FOR ALLAH!!!!!!!!!!

Huh? Oh, yeah. The title. Well, Obama said we should put on a full-scale attack, so the title refers to what most terrorists yell as they attack.

Speaking of that, Obama HAS to be a Muslim. All terrorists are. Who cares what the mainstream media says? According to them, there's no such thing as a terrorist anyway (unless the terrorist is a racist, bigoted Republican).

Anyway, Obama has called for a "full-scale attack" to rejuvenate the economy. You mean, the Wall Street takeover and the stimulus weren't full-scale attacks? Well, I'd hate to see a real one, then. Looks like I don't have a choice though. Obama said his administration is "hard at work" trying to find new ways to promote economic recovery. New ways, huh? What, they're going to ambush the economy from behind instead of full-on collision?

And of course, he's trying to guilt Republicans into letting the bill pass. What happened to new ways? Looks like same old same old around here.

This isn't recovery. This is putting the brakes on as you go over a cliff. Yeah, you slow down, maybe even turn around as you skid around, but sooner or later you're going to take the plunge. If only you hadn't put on the brakes, you might have landed in the lake a little ways out from the bottom. But now you're heading, fast, for the rocks.

And brakes don't work in free-fall.

For the last time (not really; I know I'll say this again), the free market needs to be free in order to be the free market, function as the free market, and prosper as the free market. Hence the title and the words "free" market.

But of course, there are no such things as words to liberals, number one because half of them only know gibberish, indefensible statements, and ridiculous accusations, and number two, because those of them that speak English (and no, Ape doesn't count) have rewritten it anyway.

Racist=Republican
Lie=anything Republicans say
Choice=baby-killing
Civil unions=gay marriage
Partisan=Republican
Bigot=Republican
Idiot=Republican

And many more I'm sure you're familiar with, including my favorite:

Christian=Muslim.

Where Are We?

Where are we?

Some might say America. However, as we've learned, that is sadly not the case.

Some might say in the middle of a recession, under the reign of a tyrannic dude in the White House. (He has lost the right to be called President.)

Those people would be right, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Catholics! Where are we? Where's our sense of pride in our faith, where are our morals? Why are we letting B. Hussein speak at our universities, giving honor to a politician who vehemently opposes the notion of the sanctity of life.

What is a Catholic, anyway? We don't live like we should (and I'm not saying I'm a model Catholic). We don't stand up for our beliefs, largely because many of us don't have them. Our church was founded by Jesus Christ! We're powerful! And we need to stand up with that power. We need to protect our brothers and sisters who are slaughtered every day. And we cannot support or endorse someone who supports and endorses this slaughter.

So stand up! Jesus founded this Church, not to let us sit around in pews for an hour a week, but to come closer to Him and to bring the rest of the world closer to Him and the truth. The rest of the world includes unborn children, each with a soul and a story.

So, I ask you, Catholics, one more time:

Where are we?????

Silly Democrats, tricks are for... oh, never mind. You trick people all the time.

There's the race card trick.

There's the partisan card trick.

And apparently, they're still clinging to the Bush trick. You'd think they thought we were a BIT smarter than that. (However, seeing as how they think we're stupid enough to pull an elaborate, conspiratorial prank on, electing them is also stupid, in their eyes, because they think we're stupid.) So about the Bush trick. House Minority Leader (and hopefully Speaker of the House come November) John Boehner is proposing that Obama fire his economics team. I agree. And he can resign while he's at it.

But of course Joe Biden is saying, "So that's you're plan? Fire Obama's economics team?" I actually think it's a great plan, and would help "point this economy in the right direction." (Except, unlike previous claims that certain actions have done just that, we will see some recovery, LONG-TERM RECOVERY, from doing this and other things Boehner mentioned.)

The other things sound suspiciously like things Bush did while in office, however. But I believe that that is not viewed as a bad thing anymore.

Still, I believe that "by comparison" judgment is wrong. So Republicans better get some new ideas, too. Which I'm sure they will, since they tend to, you know, THINK.

Oh, here's one! How about Obama fires his wife? Because I'm sick of her sitting on a stage in a schmancy dress telling us what schmucks we are for being such schfat, carbon-schpewing jerks.

In Search Of Truth

Lies, hypocrisy, where does it end? We need some good, honest, everyday hardworking people in our government. Everything is arbitrary, nothing is what it seems, but at least people flip-flop consistently. I guess it's easy to tell what party controls the government, isn't it? Read on and you'll see what I mean.

Freedom of religion apparently only applies to Muslims. Just to prevent further confusion, I think they should outlaw Christianity already and declare Islam the national religion and get it over with. Honestly.

The imam who supports both the Ground Zero mosque and the terrorist organization Hamas (not to be confused with each other) is being payed by the feds (aka by the taxpayers) to spread messages of religious freedom and Islam as the Religion of Peace throughout the world. I guess 9/11 just didn't get the job done.

I actually don't see the problem with building a Muslim place of worship near Ground Zero. I mean, Ground Zero already IS a Muslim place of worship. In fact, the ultimate act of Muslim worship was COMMITTED by Muslims when they crashed PLANES into the World Trade Center. Anyone remember that?

So yeah, we PAY a Muslim to spread "religious peace" (it wouldn't surprise me if we paid Obama to spread bull--oh, wait, we do), but in Utah, it is religious discrimination to pu crosses on the side of the road.

Well, what else would they have us put there? Maybe we could get some stimulus funds and put up some SIGNS for them.

The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

Really? Because last time I checked, crosses on the side of the road tend to convey mourning and respect for the dead, not a demand that everyone become Christian and burn the non-believers.

A three-judge panel from Denver's 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 38-page ruling that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the state and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity with the cross memorials.

"This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP," the justices wrote.

Who's the "reasonable observer"? Is he an American? Does he know what crosses on the side of the road usually stand for? Does he know what the word "death" means? Or is the reasonable observer a blind man on a unicycle from the Himalayas? If so, the ruling makes perfect sense.

If people put crosses as grave markers, that doesn't mean everyone at the funeral or he city or whoever owns the cemetery "endorses Christianity."

American Atheists, Inc., the Texas-based group that sued to have the crosses removed from state property, argued that the crosses could imply that the trooper who died there was a Christian.

I notice no one worries about the "reasonable observer" worrying about atheists getting preferential treatment from the UHP. We need to get that imam to Utah.

And about the trooper who died being portrayed as a Christian, well, the crosses were only erected with permission from the family. It's really none of American Atheists, Inc.'s business whether a trooper is portrayed as Christian. The families are fine with it. Oh, wait, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in families. Or troopers. Or roads. (Cars drive on them and ruin the environment. However, they also provide them with a useless venue for stimulus funds, so they're a bit torn on that issue.) They only care about doing everything they can to smear Christianity because they know they're wrong and they know they're bitter about it.

"Unlike Christmas, which has been widely embraced as a secular holiday ... there is no evidence in this case that the cross has been widely embraced by non-Christians as a secular symbol of death," they said.

Funny thing, even though Christmas has been "widely embraced as a secular holiday," the liberals are trying to end that, too. Remember the campaign a while back to change Christmas trees to "holiday trees"? Yeah.

So the left is trying to eradicate Christianity, and why? Well, so the Muslims can take over, of course.

In fact, almost 1 in 5 Americans believe B. Hussein is Muslim. But that was the poll taken BEFORE his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.

Time magazine conducted a survey AFTER the remarks, and 24% of the 1,002 adults surveyed think he is a Muslim.

I think he is a Muslim, a terrorist, and on top of that, here illegally. Of course, a statement from the White House testifies to B. Hussein's Christianity, saying

"President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life," the statement read. "He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The president's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.

"The poll's findings are not surprising given the scope of the issues we are focused on -- a recovering economy, bringing troops home from Iraq, putting health care and financial reform implementation in place. The president's strong Christian faith is what guides him through these challenges but he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve."

You can say all you want. The truth is: Anyone can fake being one thing and actually be another. (Caution: between-the-lines subtext zone.)

And of course he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. After all, he lies about it every day. I honestly don't care what they say anymore. I've been lied to enough. I remember being a little kid and finding out that there was a debate about global warming, that it wasn't an undisputable fact. I remember finding out that cutting down trees and using electricity wasn't considered bad by everyone. I remember finding out that I couldn't trust anyone but God and I'd have to find the truth for myself. And the truth I've found is: Whatever the case, Obama is not what he seems. (Actually, he's not what he PRETENDS to be. To me, he's everything he seems. The truth is still elusive for some, though, but they'll come around.)

Speaking of B. Hussein's hypocrisy, this may interest some people.

President Obama's fundraising spree across the country to help his party retain power isn't just reaping millions of dollars for Democratic candidates -- it's also said to be costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

And it's leaving a massive carbon footprint, too.

One analyst estimated Obama's five-state, three-day tour cost taxpayers about $2 million.

On top of that, the carbon footprint, or pollution generated by the travel, probably matched "something of a size-32 shoe," said Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union, a group that promotes smaller government and fewer taxes.

Obama began his cross-country dash on Monday, taking his GOP-bashing message to Wisconsin and Los Angeles. On Tuesday he went to Seattle, and on Wednesday to Miami for a total of nine fundraising events.

Taken together, it's an 8,000-mile, fossil fuel-burning odyssey that, by pairing official events each day with political ones, allows him to bill taxpayers for most of the cost of the trip -- a tradition that long predates the current president.

"Whenever a president travels, the tab can run up for taxpayers," Sepp told FoxNews.com.

The White House did not respond to an e-mail seeking information.

So he's using our money to fund fundraisers for his party? And liberals get angry when corporations endorse candidates. But when the President uses taxpayer money to travel the country (not on one of his many vacations, but on a political campaigning spree), liberals have no problem with it at all. Of course not.

And they didn't respond to requests for information. So much for transparency. Where can you get a good cup of truth nowadays?

Not only is he wasting our money to raise money for candidates we won't even vote for if we've learned anything this year, but he's damaging the precious environment he holds so dear. Well, as long as it's not a CORPORATION destroying the environment, it's all good.

Not only that, but most people who pay taxes are Republicans. That's just an assumption, but my evidence is that Democrats have no qualms about raising taxes, and they support welfare, because a lot of them are on it. Republicans don't do these things because they know what it's like to work and pay taxes. But it's just a theory.

Anyway, let's just say, hypothetically, that more Republicans pay taxes than Democrats. So Republicans are fotting the bill for the Democratic president to campaign for Democrats. Hard-working people are paying for the President to campaign for people with no respect for or UNDERSTANDING of their hard work, paying for the President to campaign for his own party members, who will just take more money from them after they've paid to have the President get those people elected.

Speaking of money and working, jobless claims are at the highest they've been since November. That's the highest in almost a year. Looks like the stimulus is really working.

So if it's working so well, 1) why are there so many jobless claims, and 2) WHY does B. Hussein feel the need to pass a jobs bill? I've had about enough of his bills.

In fact, I've had about enough of everything! I need truth! I need something besides B. Hussein's monotonous rhetoric.

Of course he pulls the partisan card. Whenever he wants his way, he blames Republicans by calling them partisan. Which is actually very, very partisan. Has he ever called Democrats partisan? I sense some discrimination going on here.

The stimulus, all throughout the healthcare debate, the Wall Street overhaul... he's called them partisan so many times that I almost wish someone would call Republicans racist, just for a change of pace.

"Um, Mr. President, your fly's down."

Obama: "You partisan bigot! This is not the time for politics! The election's over!"

Seriously, that's getting old. How about this:

"Um, Mr. President, you have a ketchup stain on your shirt."

B. Hussein: "I believe this is the time to step above the walls created by racism and embrace a new beginning for you, for me, for America. I ask only that Republicans join me in this endeavor, though I doubt they will. Still, Allah, er, I mean, God bless them and God bless America."

B. Hussein's supporters in the media and elsewhere: "Racist! We have reached a civil rights milestone, yet still there are some on the right--mainly white Christian conservative males--how will not rest until blacks and other minorities are wiped out completely. All those who disagree with the Anointed One... er... the President should have their tongues sawed off with rusty nails and should be locked up, or burned alive! We owe black people for the years of misfortune we caused them. Down with whites! Down with Republicans! What's that? Yes, I know, but no one knows about the President's white half. It's a secret!"

Yes, I yearn for good old-fashioned cries of racism. I assume they'll get tired of the partisan card after a while... Well, all except Obama, who is somewhat tone-deaf (or conniving and devious) politically.

Ooops. How rude. That was racist. Or was it partisan?

No. I've got it. It was a covert endorsement of Christianity.

Shhhhhhh.

Anchor Babies: Now They Care

It's interesting that the only time you can get liberals to defend babies is if they're non-citizen babies. Sure, American babies don't have a right to live, but Mexican babies have the right not only to live but to be U.S. citizens just for being born here.

What if we suddenly found out that Osama bin Ladin was born here? His parents weren't citizens (that I know of... 0_0), but according to Democrats, he should be a citizen if his first breath was taken here on American soil. What if Osama bin Ladin had a kid (like any girl would ever marry [or whatever it is psychotic terrorists do to join in loving unity] him) in America??? What would liberals do then? Automatically give ciizenship to the son of a terrorist?

Generally, the way to become a citizen from a previous status of non-citizen is to (I know this sounds crazy) apply for citizenship, get papers signed, get a green card, whatever.

Being born here doesn't guarantee citizenship.

But, while we're on that subject, even if that were true, Obama still wouldn't be a citizen. So if they're doing this for him, they should give it up (they should give it up anyway).

Having your children be automatically citizens is an exclusive right of Americans. If ANYONE can be an American, the American will cease to exist.

There is a bright side to this. We have liberals recorded now on tape defending babies. I never thought I'd see the day, since baby-killing is the one thing they never flip-flop (aka cover up their psychotic beliefs with a false reversion of position) on.

For another thing, illegal immigrants DO NOT have the right to be here in the first place, so if they had a baby on U.S. soil, they should be punished for being here, not rewarded.

That was what Harry Reid was saying in '93, but of course he's flip-flopped since then, since the Messiah has ordered the Democratic masses to be friendly to immigrants. Muslim immigrants especially. In fact, Muslims get a green card and a free ticket to Manhattan.