill. Here in Louisiana, however, the Democrat does not have a home of her own. She is registered to vote at a large bungalow in New Orleans that her parents have lived in for many decades, according to a Washington Post review of Landrieu’s federal financial disclosures and local property and voting records. On a statement of candidacy Landrieu filed with the Federal Election Commission in January, she listed her Capitol Hill home as her address.But when qualifying for the ballot in Louisiana last week, she listed the family’s raised-basement home here on South Prieur Street. The New Orleans house, which Landrieu claims as her primary residence, is a new flash point in one of the most closely contested Senate races in the country. Republicans are considering taking legal action to question Landrieu’s residency in the state, arguing that since winning her seat in 1996 she has become a creature of Washington. For Landrieu, there are hazardous parallels to other recent cases in which residency questions have dogged incumbents. Former senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) lost reelection in 2012 after reports that he stayed in hotels when he returned to Indiana, while Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) is drawing flack this year for not having a home of his own in Kansas and listing a donor’s house as his voting address.

Lugar was dumped by primary voters last cycle (before the GOP frittered away the seat he vacated), and Roberts is only leading by high single digits in the ruby red state of Kansas.  Landrieu is one of the most endangered Senate Democrats in the country, representing a state -- from afar -- that Barack Obama lost by 17 points in 2012.  Landrieu has gone 'full Beltway.'  She lives in her multimillion-dollar DC mansion (remember this tax-related flap?), not in the state she ostensibly serves.  The Senator claims that she lives at her parents' house when she's in town, but neighbors, including some of her supporters, aren't so sure:

“I don’t think she lives there,” said Fontaine Wells, 65, pointing at the Landrieu home. “She might come visit, but come on now — she lives in D.C. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her.” … Michael Fitzgerald, 61, has lived around the corner from the Landrieus for three decades. He said he sees Moon and Verna Landrieu regularly, as well as Mitch Landrieu, Mary’s younger brother and the city’s current mayor, who lives in a home he owns nearby.  “On Election Day, [Mary] is seen at our polling place accompanying her parents.” He added, “I have not seen her lately... She’s been in the Senate for — I’ve lost count — 16 years? 18 years?

Landrieu votes with Barack Obama 97 percent of the time, according toCongressional Quarterly.  The president and his signature legislative item, Obamacare, are hugely unpopular in Louisiana.  Landrieu cast the deciding vote for that law, attacking critics for "lying" about its now-evident effects.  At the time, she pledged to take '100 percent' responsibility for Obamacare's outcomes.  Like these ones.  Whether or not the incumbent Senator faces any serious eligibility issues remains to be seen, but the optics are bad.  The "out of touch" attacks will only intensify, especially in light of the recent revelation that Landrieu inappropriately used taxpayer dollars to fund private jet trips for campaign events.


The White House is weighing the option of moving on its own to cut tax benefits for companies who move their operations off of U.S. shores to conduct business.
The irony of it all, of course, is that these same companies are leaving the U.S. because they’re tired of paying high taxes.
As Obama and his team have termed it, they are helping to “support” a company’s allegiance to the U.S. through “economic patriotism.”
Though the Supreme Court recently ruled the White House was out of line and overextending its authority on many issues, that apparently doesn’t seem to be standing in the way of Obama’s plans to act without congressional approval.

Flip-flop: Americans, 4-1, now support military attack in Syria

BY PAUL BEDARD | AUGUST 31, 2014 | 1:11 PM

As he waffles on U.S. policy toward terrorists in Syria dubbed ISIS, President Obama is being handed rare American support for a military attack against the terrorists, according to a new poll.
In its latest survey, finds that the nation has done a 180 in just a year, and now supports military action by nearly four to one.
Some 63 percent of Americans back a Pentagon strike against the terrorists to 16 percent who don’t. A year ago, those numbers were reversed when Americans were asked about striking Syrian troops commanded by President Bashar Assad, with 60 percent opposing military action and 20 percent supporting it.
The flip-flop comes as television news is filled with stories of horrific murders of those captured by ISIS, and reports of American airstrikes against the militants.
It also comes as Obama fights with his national security team and Hill Democrats calling for action. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, today backed military action while on "Meet the Press."
The YouGov poll revealed a rare change of heart for Americans, many war-weary with the U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What’s more, the support for military action was spread among political opposites. Some 60 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans support military action against the terrorists.
Said the poll analysis:
The latest research from YouGov shows that attitudes towards the use of military force in Syria have changed significantly over the past year. In September 2013, when a deal to disarm Syria's chemical weapons was agreed, 62% of Americans opposed the use of military force while only 20% supported it. Today when asked whether they support the use of military force against ISIS militants in Syria, the situation is reversed. 63% of Americans now support the use of military force in Syria, compared to only 16% who oppose it...
Support for military action has increased significantly despite the fact that expectations of deeper US involvement remain the same. In research conducted at the beginning of September 2013 when the US was considering launching air strikes against Syria, 45% of Americans said that strikes would be the first step towards having US troops in Syria. 31% expected any potential campaign to be limited to air strikes. Today Americans still tend to expect any air strikes in Syria to lead to a US military presence, with 40% saying it would be a first step and 31% saying that action would be limited to air strikes.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at
G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive