Showing posts with label caliph خليفة. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caliph خليفة. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The world's not better off


The caliph خليفة, a National Security Disaster

 
1,440 
    
Published on Sep 7, 2012 by 
Frank Gaffney responds to Obama's nomination speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.


Center for Security Policy | Sep 10, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Eleven years after 9/11, President Obama would have us believe that, at least with respect to our national security, we are better off than we were when he came to office. Specifically, he now claims that al Qaeda – the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on that terrible day – is “on the path to defeat.”
That contention is, of course, predicated in part on the laudable fact that al Qaeda’s founder, Osama bin Laden, is dead, as are a number of the organization’s other senior leaders. The President deserves credit for achieving such successes.
But they do not mean even that the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are nearly defeated. In fact, its franchises are going – and growing – concerns in places like Libya, Yemen, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali and Pakistan, to say nothing of the theaters We have abandoned (Iraq), or are in the process of abandoning (Afghanistan).
More importantly, even if it were true that al Qaeda is being defeated, a net assessment would clearly show that, on Mr. Obama’s watch, the world has become much more hospitable to its ideology and goals, and much less safe for America and our interests.
That is the case in no small measure because of the help Team Obama has given to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that fully shares al Qaeda’s ambitions to impose its totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah on the rest of the world under the rule of a Caliph. As the Center for Security Policy has documented in a free online video-based curriculum entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America: the Enemy Within, that help has taken myriad forms including: recognizing and engaging the Brotherhood in Egypt; helping it come to power there; and providing $1.5 billion in aid after the Brotherhood’s political party dominated Egyptian parliamentary elections and on the eve of the election of its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, to the presidency.
The Obama administration is preparing to do still more for the Brothers in Egypt now that they have established effectively complete control in one of the Middle East’s most strategic nations. It is engineering another $1 billion in debt relief at U.S. taxpayer expense and over $4 billion in assistance from international financial organizations (a substantial chunk of which will come out of our hides, too).
It is also warning Israel not to object to Egypt’s remilitarization of the Sinai, in blatant violation of the peace treaty between the two nations signed at Camp David in 1979. And it is preparing to roll out the red carpet for Brother Morsi in New York and the White House later this month.
Are such steps a problem – especially collectively? After all, the Muslim Brothers are, according to Mr. Obama’s administration, the sort of benign Islamists with whom we can safely deal since they have, in the words of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, “eschewed violence.”
In point of fact, the Brothers have no more eschewed violence towards infidels and even Muslims who stand in the way of their geopolitical ambitions than they are, in another unforgettable example of Gen. Clapper’s cluelessness, “a largely secular organization.” These rabid and avowed Islamists are perfectly prepared to use violence – think Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise – when they believe it will conduce to success.
Until that time, shariah requires its adherents to pursue the same goals through means that are best described as pre-violent, rather than non-violent. And it is the steady progress that the prime practitioners of this approach – which the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – have made unnoticed, or at least un-countered, by President Obama and his subordinates that has actually made the world vastly more dangerous than it was when they came to office.
Just how dangerous may be on display when President Obama hosts Mohamed Morsi. It will be interesting to see whether he emboldens that Islamist, as he has others, by bowing to him. But what will be far more important than such symbolic gestures is what further concessions Mr. Obama offer, concessions that – according to the doctrine of shariah – are interpreted as tangible signs of our submission?
One that will be at the top of Mr. Morsi’s agenda is his demand that the United States release one of the most world’s most dangerous jihadists, Omar Abdul Rahman. Better known as the “Blind Sheikh,” this terrorist was convicted of leading, among other conspiracies, the first, lethal attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Presumably, President Obama would not dare pardon or transfer Abdul Rahman to Egypt before his “last election,” but he may feel free to do so afterwards – when he has, in his words, “more flexibility.”
Either way, the Morsi visit will be a “teachable moment” for every American. All other things being equal, it will demonstrate tangibly that eleven years after 9/11 – notwithstanding the tactical successes achieved by our courageous servicemen and women, lethal drones and intelligence and homeland security professionals, we are losing, not winning, the war against those who are driven by shariah to wage jihad, of either the violent or stealthy kind, against us. We better pray it will prompt the American
people to insist on a fundamental course correction two months from now.

Luis Fleischman
Dr. Fleischman is a Senior advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University. 

The Big Stonking Differences Between The Mormon and The Marxist



   
From my friend and blogger. John Hawkins
1) Mitt Romney would try to reduce tax rates for the wealthy and corporations to spur economic growth. On the other hand, Barack Obama is likely to try to raise taxes not just on the rich and corporations, but on the middle class. He really wouldn’t have much choice. Despite the class warfare rhetoric you’re hearing, there is far more money that can be confiscated from the vast middle class than there is to be plundered from the relatively thin ranks of the wealthy. If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: “because that’s where the money is.”

2) Barack Obama has run trillion dollar plus deficits every year he’s been in office and given that everything he wants to do comes with a large price tag attached, there’s no reason to think the next four years would be any different than the last four years. At a minimum, that would mean further downgrades of our nation’s credit rating, but it’s possible it could precipitate a full-on Greek style financial crisis if investors conclude their money isn’t safe here. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be under tremendous pressure from his right to reduce the deficit and a further credit downgrade on his watch would be a devastating political blow that he’d be highly motivated to avoid. Romney wouldn’t have it easy since Obama would be leaving him a full-on budgetary disaster to deal with, but he’d have little choice other than to make cuts if he wants to be reelected in 2016.
3) Barack Obama has made encouraging dependence part of his electoral strategy. The more Americans that are dependent on the government for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare, the more votes he believes the Democrats will get. In order to swell the welfare rolls, he’s no longer demanding that welfare recipients work for their handout. Mitt Romney opposes that change and would put the work requirements back into welfare.
4) If Barack Obama is reelected, we should expect no serious attempts at entitlement reform in the next four years. That’s very problematic because nobody wants to cut a deal that impacts current retirees which means any change will impact people 55 and younger. So every year we wait, we end up with more Americans in an unsustainable system. The longer we go without making a change, the more likely it becomes that we’ll be forced, under financial duress of the sort Greece is facing, to dramatically cut benefits for people who already rely on the program. Of course, there are no guarantees Mitt Romney could reach a deal with Democrats in Congress, but he will at least try to make it happen. Barack Obama won’t.
5) The Supreme Court currently has four doctrinaire liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three conservative originalist justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). Four of the justices, Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73) are over 70. Given the ideological split of the SCOTUS and the ages of the judges, the next President may have an opportunity to create a historic shift on the Court. Replacing a single justice with an ideological opposite could be a decisive factor on cases from Roe v. Wade to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
6) We currently have a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens who haven’t committed a felony in the United States. All they have to do is claim that they went to school here and they’re automatically released without verification. If that continues for another four years, millions more illegals will pour into the United States and Obama will encourage them to settle in for the long haul. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.
7) Obama has taken over the student loan program, frittered away billions in bad loans to companies like Solyndra, and proudly proclaims his partial takeover of GM and Chevrolet to be a success despite the fact the taxpayers lost 25 billion on the deal. If Barack Obama is reelected, expect more government takeovers and bailouts. In fact, Dodd-Frank, which Obama supports and Romney opposes, has bank bailouts built into the law. If Romney can, he will repeal Dodd-Frank, he won’t be interested in any more government takeovers of industry, and the Tea Partiers in his base would so adamantly oppose any more bailouts that going down that path would probably make him unelectable.
8) The housing market was terrible when Barack Obama came into office and not only has he done little to improve the situation for people who currently own homes, the root causes of the crash are still in place. The government is still demanding that loans be given to people who can’t afford them. Fannie and Freddie are still handling 90% of all new mortgages. Mitt Romney will make it easier for people with good credit to get homes, will stop applying pressure to give loans to poor risks, and will force Freddie and Fannie to slowly and responsibly reduce the number of home mortgages they’re covering so that if, God forbid, there’s another crash one day, taxpayers don’t get stuck with the bill.
9) If Barack Obama is reelected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014 and many companies will stop offering insurance, it will be harder to find a doctor, the quality of medical care will drop, costs will explode, and death panels, along with the IRS, will become permanently involved in your health care. If Mitt Romney is elected, this won’t happen. Romney would also try to push through a replacement plan for Obamacare, but chances are Democrats would block it.
10) At some point, you have to expect that the natural vitality of the economy will reassert itself no matter who’s in the White House. However, it is also entirely possible that the hostile, unpredictable business environment created by the Obama Administration could keep the economy just as stagnant for the next four years as it has been for the last four. Romney’s pro-business administration along with his attempts to cut taxes and regulations will encourage growth and put Americans back to work. What would we rather have? Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they’ll never be able to do their “fair share” in Barack Obama’s eyes or would we rather have a growing, thriving economy again?

http://clashdaily.com/2012/09/the-big-stonking-differences-between-the-mormon-and-the-marxist/


Jesus Turned Water Into Wine. The caliph خليفة Turned Voter’s Brains Into Mush



   
A buddy of mine in Texas sent a friend of his, an Obama backer, a devastating article written by David Limbaugh in which he spotlights the fact that Barack, in reality, is much different from the fabricated Jesus image the Dim-o-crats would have us worship.
Yes, in just a few keystrokes Limbaugh deftly dismembered the notion spun by the scribes of Obama that he is the fresh breeze blowing in our land and reveals, instead, that Barack is a typical uberliberal slim shady politician who simply blows.
The thing that floored my Lone Star friend was that his “pal” told him to eff off and ended his “friendship” with him. My buddy ain’t sweating it, though . . . he’s a Texan. We did, however, have a snicker (if the rabid gay crowd doesn’t mind me using the word snicker) over the amazing Bible-like allegiance the Obama groupies sport—which is ironic seeing that most liberals are atheists or agnostics who pride themselves on being skeptics.
Hey, Obama crowd, chill out with the lock step, okay? Really . . . What kind of adult gets this excited over another human being? Call me jaded, but I look at my own wizards of political Oz with a jaundiced eye. I believe you’re setting yourself and your darling, crappy candidate up—should he get re-elected—to thud on the ground like Geri Halliwell’s last CD did. For God’s sake, Obama-ites, God can barely live up to the hype you guys are giving Hussein. You’re tripping way too hard over the grossly inept President spawned from the scheming netherworld of Chicago based politics.
Barack doesn’t represent hope or change, unless of course you’re an American-based euro-socialist or . . . or . . . an unborn child who’s queued up for an abortion. To the unborn baby, or fetus, as the hopemeister would call you, you’re about to change—but it isn’t for the best. But that doesn’t matter because Obama’s Jesus is cool with your eradication, you little pest. Next!
Yep, far from his managed messianic image as an oracle, in the real world he’s more like a Machiavelli wrapped in an enigma and covered in secret sauce.
Unfortunately, rationality has zero appeal for Obama oglers. To his followers, he’s Jesus (pronounced “Hey-Soos,” as Barack would have us say). His crowd has morphed into Miley Cyrus fans who will damn you to hell, plug their ears and overtalk you if you bring up the reality of Barack’s vapid, checkered political history and seedy associations.
I will give Barack this, though: He has performed an amazing miracle. Just as Jesus turned water into wine, Obama, Axelrod and the rest of their disciples have turned thinking people’s brains to mush.

http://clashdaily.com/2012/09/jesus-turned-water-into-wine-obama-turned-voters-brains-into-mush/

The Case for the Real Jesus


David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
11 Sep 2012
Team Romney Must Sharpen Its Message
The November elections are a Republican landslide begging to materialize, but will the GOP make it happen? I … Read More.
7 Sep 2012
Twilight Zone Week
The Democratic National Convention is an elaborate effort to sanitize a failed record that cannot be rehabilitated,… Read More.
31 Aug 2012
The Ryan Vision: Let's Get This Done
The Democrats and their mainstream media cheering section can huff and puff at Paul Ryan's convention speech, …Read More.


  
 Comment
It's interesting that many who dismiss the Bible and certain essential Christian claims — saying they believe there is scant evidence to support them — are able to readily embrace rival belief systems and their texts, which are far less reliable.
Former atheist Lee Strobel has used his formidable journalistic and legal background as legal editor of the Chicago Tribune to research and write a number of bestselling books in defense of the Christian faith. His recently released "The Case for the Real Jesus" goes beyond the traditional apologetic to address some of the current attacks on the identity of Jesus Christ, typified by the heretical storyline in the popular The Da Vinci Code.
I strongly recommend this book this Christmas season because it compellingly debunks many of the most recent mythical challenges to Christianity. It is perfect for believers whose perceived spiritual security could be threatened by the crop of fantastic notions now circulating and for nonbelievers who are open to the evidence.
Strobel correctly observes that ideas have consequences and, particularly, what we believe about Jesus will have profound consequences for us individually. Since modern theories directly attack what Christians believe about the very identity of Jesus, Strobel wanted to examine their validity to determine whether the Christian idea of Christ could survive rigorous inquiry.
Having begun as a smug nonbeliever and converting only after subjecting Christianity's historical and doctrinal claims to scrupulous investigation, Strobel was unafraid to put his faith to the test once again. Are we, believers and nonbelievers alike, similarly unafraid?
Strobel asks, "Are you willing to set aside your preconceptions and let the evidence take you wherever it will? … I had to honestly ask myself that question when I was an atheist and decided to investigate the identity of Jesus. And more recently, this time as a Christian, I had to face that issue squarely once again when I was confronted by six potent challenges that could undermine everything I had come to believe about him."
Strobel points out that while the heretical ideas about Jesus achieved a new level of prominence in The Da Vinci Code, they have been around for years and have even been circulated widely in modern times preceding that story.
In the 1990s, Christian debunkers received a boost from a group of liberal Christian scholars known as the "Jesus Seminar." These professors examined the words and deeds of Jesus and, using colored beads to cast their votes, pronounced that fewer than 20 percent of the statements attributed to Jesus in the Bible were actually uttered by him.
What made the Jesus Seminar unique, says Strobel, was not its liberal "scholarship" purporting to discredit Biblical accounts of Jesus but that it bypassed the usual academic channels to enthusiastically make its findings public.
In case you haven't noticed, the recent "evangelistic" fervor against Christianity didn't begin with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. They have just built on what the Jesus Seminar proselytizing debunkers started.
Strobel says that six major challenges are leaving many Christians scratching their heads and confusing seekers looking for the truth about Christ. He began his research on these challenges conceding to himself that if any were true, they "could change everything" about his beliefs. But, "for the sake of my own intellectual integrity, I needed answers." He then proceeded to investigate, by studying the evidence and interviewing the premiere scholars on each of these issues:
1. Scholars are uncovering a radically different Jesus in ancient documents just as credible as the Four Gospels, 2. The Bible's portrait of Jesus can't be trusted because the Church tampered with the text, 3. New explanations have refuted Jesus' resurrection, 4. Christianity's beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions, 5. Jesus was an imposter who failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies, and 6. People should be free to pick and choose what to believe about Jesus.
I love Lee Strobel's ministry, maybe in large part because I began my spiritual journey as quite the skeptic as well, but also because I believe he has the unique skills, intellectual curiosity and personal integrity that position him to stand on the front lines defending Christ against today's puffed-up assailants.
Will you take Strobel's challenge and read the results of his study? As he says, "In the end, we'll discover together whether the Jesus of historic Christianity manages to emerge intact from the crucible of twenty-first-century skepticism."
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was just released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

SAFE AND LEGAL? ABORTION KILLS WOMAN


An autopsy report on a woman who died after an abortion at a Chicago-area Planned Parenthood business confirms that she was bleeding uncontrollably and never awoke from an emergency surgery to try to save her life.
Officials with the Thomas More Society and the Pro-Life Action League reported today they had obtained a copy of the autopsy report from Tonya Reaves.
The case generated horror when it happened, and pro-life organizations have been investigating the public records for a confirmation of early reports that Reaves went in for an abortion and bled to death.
The controversial manner of Reaves’ death on July 20 triggered a hailstorm of calls for abortion provider regulation in Illinois, which currently has almost no oversight of the abortion businesses.
According to a report today from the Pro-Life Action League, the second trimester abortion was done on Reaves about 11 a.m., even though the Planned Parenthood website for that particular Chicago area location said it provides only birth control, the morning after pill and chemical abortions.
The autopsy report reveals that Reaves had “an intrauterine pregnancy of 16 weeks estimated gestational age.”
The medical examiner’s report said Planned Parenthood performed an incomplete abortion and she complained of pain and was noticed to be swelling after the procedure.
Five and a half hours after the abortion, she was taken to a hospital, where a second abortion was performed because of remaining “conception products.” She continued to deteriorate and was taken into surgery for a hysterectomy.
An “uncontrollable bleed” was found and she died without waking up, some 12 hours after the initial abortion, the report said.
The Pro-Life Action League said the report “indicates that her left uterine artery-vein was possibly transected, which caused the uncontrollable bleeding.”
The report, which the Pro-Life Action League provided to WND, also noted that “discrete defects” in the tissue were “difficult to ascertain” because of the bleeding.
The league report said Freedom of Information Act requests after the death “did not reveal a call from Planned Parenthood to 911, although the medical examiner’s report states that Reaves was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital by Chicago Fire Department ambulance at 4:30 p.m.”
Officials previously had tried to prevent access to the document that in the state is a public record.
Allison K. Aranda, a senior staff counsel for the California-based Life Legal Defense Foundation, had reported that a formal public records request for Reaves’ autopsy report was made in writing July 23 by a staff member for Operation Rescue.
The attorney said a caller from the medical examiner’s office told Operation Rescue the request was being rejected because OR did not have family authorization or a subpoena.
However, according to Life Legal, “Illinois law specifically states that all records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying, and nowhere does the state exempt autopsy reports from compliance.”
The legal team confirmed that the Freedom of Information Act Guide for Law Enforcement published July 12, 2012, by the Illinois office of the attorney general “specifically states that autopsy reports are public records and should be released.”
Likewise, the legal team reported a 2010 Illinois Public Access Counselor review also stated clearly that autopsy reports in the files of the medical examiner are within the provenance of the FOIA and concluded that, “the reports are public records and should be released.”
WND also reported earlier that the Planned Parenthood abortion business had been told on a separate issue to call 911 for help in an emergency – the same day Reaves died.
Operation Rescue reported it got a copy of a telephone call placed at 12:43 p.m. on July 20 from the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood in Chicago regarding a fracas that developed with a mother and daughter who were at the abortion business.
That situation was unrelated to that of Reaves, who had her fatal abortion at about 11 a.m. at that location on that day, Operation Rescue said.
But the 911 dispatcher on the call is heard admonishing the Planned Parenthood worker for calling 311, a number used primarily to provide information regarding city events and programs, during an emergency.
The mother-and-daughter issue developed when a 16-year-old patient was “physically assaulted” by her mother, and Operation Rescue said the caller indicated abortion business staff members pulled the two apart after they saw the mother kick her daughter and pull her hair.
Part of the conversation, which can be heard at the Operation Rescue website, is as follows:
Dispatcher: OK, and once you called – you see, next time you need a police car to come out for any reason whatsoever, you need to call 911.
Caller: Right. OK. I just –
Dispatcher: That way you don’t waste time with 311.
Caller: I know, I know, I just (laugh) I just hate to use services to make, you know –
Dispatcher: I know. Well, they don’t dispatch police cars. All they do is transfer you to 911.
Caller: Gotcha.
Dispatcher: So you’re waiting in that queue and then they flip you over to our office.
Caller: Right.
Dispatcher: Now I don’t have any of your information. So, what is your telephone number?
OR reported the dispatcher “is heard admonishing the Planned Parenthood worker for calling 311, which caused a delay in dispatching aid to the scene.” That means the facility “ignored instructions from an emergency dispatcher to directly call 911 in the event of an emergency in order to prevent wasting precious time,” OR said.
WND also reported earlier when pro-life leader Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics called on state attorney Anita Alvarez of Cook County, Ill., for an immediate investigation of Planned Parenthood for what he alleged was the murder of Reaves.
Crutcher cited the Illinois “depraved indifference murder” statute as being more than enough to warrant a thorough inspection of the death of the African-American woman – to determine if criminal charges can be pressed against Planned Parenthood.
“If it can be shown that this young woman might have survived if emergency treatment had not been withheld from her for more than five hours, then this was not an accident and it was not medical malpractice,” Crutcher contends. “It was a homicide, and those responsible should be on the evening news wearing handcuffs and leg irons.”
The National Black Pro-life Coalition also is seeking to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for Reave’s death.
“At a minimum, Planned Parenthood was criminally negligent when they left Tonya bleeding in their facility for more than five hours,” said Walter B. Hoye, who serves as president and founder of the Issues4Life Foundation. ” Planned Parenthood’s lack of action demonstrates a depraved indifference for the life of this young woman. Planned Parenthood must be held accountable for the death of Tonya Reaves.”
King for America founder Alveda King said, “We demand the unjust targeting of the black community by abortionists be investigated and immediately ended.”