Coin Toss's Blog

...Dollar Deficit

Obama on track for fourth straight year if trillion-dollar deficit

The U.S. budget deficit grew by nearly $60 billion in June, remaining on track to exceed $1 trillion for the fourth straight year.

Through the first nine months of the budget year, the federal deficit totaled $904.2 billion, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

President Barack Obama is almost certain to face re-election having run trillion-dollar-plus deficits in each of his first four years in office. That would likely benefit his opponent, GOP presumptive nominee Mitt Romney.

Obama and congressional Republicans remain at odds over how to lower the deficit. Unless their disagreement is broken, a series of tax increases and spending cuts could kick in next year. Economists warn that could dramatically slow an already weak U.S. economy and even tip it back into a recession.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama on Track for Fourth Straight Year of Trillion-Dollar Deficit

Decorated general: Shariah is here now!

Tells audience influence has penetrated 'deepest halls of our government'

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin is warning that Islamic Shariah law already is in the United States, and is forming a cloud over the future of the nation.

Boykin, addressing a packed house at a synagogue today in Stoughton, Mass., said, “There is a threat to this country from Shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood,” noting the Muslim Brotherhood has had a presence in the U.S. since at least 1962.

He said even Muslims pay a price for being indifferent to the agenda of the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

“Muslims who are not pushing for Shariah in the United States are pushed aside and don’t have a voice. They’re often marginalized in their mosques and sometimes not allowed to participate,” he said.

Boykin also says that Shariah law has deep ramifications for the United States.

Read Gen. Boykin’s own tales of heroism, in “Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom.

“People say that Shariah isn’t going to be a threat in the United States. Fifty-three cases in 28 states have been decided by Shariah law at the appellate level,” Boykin said.

“There are groups and websites in the United States pushing for Shariah law. They’re dedicated to spreading it and Mark Steyn has said that’s what’s happened in Europe.”

He continued, “The Europeans didn’t take the threat seriously and now Steyn has said that it’s not going to be more than a generation before Europe is overcome.”

Boykin told the crowd of the Muslim Brotherhood’s master plan for the United States.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is working to control the dialogue in the United States, ensuring that people don’t talk about Shariah or its objectives for the country,” he said.

“It’s gone into the deepest halls of our government too. It was no less than FBI Director [Robert] Mueller that had a March meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of the Brotherhood complained about the counterterrorism training manual,” Boykin said.

“In response, Mueller allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to expunge over 1,000 documents from the training manual,” Boykin said. “So please don’t say it can’t happen here. You’ve been told a lot of lies and you’ve been told it’s a religion of peace. You’ve been told that Islam and democracy are compatible and that’s a lie.

Continues:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/decorated-general-shariah-is-here-now/

Academics: Muslim terrorists simply misunderstood.

A taxpayer-funded study released this week declares that Muslim terrorists are generally misunderstood, don’t want to force their religion on the world and only kill people to protect themselves from victimization by enemies of Islam.

A 14-page document, titled, “How Islamist Extremists Quote the Quran,” explains the study’s analysis of 2,000 instances of propaganda from al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups from 1998 to 2011:

We conclude that verses extremists cite from the Qur’an do not suggest an offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor, and retribution. …

Based on this analysis we recommend that the West abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination, focus on counteracting or addressing claims of victimage, emphasize alternative means of deliverance, and work to undermine “champion” image sought by extremists.

Arizona State University’s Center for Strategic Communication conducted the study, which was funded by a grant from the Department of Defense’s Office of Naval Research.

“The highly regarded academics operate a special center dedicated to studying the role of communication in combating terrorism, promoting national security and successfully engaging in public diplomacy worldwide,” explained Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates government corruption and fights to bring to justice those involved. “To fulfill this mission, the center gets big bucks from the U.S. government.”

According to Judicial Watch, the same group received a $6.1 million grant from the Department of Defense for a neurophysiological study involving narrative comprehension and persuasion. However, this assignment is a six-year, $4.5 million study on Islamist extremists’ use of narrative to influence contested populations in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, North Africa and Europe.

The latest report notes: “The verses frequently utilized by extremists” focus on themes such as “enduring hardships and the importance of fighting against the unjust unbelievers who oppress men, women and children.”

One example of an extremist statement included in the report is the following:

America knows only the language of force as the only way for putting a stop to it and making it take its hands off Muslims and their causes. America does not know the language of dialogue, or that of peaceful coexistence, appeals, or denunciation and condemnation! Only blood deters America. “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. Help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers.” [9:14]

The authors called the example “a deliverance story form.”

“Extremists do not favor the ‘Verse of the Sword,’ which encourages all-out war against believers,” the authors argued. “Instead they appear to invoke specific verses of the Qur’an that support a promise of deliverance.”

The report further explains:

“[Deliverance story form] is a literary structure in which ‘the community, people, or nation of the protagonist struggles in a precarious existence and must be delivered from those conditions.’ David and Goliath is a deliverance story that is probably familiar to most readers. …

“We find that, rather than encouraging a culture of naked aggression, Islamist extremists utilize direct citations from the Qur’an to provide solace for the suffering and to legitimize certain actions (particularly terrorism) in response to Muslim grievances. As the aforementioned prominence of 9:14 indicates, extremist communication emphasizes the need to rectify a sense of dishonor, shame, and suffering at the hands of threateners (i.e. nonbelievers).”

Finally, the researchers recommend the following actions:

• “Abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination. … Continued claims to the contrary, by both official and unofficial sources, only play into a ‘clash of civilizations’ narrative that benefits the extremist cause. These claims also undermine the credibility of the Western voices, because the audience knows that extremist arguments are really about victimage and deliverance.”

• “Focus on counteracting or addressing claims of victimage. [O]ne means of counteracting them is to address claims of victimage. Of course, where these claims are true, they should be acknowledged and addressed. Otherwise, when claims of harm are demonstrably false, they can possibly be disputed factually. However, there are limits to this strategy. Attempted corrections can simply reproduce and strengthen the frame of the original argument.”

• “Emphasize alternative means of deliverance. Another strategy is to direct attention to existing grievances and promote alternative means for resolving them. Even if one accepts that Muslims are in need of deliverance, it does not follow that violence is the preferred means of achieving it. …”

• “Work to undermine the ‘champion’ image sought by extremists. … Extremists use a deliverance narrative to position themselves as the champion that can deliver the community from evil. However … extremists do little that is champion-like. They have not unseated any apostate rulers, and their victims are overwhelmingly likely to be Muslims. … So there is an argument to be made that even if one believes that violent action is required to deliver Muslims, Islamist extremists are not competent to occupy the role of champion.”

Judicial Watch said in a statement, “This shows close integration with the rhetorical vision of Islamist extremism, according to the brilliant academics that compiled this on the government’s dime.”

Study co-author Steve Corman told ASU News that America must be realistic about Islamists’ arguments when trying to counter their influence attempts.

“If we try to portray them as evil conquerors when their audience sees them as protectors and champions, it damages our credibility and makes our communication less effective,” he said.

Lead author Jeff Halverson said, “These findings challenge the idea of a clash of civilizations. What extremists are really saying to Muslims is, ‘our communities are under siege and God will defend us if we have faith and courage.’”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/u-s-study-muslim-terrorists-simply-misunderstood/

Obama spending $30M on struggling schools - in Arab kingdom

The Obama administration’s solution to public school budget cuts and classroom overcrowding? Infuse millions of extra federal dollars into constructing modern facilities and renovating old ones, while deploying additional computer equipment – and new furniture – in schools nationwide

Nationwide, that is, in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

A generous multinational political donor – one that straddles the partisan fence, showering both parties with millions – secured the contract for the latest phase of the project.

MWH Americas, Inc., on Sunday, July 8 received the $30 million award, Number AID-278-C-12-00002, from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is overseeing multiple endeavors benefiting the Government of Jordan, particularly the Jordanian Ministry of Education, or MOE.

Though the company’s entry into the initiative is recent, this particular U.S. effort in modernizing the Jordanian school system had begun under President George W. Bush. The administration had scheduled the attainment of some program objectives beyond Bush’s second term in office.

The White House under Barack Obama, however, has stepped up the program, offering greater financial resources to the Middle Eastern nation in order to bring those plans to fruition. USAID continues those prior engineering and design efforts, linking them to the latest planning, construction and technological/material support initiatives.

MWH has combined its political and financial influence through a political action committee jointly operated with corporate affiliate mCapitol Management, whose president, Gary J. LaPaille, once was Illinois Democratic Party chairman and vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

LaPaille has publicly acknowledged that the Obama-Illinois connection has benefited his firm, a consequence, according to The Hill newspaper, of Obama’s “aggressive legislative agenda.”

“It doesn’t hurt to be someone who is from Chicago or Illinois,” LaPaille in 2009 was quoted telling The Hill. “I don’t market it like that, but there aren’t that many of us out there.”

The mCapitol Management/MWH Americas PAC over the past 15 years has bestowed direct financial support upon Republicans and Democrats alike. Similarly, the PAC’s donations to other committees have helped fill the coffers of groups and individuals spanning the liberal-conservative spectrum.

For example, the mCapitol/MWH PAC gave $110,250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee between 1997 and 2011, according to Federal Election Commission records. On a similar scale, the PAC donated $51,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $49,000 to DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee around that same period.

Just two donations to then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., are on record, a pair of $5,000 checks in 2004 cut to the future president on May 19 and Sept. 20, respectively. However, the Obama Senate campaign on Oct. 11 of that year returned one of those checks to the mCapitol/MWH PAC for reasons unstated in the FEC filing.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has received nearly as much as its Democratic counterpart committee from the PAC, but in less time, gaining $110,000 from 2004-2011. The National Republican Congressional Committee likewise got $110,000.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., got $20,000 from 1998-2011. House Speaker John Boehner received a little more than half that amount – $11,000 – in about half the time (2006-2011)

In the most recent quarter of the 2010-2011 election cycle, the PAC’s bipartisan beneficence was equally reflected.

For instance, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., – whom the National Organization for Women once unsuccessfully endorsed to become Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services – received $2,500 from mCapitol/MWH.

The campaign contribution came in along a flurry of other donations from multiple sources to Stabenow, whose counterattack of former Michigan Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra reportedly led to record-breaking fundraising numbers for the incumbent senator.

Hoekstra had come under fire from liberal groups for airing a Super Bowl ad featuring an Asian actress with a fake but mild accent, who thanked Debbie “Spend-It-Now” for contributing to the flight of jobs and capital to China.

Conservative Filipino-American columnist Michelle Malkin described that reaction as the “latest overwrought tempest” in a political-correctness teapot. “Is the ad less than tasteful? Yes,” Malkin wrote on her blog. “Is it ‘xenophobic’ to point out that China is benefiting ginormously [sic] from our fiscal recklessness, indebtedness, and outsourcing of jobs? Certainly not.”

The PAC that same quarter gave $10,000 to the Democratic Governors Association, then turned around and gave $15,000 to the Republican National Committee.

Transfers from mCapitol/MWH to others PACs – and the subsequent financial support those secondary sources provided – again straddled the partisan fence.

MWH, for example, directly gave Hillary Clinton $21,000 in contributions prior to her becoming Secretary of State, while both before and after that appointment MWH gave $26,000 to the Searchlight Leadership Fund (2004-2011).

Searchlight, in turn, also gave Clinton a total of $21,000 between her 1998 senatorial campaign and her 2008 bid for the presidential nomination. Searchlight also separately doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars in total donations to numerous other liberal icons including Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., – the House’s first openly lesbian representative – and Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the House socialist.

Conversely, the mCapitol/MWH PAC donated $15,000 to the Republican Mainstreet Partnership PAC (2006-2012), which in turn gave $28,500 to the Republican National Committee (2009-2011).

MWH now will carry out the Jordan School Construction and Rehabilitation Program II. Under JSP II, the company will provide additional engineering and design functions as well as construction services.

The Jordan MOE consequently will gain 25 new schools while having 100 other educational facilities improved.

In addition to satisfying the U.S. policy objective of reducing overcrowding in Jordanian schools, MWH likewise will factor into its design plans modern environmental standards.

Those “green” issues include those involving appropriate acoustic standards, optimal light conditions, climate features such as ventilation and solar radiation, and even color – from both an environmental/psychological and maintenance point of view, according to Request for Proposals in JSP II.

JSP I will provide technology and furniture to Jordan. MWH is not involved in that procurement.

JSP I also will prove to be a classroom electronics boon for the Jordanians. According to a revised RFP, this project segment entails: 842 student computers, 355 teacher computers, 140 student laptops, 539 teacher laptops, 131 interactive white boards with projectors, and 252 microscopes – not to mention dozens of stoves, refrigerators, hot plates and cleaning machines.

Recipient schools that the agency identified are:

• Saed Bin Abi Wakas Basic Boys School
• Hay Aj-Janobi Basic Boys School
• Madaba Basic Co. School,
• Jabal Tareq Basic Boys School
• Ezz Ad-Dien Qassam Basic Co. School
• Um Qsir Basic Boys School
• Sahab Basic Boys School
• Shajarat Ad Dur Basic Co. School
• Abdel Muneam Reyadh Basic Boys School
• Dahiet Ameer Hassan Basic Co. School
• Al Qadesiah Sec. Girls School
• Al Qadesiah Sec. Co. School
• Safeiah Basic Co. School.

USAID has not disclosed the estimated value of JSP I.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-spending-30m-on-struggling-schools-in-arab-kingdom/

Is Obama intentionally destroying America?

David Limbaugh addresses theories about BHO's true motives for 'transforming' nation

During my book “tour,” radio hosts are forever asking me whether I believe that Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America. It’s a fair question, especially given the title of my book and because so many people legitimately believe he is.

I have never been too receptive to conspiracy theories, and I’m not particularly enamored of ones circulating about Obama. But unlike many other such theories, this one is about a truly unprecedented assault on the American idea and on those first principles that have made America the unique experiment in constitutional governance it has been.

Ordinary people – not just a small fringe group of zealots – are really afraid today. They see the country they adore being attacked at all levels; they see their freedoms under assault, their life savings genuinely in jeopardy, an endlessly anemic economy, a longer period of sustained unemployment than we’ve experienced in a half-century and a national financial crisis, born of world-historic national debt, this president will not help avert.

These are extremely troubled times. The government is on course to gobble up our health-care system; businesses are afraid to hire because of the uncertainties caused by new taxes and regulations that will be unleashed with Obamacare – along with the largest tax increase in the nation’s history, which is already awaiting us in January. Small businesses see an administration that not only is at war with the private sector but also appears to be on a mission to punish and obliterate our domestic energy sources and waste billions more in borrowed federal dollars on green energy projects doomed to fail.

Why? How can anyone explain this insanity? Does Obama truly harbor a grudge against America? What did he mean when he said he wanted to fundamentally change America? What did his wife mean when she said she’d never been proud of America in her adult life before he rose to power? What possesses Obama to deride and apologize for America? What drives him to instinctively distrust business and the private sector and to believe that federal planners ought to have enormously more discretion in how our income and wealth are distributed? What drives him to reject the American concept of equal opportunity and promote the notion of equality of outcomes? Why is he determined to energize labor unions and encourage a permanently adversarial climate between labor and management? Why is he so adamant about the United States deferring to international bodies in the conduct of its foreign affairs? Why is he hellbent on downscaling our nuclear and conventional forces and dismantling our military space program and our missile defenses?

David Limbaugh’s brand new book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States – get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”

Are people not wholly rational in wondering just what in the world is going on?

My personal belief is that Obama, like so many leftist radicals, has a strong distaste for pre-Obama America and that he believes that the United States has been an imperialistic international bully, that we’ve consumed too much of the world’s resources, that we’ve been an environmental felon and that our capitalistic system unfairly and inequitably distributes income and wealth – and I think he means to effect wholesale change to rectify those sins.

Do I believe that he wants to “destroy” America, as such? No. In his mind, as warped and foreign as I think it is, he doubtlessly believes he is helping to create a better America – a utopia of sorts. That is, he is intentionally trying to fundamentally transform America into something that he believes would be better but that most Americans – and infinitely more if they understood the full scope of what he is up to – would consider horrific, an America we would barely recognize as the one bequeathed to us by our ancestors.

On the financial front alone, Obama is single-handedly preventing entitlement and discretionary-spending reform, without which – as I’ve said dozens of times – America will face financial catastrophe. There is less than zero question that he is doing that on purpose, regardless of whether you think he is otherwise intentionally damaging America. There is no question that he is acting as though he has a vendetta against the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power industries. There is also little question that he is intentionally dividing Americans on the basis of race, economic class, gender, sexual orientation and, sometimes, religion.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the damage Obama is doing to the republic, and we haven’t even touched on his unconstitutional and lawless usurpations of authority. The question isn’t whether he is intentionally destroying America. The question is whether he is intentionally pursuing a set of policies that are definitely damaging America, irrespective of his motives.

The answer is – irrefutably, emphatically – “yes.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/is-obama-intentionally-destroying-america/

CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS

Barack Obama: A rights-denying machine

Exclusive: Mychal Massie asserts BHO has no authority to offer political giveaways

The constitutional role of government is not to give things away – nor is it the function of the president or Congress to use the promise of what amounts to gifts as a means of graft to have things their way, to ensure their re-election or to entrench a particular political party.

The constitutional role of the government is to establish a system of currency, defend our shores, deliver the mail and protect our individual rights. It is important to note that government is to protect our individual rights. It is not the constitutional role of government to give us rights. It is not the constitutional role of government to decide what those rights are, and it certainly is not government’s role to deny our individual rights.

Taken literally, the Constitution assumes us to have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – as cited in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers understood that a government with the power to grant individual rights and freedoms would have even more power to arbitrarily deny them – and they had King George as a vivid and tangible reminder of same.

They understood that our Creator is God Almighty not government, and that it is God who endows us with our rights.

Our government violated the Constitution the moment it presumed to know what rights were best for us and what rights were not.

It is not the role of government to decide what we eat, drink, wear or drive. It is not the role of government to decide the educational curriculum for our children. It certainly is not the role of government to mandate what insurance we must have.

I refuse to support any candidate whose campaign message consists of what he or she is going to give us. I will only support candidates who tell us that they will work to bring government back in line with the authority of the Constitution.

Presidents and candidates have, with great efficiency, used the promises of what they will give us to ingratiate themselves to the people, which is in direct opposition to what the Constitution says they should be focused on.

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised retirement benefits as a right. As Walter Williams wrote: “The Social Security pamphlet of 1936 read, ‘Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.’ … Decades after Americans were duped into thinking that the money taken from them was theirs, the Social Security Administration belatedly and quietly…[explained], ‘Entitlement to Social Security is not (a) contractual right.’”

Now fast forward to Obama telling us health care is a right. Constraints of space do not permit me to list every fallacious statement Obama has told about health care. But by now most have seen, read and/or heard of his interview with George Stephanopoulos in which he categorically stated his health-care mandate was not a tax. Yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled that it is.

Now think about this. Take a look at the mess government has made out of Social Security. Take a look at the abysmal job Obama has done pursuant to promising jobs, etc. Government under Obama has done nothing to protect our shores from illegal-alien criminals and the Postal Service is by any measurable standard a monolith of ineffectiveness. Are we going to trust his government with health care, which is one-sixth of the nation’s economy? But I digress.

The Obama government promised “to give,” i.e., “create jobs.” But as CNSNews points out: “The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic stimulus funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 ‘direct’ jobs – meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those jobs. … At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 ‘indirect’ jobs … which means they cost about $1.9 million each.” Combine the two numbers and it means that 5,510 jobs cost, on average, $1.63 million each to produce.

My question to you (and to Obama) is: What “right” did the government have to deny us our “right” to say we refuse to contribute to such waste?

The Declaration of Independence provides us the Grantor of individual rights. It reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Nowhere in those rights does it say government, under fiat of Obama, shall force us to surrender those rights or we will be taxed and punished.

Government under Obama does not have the constitutional authority to force its will on the Catholic Church or any other church. Government under Obama does not have the constitutional authority to use the promise of what they will give and deny as a way to ensure re-election.

If you feel as I do, then the choice is clear. Not only must we elect only those who promise to work to restore the authority of the Constitution, but we cannot allow Obama a second term.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/barack-obama-a-rights-denying-machine/

Brad Pitt, has been scared into silence by the hate-filled, vulgar and even violent reaction to her public assertion that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Pitt has even been the subject of death threats following her letter to the editor of Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader in which she asserted failure to vote for Republican presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney constituted a vote for Obama.

WND spoke briefly with Pitt and asked about the media assault against her for her comments as a private citizen supporting Romney. With inflections in her voice that conveyed fear and despair, she quietly and politely said she was not interested in talking to anyone in the media about the incident.

When she was told WND supported her right to speak her mind and is appalled by the threats against her life, Pitt expressed gratitude to WND for being one of the few news agencies doing so. Even her thank you, however, was said in a subdued manner laden with heaviness of heart.

Pitt had every reason to be frightened. Following her letter to the editor in her local newspaper, the mainstream media have painted her comments in a vilifying light.

The Hollywood Reporter published a story headlined, “Brad Pitt’s mother pens anti-gay, anti-Obama letter to local newspaper.” The New York Daily News went further, penning an article originally titled, “Brad Pitt’s mom unleashes anti-gay, anti-Obama fury in letter.”

She Knows Entertainment reported that Pitt actually “hates Obama, ‘gay’ people.”

These slants on the story, however, are mild compared to comments posted on Twitter.

Editors of the Twitter-scouring news site Twitchy exclaimed sarcastically, “Time for the left’s self-proclaimed arbiters of tolerance to teach her a lesson with their hateful, misogynist slurs and death wishes.”

Twitchy then spotlighted some of the tweets it found.

“Brad Pitt’s mom, die,” wrote Twitter-poster Sandy Kownacka.

A tweet from “I Bleed Gaga” echoed similar sentiments, saying, “Brad Pitt’s mom wrote an anti-gay pro-Romney editorial. Kill the b—-.”

Other comments included, “F— you, brad pitt’s mom, the gay community made your kid a star, you whacko,” and, “Brad Pitt’s mom is a dumb c—.”

Many of the comments told her to commit vulgar sexual acts with the commenter.

These statements stand contrary to Pitt’s own statements about his mother. In January, Pitt told the Hollywood Reporter that his mother was a very loving person.

“She’s very, very loving – very open, genuine, and it’s hilarious because she always gets painted in the tabloids as a she-devil,” the actor said. “There’s not an ounce of malice in her. She wants everyone to be happy.”

Jane Pitt originally penned her letter to the editor responding to another reader, Richard Stoecker, who stated that Christians should not vote for Romney based on his Mormonism.

In her rebuttal letter, she acknowledged that there were doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity, but she took issue with the rest of Stoecker’s reasoning.

Pitt wrote, “I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.”

Pitt went on to say, “Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Her statements on Obama’s record, however, are not opinions, but established facts. Obama himself has come out and said he supports the rights of homosexuals to marry. He has repeatedly backed legalized abortion. While he was a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed a bill that would have required medical care to be given to infants who survived an abortion.

Unlike his mother, Hollywood actor Brad Pitt has taken a strong stand for same-sex marriage and supports Obama.

Brad Pitt has a long history of support for homosexual causes. He once famously declared he would refuse to marry Angelina Jolie until same-sex marriages were made legal in America in every state.

Following New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, Pitt said, “It is each American’s constitutional right to marry the person they love, no matter what state they inhabit. No state should decide who can marry and who cannot.”

In 2008, he donated $100,000 to help fight passage of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that recognized marriage as being between one man and one woman. In March, he portrayed homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker in “8,” a play that re-enacted the trial where Walker overturned the amendment.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/brad-pitts-mom-bullied-into-silence/

Barack Obama is not a Real Black President