Muslim Candidate for Colorado State Treasurer Calls Conservatives "Bigots"

While the rest of the conservative movement is finally waking up across the nation, it appears Colorado's a little behind the times - at least that is what Muhammad Ali Hasan wants his fellow Conservative Republicans to believe. And, by the way, I didn't mentioned he called us all "bigots," and even "racists" if we are not in support of the Muslim mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York.

In a radio interview earlier today, with Craig Silverman on 630 AM KHOW, and in an article he posted on the liberal leaning Huffington Post, yesterday, Colorado GOP candidate for state Treasurer, said

"As an American, a Republican leader, and a practicing Muslim, the issue of building a mosque near New York's Ground Zero is of natural interest to me. For the record, I deeply support building this mosque. To my fellow conservative leaders who say they are against this project, yet claim to not be bigoted, I have news for you: you are a bigot."

- Muhammed Ali Hasan (R), Candidate for Colorado State Treasurer

And that's just the beginning.

He made a number of false accusations against my friend, and future Colorado Senator Jane Norton, during the Silverman interview, and is publicly endorsing Ken Buck for the position (which doesn't surprise me).

Politics aside, this really ticks me off because he's calling those of us who are conservative, those of us who absolutely DO NOT support the City of New York allowing the building of a mosque at Ground Zero, and those of us who do not subscribe to the radical Muslim expansion throughout the world, bigots!

I guess if that's his definition, then I am proud to stand as a conservative Christian, who is a bigot, a racist, and a hater of the radical Muslim agenda to destroy the "infadels," who are made up primarily of Christians and Jews.

Why is that radical Muslims destroy two of our twin towers, target the Pentagon and White House, kill innocent Americans around the world and in our own back yard, kill Jews & Christians who are working underground to keep their Judeo-Christian beliefs a secret in Muslim countries, and have pushed to have Sharia law accepted by many European nations, willing to lie and proclaim that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, accepting and tolerant of other religions, and simply want to build a facility to "practice their religion" and offer a "community center" for their people - near what has become a very sacred and sensitive place for Americans worldwide?

Why is it that Americans must always be the ones to tolerate and bend to our beliefs in order to appease the masses of God-haters?

In case you didn't know this. Islamic religion views building Mosques near or on sacred grounds of other religions as a means of displaying their "victory" over an enemy. It's true! At or near just about every Jewish or Christian holy or sacred site, the Muslims have built a mosque. The famous "Dome of the Rock" was once a Christian church, and the center of the Crusades when Muslim radicals took over the temple to make it one of Islam's holiest places.

But, do you think for one minute Islam would allow for a Christian church or Jewish synagogue to be built in Mecca? Not likely, considering the fact that practicing such religion leads to ones torture and/or death for breaking the law!

There's much, much more to this story, and I'll have many soapbox moments coming up. In the meantime, the primaries are just days away and mail-in ballots are already being delivered. So, I'll let you read more for yourself, and I hope you will agree that Hasan is bad news for the conservative movement.

Here's a link to the rest of the Huffington Post article he wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-ali-hasan/why-i-support-the-ground_b_667764.html

Hasan wants to be State Treasurer? I wouldn't elect him to be my dog catcher with remarks like his.

Hold on while I update my bio to include "bigot" and "racist" to my profile.

Impeach Obama?

It should not be a surprise to America that a liberal-leaning federal judge, appointed by Bill Clinton, has chosen to block parts of SB 1070, commonly known as the Arizona Immigration Bill.

Federal judge, Susan Bolton, ruled earlier today that parts of the bill, primarily the "controversial segments" (which include law enforcement officers checking for immigration status while enforcing other laws), were to be put on hold until the courts "resolve the issues."

Mind you, there is still a pretty strong liklihood Arizona will still come out ahead in the battle, it may be an uphill battle for Arizona, all the way to the Supreme Court, which Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says she is prepared to do, if necessary.

Personally, if governors and legislators don't follow suit, they are condoning Obama's lack of legal enforcement of federal laws, which is very disconcerting, considering the fact Obama is the only President in recent history to blatantly condone anything that resembles protecting America.

Colorado gubernatorial candidate and former Representative, Tom Tancredo, is calling for Obama's impeachment - something that will never happen - unless he continues down the path he is headed and does something utterly stupid (which, given time, is increasingly probable).

My personal opinion is Obama should be impeached for his lack of upholding the oath of office he vowed on Inauguration Day 2009, which reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."

Let's examine Obama's ability to uphold the oath of office, alone, and you will find it difficult to validate his competancy and ability to carry out the office of President.

First of all - Obama (and every predecessor before him) swore to "faithfully execute the office." Well, he has certainly done well in his interpretation of what that means! I am certain the founding fathers didn't intend for "faithfully execute" to mean execution, annihilation, destruction of the office of the President - all of which Obama has managed to successfully accomplish in his short year and a half.

Secondly, if the "best of his ability" to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution is up for evaluation, Obama gets a clear "F' on his report card. To date, Obama has managed to do everything to embarrass, harass, and disgust anyone who is faithful in defending the Constitution. He has questioned and denegrated the very document in which our nation was founded!

So, to some credit, Tom Tancredo isn't far-fetched in his call for Obama's impeachment. While Tancredo's argument to impeach the President falls on other issues, Obama should be impeached simply because he is in clear violation of his oath of office!

Without rehashing all of the ways Obama's policies have failed since he took office, the fact that he continues to blame President George W. Bush for the nation's deficit (despite the fact Obama's addition to the deficit is THREE TIMES that of George W. Bush's entire 8-year service to our country as the POTUS), the constant bashing of Bush's Iraq war policy (which now pales in comparison to Obama's failed Afghan war policy), the tax increases that are supposed to "stimulate" the economy (despite the fact Bush's tax cuts did more to keep the economy from collapsing), and the millions of other examples of Obama's laughable attempt at being President.

Then, again, what do you expect from a man with no qualifications to be the POTUS!

But, Obama is not the one who frightens me. It is the voters who were so easily deceived and pursuaded by his ability to BS his way (by teleprompert, nonetheless) all the way to the highest office in our country. Those people scare me because it shows how easily deceived they are!

My prayer is that this nation will open their eyes and realize there really isn't a good politician, but there are some (Obama, Reid, Pelosi...) who are blatantly worse than others, and vote them out come November!

Obama Fails on Immigration

Despite agonizing requests from AZ Governor Jan Brewer and TX Governor Rick Perry to the White House, requesting National Guard deployments to help both states fight illegal immigration, it clearly appears President Obama is turning a deaf ear to his state counterparts.  Monday, the governors met with federal agents sent by the White House, citing that President Obama plans to deploy 1200 additional National Guard soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

However, the governors expressed frustration saying the deployment "simply wasn't enough." 

 

Gov. Brewer requested a minimum of 3,000 troops, while Gov. Perry previously requested 1,000 as far back as January '09.  Instead, Obama answers with deployment of 524 troops to Arizona, 250 to Texas, 224 to California, and 72 to New Mexico.  Another 130 would man a national liaison office.  Brewer also requested more aerial support, including unmanned drones to watch the border.  To date, those requests remain unaddressed by the White House.

 

The meetings Monday follow months of heated debate sparked by the passage of a new Arizona law in April, which generally requires police investigating crimes or other incidences to ask people about their immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion, a law that two-thirds of Americans support according to a recent poll.

 

Numerous states also have similar immigration laws making their way through state legislatures, or are considering similar laws to help curb illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

 

However, what is most amazing is the fact that Mexican president Calderon has come against the AZ law, and even received a standing ovation and applause by members of the U.S. Congress in a recent state visit to our country.  Yet, Mexico's immigration policy is less tolerable than the U.S. law.  

 

Calderon should be embarrassed by the fact his economy and lack of job opportunities are the primary reasons his citizens are fleeing their country!  Why doesn't he work with the U.S. to create better conditions and opportunities for his people so they wouldn't have a reason to flee the country? 

 

You don't see many illegal Canadians crossing the borders up north in pursuit of a "better life."  After all, Canada and the U.S. have very similar opportunities, and if anything, Americans may be moving up north for job opportunities if the government keeps killing the economy and raising taxes.  Maybe we should re-route the Mexicans to Canada since the U.S. is running out of opportunities.

 

In a recent story on one of the major news networks, many Mexicans are going back to their country because they "no longer see America as a land of opportunity."  While that is a sad statement, it may end up being the foundation of Obama's immigration reform bill.  Kill the American economy and no one will WANT to come here for opportunity.

 

And I wonder what other countries will do when there is a mass exodus of Americans fleeing our country, pursuing other lands of opportunity?

 

Hopefully, we will never allow it to get that bad.  America is STILL the greatest nation and land of opportunity out there, but it won't be for long if we don't act fast to stop illegal immigration.

 

And the debate will continue...

 

Second Amendment Upheld by Supreme Court

For once, the government has actually ruled in favor of the original U.S. Constitution with its second major ruling on gun rights in three years.  On Monday, the Supreme Court extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states, which puts an end (at least for now) to ongoing state and local governments trying to impose laws preventing citizens from owning guns. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago (which recently enacted a city-wide handgun ban), and four of the justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states.

While there are many arguments for the second amendment, giving rights to American citizens to bear arms, many have erupted, saying the right to bear arms only increases the chance for criminals to create harm for American citizens.  However, many studies have shown that crime rates are lower in areas where gun ownership is common.  Gee, I imagine it has something to do with the fact criminals are more afraid of getting shot themselves!

While there are obviously those who are criminally minded and would use guns as a weapon against our society, it is important to remember that criminally minded people would use anything as a weapon to get what they want - whether it be a knife, fist, car, club, baseball bat, or gun.  So, banning citizens from handgun ownership would not solve any problem.  To do so would mean the locales would have to ban anything and everything that could be used as a weapon in an attempt to lower crime.  It simply is impossible and would not work! 

Instead, the right to gun ownership provides the citizenship the safest and best way to protect their property and themselves.  We salute the Supreme Court for upholding one of the basic tenets of our U.S. Constitution.

Welcome to Our New Blog

Want our views, opinions, and ideas regarding the latest and greatest hot topics?

Now you can with our new Voices of Freedom BLOG!

We will be posting a lot of great new topics, announcements, and more on this blog - just another way to stay informed and learn more about upcoming guests and more. So be sure to check back often.

Thanks for listening and thanks for your support. God bless you.