We Noticed!

Sherry Hackett, wife of the late Buddy Hackett, is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. I would think that many other Democrats share her position...

   This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett's widow

"WE NOTICED"

President Obama:

Today I read of your administrations' plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk.

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition. 

YES, "We noticed."

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states. 

YES, "We noticed."

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over. 

YES, "We noticed."

Every time you apologized to other countries for America 's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country.. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief. 

YES, "We noticed."

When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America " and said that 9/11 was " America 's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so. 

YES, "We noticed."

When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one at all. 

YES, "We noticed."

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions. 

YES, "We noticed."

You are 14 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation. 

YES, "We noticed."

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American","racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out. 

YES, "We noticed."

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, ONLY AMERICANS. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans. 

And YES, "We noticed."

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us. 

YES, "We noticed."

September 11 is a day of remembrance for ALL AMERICANS.. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is, a disgrace. 

YES, "We noticed."

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy. 

YES, "We noticed."

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office. Take notice. 

Mosque at Ground Zero?

This is the most clearly stated, sensible, and historically accurate statement that I've read on this issue (and I've read a lot of them).

Statement on the Proposed "Cordoba House" Mosque near Ground Zero

~~by Newt Gingrich

July 21, 2010 6pm
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward uswhile they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site –where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed  one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity,passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don't understand that "Cordoba House" is a deliberately insulting term. It refers toCordoba , Spain – the capital of Muslimconquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosque's backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, everyIslamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a  sign of theircontempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way. Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious  toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more  than 100 mosques already exist in New York City . Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia . In fact no Christian  or Jew can even enter Mecca .  And they lecture us about tolerance.

If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious  toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead  such a campaign.

We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba  House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.
America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive  designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of  our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.
No mosque.
No self deception.
No surrender.
The time to take a stand is now - at this site on this issue.

Is Snopes.com a Hoax??

I got this from a friend, and must admit that I've wondered about some of the "findings" and / or "lack of findings" from SNOPES .... but again must admit ... I've been a user for a long time ..................

After doing some research of my own, I have to say.............ABSOLUTELY A
 HOAX! 
Thank you Craig. 




Snopes.com is not giving you the whole story! I always suspected David and Barbara Mikkelson who were behind "Snopes"
 were 
Obama and liberal oriented --now I (we) know! 


Who watches the watchers?  Please read it all to the bottom! 


Guess we have to use "Truth or Fiction" now. 


For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have 
labeled it, as the 'tell-all final 
word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried 
to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com 


Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it -kinda makes you
 wonder what they were hiding.  
Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right,
 no big office of investigators and researchers, no team 
of lawyers.  It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby .

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
 started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background 
or experience in investigative research. 


After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and
 neutral, 
but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was 
behind 
it and did they have a selfish motivation? 


The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com
 claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in
 fact they have been proven wrong. 



Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating
 and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. 


A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted
 a 
political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the 
Internet, 
'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before
 posting 
their findings in snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the
 corporate office of State Farm pressured 
Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' 
took place.  
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking 
he 
would want to get to the bottom of this, I gave him Bud Gregg's contact
 phone numbers 
and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm 
in Illinois 
who would have been willing to speak with him about it. 

He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from
 snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com
 http://snopes.com/; issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the 
issue as if 
they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not! 

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and
 extremely liberal. 
 As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose 
agenda 
to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much 
criticism 
lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's 
liberalism revealing 
itself in their web site findings. Gee, what a shock? 


So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they
 think to be the bottom line facts . . . 'proceed with 
caution.  Take what it says at face value and nothing more. 



Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read 
the 
sources for yourself. 
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now
 seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do 



After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not'
 fully looking into things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com; 

I have found this to be true also! 


Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were 
False.Then they gave their Liberal slant!!! I have suspected
 some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them i
n half-truths If there 
is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.
 www.truthorfiction.com A better source for verification, in my opinion. I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal
 and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have
 listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and
 find the video 
of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should 
not trust Snopes.com . . . . ever for anything that remotely resembles
 truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore
. 


A few conservatives told me about snopes.com a few months ago and I took
 it upon myself to do a little research to find out 
if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. 

Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and
 make 
your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as
 factual. 

We need to make sure everyone is aware: that Snopes is a hoax in itself

More on the Sherrod Story

                 

                    Remember the guy who posed as a pimp to expose Acorn ?  He is still at work.

Read to the end, Wow the tables turn quickly sometimes...... Andrew Breitbart is a media genius.  He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN hooker scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama's most powerful political support groups.  But Breitbart's handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod white farmer scandal.    It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010.  As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his Big Government site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she'd discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed.  As she smirked to the room, she'd sent him instead to a white lawyer, "one of his own kind" for help.  The black woman was Shirley Sherrod  and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country.  Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded  and received  Sherrod's resignation.  Breitbart had won. But then seemingly Breitbarts actions began to explode in his face.  As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP.  And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat.  Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart.  Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he'd endangered their reputations by releasing a doctored tape.  Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media.  I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart in doctoring a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty.  But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.  Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart's release of that tape snippet.  It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government , a little known legal case called Pigford v. Glickman. http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.  The case was entitled "Pigford v. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case.  The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.  But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment.  In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to Pigford.  The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion.  This was because the original number of plaintiffs , 400 black farmers,  had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. There was only one teensy problem.  The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers.  According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697.  Oops.  Well, gosh, how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims?  And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?  Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the Rural Development Leadership Network, but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action , Shirley Sherrod.  Oops again. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/110/024/Is_There_More_to_Sherrods_Dismissal.html Yes, folks.  It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States , a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission.  And it gets even more interesting.  Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud.  As it turns out, the original judgment of "Pigford v. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers.  But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds.  The Senator was Barack Obama. Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim. But Breitbart knew.  And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod  and Obama  stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment.  Yes, folks  Breitbart is a genius. As for Ms. Sherrod?  Well, she's discovered too late that her cry of "racism" to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself  and her corruption.   Sherrod has vanished from public view.   Her "pigs", it seems, have come home to roost.  Oink!