The North Carolina-based race team, founded in 2011, is in the process of fundraising to field a car in the 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series starting with the Daytona 500. Through strategic partnerships and joint ventures with other organizations, America Israel Racing hopes to spread the message throughout the world that the United States supports Israel.
America Israel Racing is proud to be part of a top notch team which includes Robinson-Blakeney Racing, Driver J.J. Yeley, and Crew Chief Tony Furr.
“We wanted to ensure our car design was not only eye-catching, but properly conveyed the mission and values of America Israel Racing,” said AIR co-founder Rich Shirey. “The eagle in particular contains a great deal of symbolism – it has a determined look on its face, because we are determined to voice the importance of America’s support of Israel.
Read more and see the pictures of their new car HERE. And do read the other stories on this blog, some will SHOCK you!
I think this country needs to relish the days when a black man recognized the significance of the Republican Party, when real black men like Martin Luther King andJackie Robinson recognized that the party of Lyndon Baines Johnson intended to enslave them for the next 100 years.
Because the black man of the 21st Century who identifies himself as a Democrat is nothing more than a sycophant, a willing shill for the Master, the Democratic Machine, provided he gets, in the common parlance of the ghetto – no matter what color you are– “paid.”
Nowhere else is this more evidenced than by Fox News black poster child, aka Columbia University associate professor Marc Lamont Hill, who dishonestly asks, “Why do white Republican candidates hate poor people?”
Yet put him to the task to back up his sweeping generalities — his, dare I be racist and say, “stereotyping” of “white people” (since Republicans are all, you know, white people) — Marc Lamont Hill is as silent as every black woman who ever rode in the back of a bus before Rosa Parks. But not because he’s scared; it’s because he’s a liberal professor with a cushy job who doesn’t have the time of day to talk to people who don’t share his skin color, unlike Mitt Romney.
I’ll be the first to say that Mittens is not my candidate; I’ll be the first to say there isn’t ONE Republican in the 2012 field who is my candidate. I’m growing to be a grumpy old man before my time, middle-aged, stagnant in his profession, and tired of seeing the lesser of two evils as the path to prosperity for America. But I’m a realist, and anybody but Obama put to the grindstone by a Republican Senate and House in 2013 looks better than King I’ll-Do-It-With-Or-Without-Congress, be it Mittens or Newt or the ghost of Ronald Reagan.
But when you ask a man to own up to his statements, when you tell a man who questions the integrity of Republican candidates – and therefore Republican voters — to own up to what he says, and he hasn’t the time of day to respond, you start to wonder.
Read more here
Responding to the objections of religious groups, President Obama today announced an “accommodating” revision to the health care mandate that will allow women to receive free birth control irrespective of their employers’ personal conviction.
“[I]f a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan,” the President said in his statement, ” the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.”
Both the Catholic Health Association and NARAL Pro-Choice America approved of the compromise. The insurance industry has yet to issue a formal response, but White House officials reportedly consulted with insurers prior to the announcement.
This puts the White House in a political bind because it’s promised the open-borders and ethnic-chauvinst groups that all non-violent illegal aliens would be permitted to stay as long as necessary until Congress votes them legal status. If regular illegal aliens continue to be deported, the enthusiasm of La Raza and its ilk for the president’s reelection may flag. Thus, this new public advocate, who can identify the malefactors (ICE agents refusing to violate their oaths) and enable the Eye of Sauron to turn upon them.
But some jujitsu is in order. Since this public advocate says “I hope you’ll reach out to me with your questions, comments and concerns,” those who have been affected by illegal immigration — especially victims of identity theft, drunk-driving, or other crimes — should give him a call. He’s at email@example.com or (202) 732-3999.
A longtime adviser to U.S. commanders in Afghanistan says now is the time for President Obama to change strategy and target Taliban leaders ensconced in Pakistan, using drones and other tactics employed to kill al Qaeda operatives over the past 10 years.
“We kill them. We use drones to kill them, just like we did al Qaeda,” said retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, just back from a two-week tour of the battlefield and consultations with U.S. commanders. “The president has to change the policy and issue a ‘finding’ that this is a covert operation under the province of the Central Intelligence Agency.”
A White House spokesman declined to comment Wednesday.
Gen. Keane pointed out one of the great ironies of the long war in Afghanistan: The main U.S. foe is the Taliban, but senior Taliban leaders have untouchable safe havens in Quetta and Peshawar.
Taliban leaders in Pakistan work out of command centers and conduct conferences, or shuras, with lower-level commanders on tactics for killing NATO troops and bringing down the elected government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
“A lot of these guys command from the rear, if you will, telling their guys by orders what to do and what not to do,” a U.S. briefer said to visiting officers last year.
Until now, the U.S. has not targeted senior Taliban leaders for fear of alienating Pakistan, whose intelligence service helped put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the 1990s. Pakistan will not target them because of tribal loyalties and fears that such action could destabilize the country via a militant uprising.
What Gen. Keane is recommending is a war campaign in which the intelligence community, principally the CIA and the National Security Agency, focus spies, communications intercepts and satellites on Taliban commanders inside Pakistan. Once a commander is located, a Predator drone would be sent to kill him with a Hellfire missile.
“If we don’t start targeting the Taliban leadership now … the risk is much too high in terms of our ability to sustain the successes that we’ve had. We cannot let that Afghan Taliban leadership that lives in Pakistan continue to preside over this war and recruit and provide resources,” Gen. Keane said.
“We’ve got to get involved in disrupting those functions. We have to target them like we have done al Qaeda. We would not have to conduct on-ground operations, but we have to change their behavior by targeting them.”
Read the article here.
By Mark Joseph, National Review Online
If the organizers of the national prayer breakfast ever want a sitting president to attend their event again, they need to expect that any leader in his right mind is going to ask — no, demand — that he be allowed to see a copy of the keynote address that is traditionally given immediately before the president’s.
That’s how devastating was the speech given by a little known historical biographer named Eric Metaxas, whose clever wit and punchy humor barely disguised a series of heat-seeking missiles that were sent, intentionally or not, in the commander-in-chief’s direction.
Although Obama began his address directly after Metaxas by saying, “I’m not going to be as funny as Eric but I’m grateful that he shared his message with us,” both his tone and speech itself were flat, and he looked as though he wished he could either crawl into a hole or have a different speech in front of him.
In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that somehow Metaxas had been given an advance copy of Obama’s talk, then tailored his own to rebut the president’s.
Metaxas, a Yale grad and humor writer who once wrote for the children’s series Veggie Tales, began his speech with several jokes and stole the show early on when he noted that George W. Bush, often accused by his critics of being incurious, had read Metaxas’s weighty tome on the German theologian Bonhoeffer; he then proceeded to hand a copy to the president while intoning: “No pressure.”
Obama has been under pressure for some time now to somehow prove his Christian bonafides, for it’s no secret that millions of Americans doubt his Christian faith. A Pew Poll taken in 2010 found that only one third of Americans identified him as a Christian, and even among African-Americans, 46 percent said they were unsure of what religion he practiced.
Obama came to the prayer breakfast with a tidy speech that was clearly designed to lay those doubts to rest. He spoke of his daily habit of prayer and Bible reading, his regular conversations with preachers like T. D. Jakes and Joel Hunter, and even told a story of the time he prayed over Billy Graham.
But before the president could utter a word, it was Metaxas who delivered a devastating, albeit apparently unintentional critique of such God-talk, recounting his own religious upbringing which he described as culturally Christian yet simultaneously full of “phony religiosity.”
“I thought I was a Christian. I guess I was lost,” he matter-of-factly stated.
Standing no more than five feet from Obama whose binder had a speech chock full of quotes from the Good Book, Metaxas said of Jesus:
“When he was tempted in the desert, who was the one throwing Bible verses at him? Satan. That is a perfect picture of dead religion. Using the words of God to do the opposite of what God does. It’s grotesque when you think about it. It’s demonic.”
“Keep in mind that when someone says ‘I am a Christian’ it may mean absolutely nothing,” Metaxas added for good measure, in case anybody missed his point.
Read the article here.
President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?
Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?
Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?
Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?
Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?
Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?
Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?
Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?
Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?
Is it fair that the three counties with America’s highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?
Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized”?
Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?
Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?
THIS IS BREAKING NEWS! STILL SEARCHING THE INTERNET, HAVE SEEN NOTHING YET TO CONFIRM, AND NOTHING ON TELEVISION YET TO CONFIRM…
Did you know that the U.S. Census Bureau says that a child is in “child care” if it is being watched by the father while the mother goes to work?
It’s not baby-sitting when Daddy does it. Who wouldn’t agree with that? The U.S. Census Bureau, apparently. When both parents are present in the household, the Census Bureau assumes for the purposes of its “Who’s Minding the Kids?” report, that the mother is the “designated parent.” And when the designated parent is working or at school, the bureau would like to know who’s providing child care.
If the answer is Daddy, as it was 26 percent of the time when these numbers were last released, in 2005, and 32 percent of the time in 2010, the Census Bureau calls that “care.” But if Mom is caring for a child while Dad’s at work, that’s not a “child care arrangement,” but something else. Parenting, presumably.
“Regardless of how much families have changed over the last 50 years women are still primarily responsible for work in the home,” said Lynda Laughlin of the Census Bureau’s Fertility and Family Statistics Branch. “We try to look at child care as more of a form of work support.” A mother, said Ms. Laughlin, is “not only caring for the child only while Dad works. She’s probably caring for the child 24 hours and so Dad is able to go to work regardless.”
That bears repeating. If, every morning, I go off to work and my husband stays home with a child, that’s a “child care arrangement” in the eyes of this governmental institution. If the reverse is true, it’s not. I asked Ms. Laughlin if the Census Bureau collected data on the hours mothers spend offering “work support” to their husbands. “No,” she said. “We don’t report it in that direction.”