Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1201  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:21 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Barack Obama's Always 'Helpful' Never 'Hurtful' Lies

Barack Obama's Always 'Helpful' Never 'Hurtful' Lies
For those Americans who were still unsure whether Barack Obama really does lack authenticity, the President has finally come clean and confirmed that he does indeed have a tendency to lie.
By Jeannie DeAngelis




For those Americans who were still unsure whether Barack Obama really does lack authenticity, the President has finally come clean and confirmed that he does indeed have a tendency to lie.

Prior to Christmas, courtesy of Barbara Walters and the ABC News program 20/20, President Obama presented the nation with an important pre-2012 election gift. Answering questions from the probing "Proust Questionnaire," the President admitted that in addition to how he views the rest of America, he too is "a little bit lazy," and on occasion exhibits a predisposition to fudge the truth.

Hearkening back to the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Senator John McCain that first made an insightful statement about presidential hopeful Barack Obama. At the time, the GOP candidate addressed Obama's accusation that McCain had opposed regulation to avert the housing bubble crisis by pointing out: "I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed."

Obviously, McCain's warning about Obama's dishonesty did not deter the American public from putting the less-than-truthful Illinois senator in the White House. John McCain lost the election, but before he did he asked a question that every American should still be asking: "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

Since then, the number of voices agreeing with John McCain's original contention that his Democrat opponent suffered from an acute case of mythomania has grown. Over the past three years, the short list of those who have concurred with Senator McCain include: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito; Joe Wilson (R-SC) of "You lie" fame; and Texas Democrat Congressman and Obama supporter Martin Frost, who accurately pointed out that in an effort to push a green agenda, Obama "at times...is not telling the truth."

Even billionaire casino tycoon Steve Wynn joined the 'Barack lies' chorus and pointed out to Neil Cavuto of Fox News that "You guys on television use the term 'disingenuous' when the president ... says something that isn't true. That's a fancy word for lying."

Finally, confirming the suspicions of many and coming across during a 20/20 interviewas the epitome of candor, at long last Barack 'fessed up to Barbara Walters, saying that "Usually, the only time I lie is [in] very personal interactions with family members, who you say, 'you look great,' and they don't. 'Wonderful dress...' Uh, not so much." The operative word here being "usually."

After the President's admission, even the first lady chimed in and confessed that she too lies, but only when "truth [is] not helpful." Clearly, in the Obama household, as well as on the campaign trail, during fiery speeches, and in policy decisions, 'hurtful' and 'helpful' are key indicators as to whether what's being said at any given moment is actually the truth.

Therefore, after also admitting that he's really a "softie" and doing so on primetime television, it stands to reason that President Obama's ongoing propensity to lie could just be a considerate attempt on his part to be helpful and not hurtful by extending "You look great" sentiments about an America he really perceives to be an "Uh, not so much" nation: lazy, lacking imagination and ambition and, much like him, "a little soft."

Moreover, Obama family logic also indicates that the goal of the President's admitted deceitfulness may be simply to avoid wounding Americans with hurtful truths and to assist the nation with helpful lies. Either that, or Barack Obama's lying is an unconscious attempt to project his own character weaknesses onto honest, hardworking Americans in order to justify policies he knows we would patently reject.

With that in mind, it certainly wouldn't hurt and might actually be helpful to know if Obama thinks it is 'hurtful' or 'helpful' to continue encouraging national division by falsely insisting that the rich don't contribute their fair share.

How about the helpfulness/hurtfulness of swearing the health care reform bill wouldn't raise the deficit? And let's not forget just how helpful it was for the President to promise the American public that the stimulus bill would prevent the unemployment rate from rising above a hurtful 8.5%.
Despite knowing how the public views being lied to by a president, it's apparent Obama wants Americans to believe he seriously took into consideration how 'hurtful' or 'helpful' that $787 billion job stimulus package would be for our economic future.

Maybe he lied because the always helpful and never hurtful Barack Obama wanted the nation to accept as true that, thanks to that stimulus bill, there were jobs just ready and waiting to be handed out to hundreds of thousands of people in need of work, when in fact an economic grave was being readied, dug with the blade of shovel-ready false promises.
Whatever the reason, thanks to Barack's honesty with Barbara Walters, Americans now know that every time the President speaks there's a pretty good chance he's lying. Yet, it is comforting to also know he means well and that before he does prevaricate, he first weighs how 'hurtful' or 'helpful' it would be if he were to divulge his true agenda.
In the end, Obama's 20/20 Christmas confession that he really is a lazy liar either validates people like Joe Wilson, who knew it all along, or is a devious attempt to appear candid and self-deprecating. Of all people, the President should know that lying to avoid being hurtful in a hollow attempt to be helpful accomplishes nothing. Nevertheless, just in time for the next election cycle the President's dishonesty again brings to mind John McCain's original still-unanswered question: "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 12-29-2011, 03:37 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama: Entangled by Islam (Washington Times)

Obama: Entangled by Islam(Washington Times)
If the last Administration wore a cowboy hat, this one wears a hijab.




Is liberalism or Muslim outreach more important to the president?

It’s no longer news that President Obama’s vaunted outreach to Islam has been a bust. Numerous polls over the past three years have shown that after a brief flurry of enthusiasm, regard for the United States among the world’s Muslims has declined precipitously. In some key countries, dislike for America is even lower than it was at the end of the administration of George W. Bush, whom liberal critics deemed culturally illiterate.

The State Department recently illustrated why reaching out has been such a failure. In mid-December, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton participated in a three-day international conference called the Istanbul Process regarding the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 16/18, adopted in March. The resolution ostensibly seeks to combat religious intolerance and was a U.S.-sponsored alternative to language pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that would have imposed global blasphemy laws against critics of Islam. Resolution 16/18 calls on states to “foster religious freedom and pluralism” and - in typical Obama administration apologetic style - stop religious profiling, which purportedly is a widespread American vice.

In her keynote speech at the conference, Mrs. Clinton noted a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that found “70 percent of the world’s population lives in countries with a high number of restrictions on religious freedom.” What she left out was that the 2009 Pew report “Global Restrictions on Religion” found that most states that had “high” or “very high” religious restrictions were countries with Muslim majorities. The research also revealed, “On average, restrictions are highest in the Middle East-North Africa, where the median score for the 20 countries (4.9) is considerably higher than for the 35 countries in the Americas (1.0), the region with the lowest median score.” In other words, whatever problems of religious intolerance UNHRC Resolution 16/18 seeks to address, they are endemic among Muslims, not in the pluralistic West.

Mrs. Clinton also bemoaned the prevalence of religious- and culturally based discrimination against women, which is characteristic of many Muslim countries. Likewise, homosexual conduct is a capital offense in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Afghanistan and is subject to harsh punishment in most of the Middle East, which runs counter to Mr. Obama’s Dec. 6 order for the U.S. government to fight for homosexual “rights” abroad.

Despite all this, White House pandering to Islam is nonstop. Last week, the Defense Department approved a policy allowing those in JROTC to wear Islamic headscarves (hijabs) during training and formations. This policy is harmful for unit cohesion because introducing special privileges disrupts the spirit of shared sacrifice and responsibility that should be inculcated in cadets. It also raises important First Amendment establishment clause issues because government is acting to benefit a single group solely on the basis of religion. It’s not clear which will budge when Mr. Obama’s commitments to liberalism and groveling to Islam are at odds.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gled-by-islam/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 12-29-2011, 04:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Report: US Pushing Israel to Free Barghouti

Report: US Pushing Israel to Free Barghouti
The Obama administration wants Israel to release arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti so he can run for election.

By Gavriel Queenann
12/29/2011
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151218


The Obama administration is trying to convince Israel to release arch-terrorist and mass-murderer Marwan Barghouti.

According to the Hamas-aligned Al Quds daily, Washington views Barghouti as its preferred candidate for Fatah to field against Hamas in Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in May 2012.

"A high-profile US delegation has regularly discussed with officials in Tel Aviv the option to free Al Barghouti to lead Fatah against Hamas in the next elections," the sources that the daily did not identify, said.

The Al-Quds report comes as Arab capitals are abuzz with the news that PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas will not seek re-election, leaving Washington concerned Fatah has no one to field against Hamas.

However, the release of Barghouti, who was sentenced to five life sentences for as many terror related murders in Israel, and who security services say is responsible for at least 21 other murders, is widely opposed in Israel.

Indeed, even the suggestion that Barghouti might be released as a part of a deal to free 1,027 terrorists in exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit created a firestorm of outrage in the Jewish state.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has reportedly refused to Washington's request he release the 52-year old Barghouti, who is called the "Prince of Resistance" in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria due to his pivotal role in both Intifadas.

"Netanyahu believes that Barghouti is an extension of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and that the pair had been involved in the death of dozens of Israelis during the second intifada (uprising)," the sources said.

According to security sources, several Israeli officials, including Binyamin Ben Eliezer, former defense minister Amir Peretz, and top leaders from the security agencies do not object to releasing Barghouti, saying he is "committed to peace."

But observers note that Washington's push to crown Barghouti king in Ramallah in the belief that secular Fatah is a "moderate" party willing to make peace is out of touch with the hard intransigent shift in the PLO ranks.

In recent weeks the PLO has openly proclaimed a strategy based on "continuous efforts along with the international community to secure full recognition and full United Nations membership, pursuing internal reconciliation, and keeping up the popular resistance."

It has also moved to induct Hamas and its Gaza terror confederates into its ranks as they surge in the polls leading to a prediction that, even with Barghouti in the race, Hamas will win a sweeping victory in may.

Nor are the ideologies of Fatah and Hamas divergent. The PLO charter continues to state 'armed resistance' is the only path to an 'indivisible Palestinine' – which leaves no room for the Jewish state.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151218
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 12-30-2011, 04:03 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Women’s Rights and Double Standards

Women’s Rights and Double Standards
The Obama administration sets out to stand up for women in the Middle East -- and singles out Israel for condemnation
by Steven Plaut






Well, it seems the Obama team lately was running short of things over which to bash Israel and so it decided that the treatment of women in Israel is something that needs condemnation. Led by Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration thinks that Israel does not treat its women nicely or respectfully enough. This is the same Hillary Clinton​ who never had much to say about the treatment of women in the Clinton White House. Other administration bashers of Israel joined the feeding frenzy.

This is the same Obama team that rarely has had anything to say about the treatment of women in the Muslim world, without a doubt the very worst such treatment that can be found on the planet. Hillary insisted that Israel’s treatment of women is as bad as that in Iran, although Obama people do not exactly speak out against the treatment of women in Iran before breakfast each day. Hillary also used the same opportunity to condemn Israel for considering the adoption of transparency laws that would require disclosure of foreign funding to political NGOs operating inside Israel, laws that are similar to what the United States and many other democratic countries already have. After all, how will those who desire Israel’s annihilation be able to finance picayune treasonous radical anti-Israel propaganda NGOs inside Israel if such transparency ever takes effect?

So when Hillary Clinton recently decided to speak out against the mistreatment of Middle Eastern women, she singled out Israel for condemnation, and then turned around to welcome a delegation of Saudi feudalists with cordiality. If Hillary considers Israel a force of anti-feminine darkness and repression, just imagine how awful she must regard Scandinavia. She compared Israel’s treatment of women with the racial segregation that once was so common in the American South. Israeli public figures, led by the secularist non-Orthodox Minister of Finance Yuval Steinitz, denounced Hillary’s comments as absurd and incorrect. He was joined by numerous other secularist Israelis.The Obama administration is largely silent when it comes to the plight of women in the Muslim world, but keeps condemning the only country in the Middle East that has a woman chief justice, plenty of women in its parliament, more women MDs and than men, countless women army officers and court judges, and which has had a woman as head of state, something the US has never had. Israel is also the only country in the world where a panel of judges, two of them women, put a former president in prison for alleged rape and sexual abuse of women. But perhaps that is what really has Bill Clinton’s wife so hostile to and suspicious of Israel.

Women university students in Israel have been the majority out of all undergraduate Israeli students since 1980, reaching 58% of students in 1999. That is without including teachers colleges in the computation, where women are a far larger share. Women students are the majority of students, not just in the fields of education and humanities, but also in such “non-traditional” fields for women as biological sciences and agriculture. Women are a majority of medical students, 48.3% of law students, and 39% of physics students, according to the latest survey. There are also oodles of women students in math, engineering, and computer sciences. Women students are also a small majority of those pursuing MA and PhD studies.

So just what got Hillary and the Obama team so upset? Well, it seems that Israel has been debating the behavior of some small ultra-religious Jewish sects, groups that believe in strict gender separation, especially in public spaces. Known as the chareidim, these are religious radicals, best known for their black clothing, long sidecurls, anti-modern life styles, and especially for their ideas about “modesty” for women. No Jew anywhere has to belong to such communities and women in those communities unhappy with the life style may leave at any time.

In some communities of these chareidim, there have been initiatives to introduce a small number of special bus lines in which women and men do not sit together. When a secularist Israeli woman rider challenged the initiative and sat in the “men’s section” of one such bus Israel’s ultra-secularist leftist media proclaimed her the Israeli Rosa Parks, and Hillary picked up the cue. In another incident, some religious soldiers requested not to be required to attend a concert in which women were singing, on grounds that according to their religious outlook such singing is erotic and immodest. And in yet other incidents, some signs were put up in the neighborhoods of chareidim asking women not to congregate on a street next to a synagogue, or calling on men and women in the name of modesty to walk on opposing sides of some streets in those neighborhoods.

Of course Hillary and the secularist media never object to signs in mosques and churches in Israel and elsewhere that ask people not to enter in immodest dress. Hillary and her Obama colleagues have never condemned the Amish for their own pre-modern life styles and opinions and gender roles. The enlightened media regard the Amish as downright endearing, a charming tourist attraction. And you would never know it from reading Hillary’s statements, but one can find some neighborhoods and communities of chareidim inside the United States, mainly in Brooklyn and upstate New York, in which similar forms of gender separation in the name of “modesty” are practiced. No one seems to think this is grounds for a public outcry by politicians.

The enormous majority of Israelis reject the life style and opinions of the chareidim, much as the bulk of Americans have no interest in living the Amish life style. But the Amish generally are beneficiaries of a “live and let live” attitude on the part of the bulk of Americans. Most of the “conflicts” in Israel regarding the “gender separation” sought by the chareidim would go away with similar tolerance. The religious soldiers who asked to be excused from listening to women singing did not demand that the singing event be cancelled, and they were happy to do kitchen duty or guard duty instead of attending. But their officers and secularist politicians attempted to coerce them into attending to make a political point. The chareidim who were denounced for requesting bus lines with separate seating have now decided to finance their own independent small bus company without public funding, in whose busses they can sit in the manner they please. No one disturbed by those seating arrangements need use those private bus lines or minibuses.

And no one really needs to heed any of those signs on those few Israeli streets in chareidi neighborhoods that call upon people to behave in manners the chareidim consider “modest.” I have walked through such neighborhoods with my wife dressed in pants and otherwise “immodest” secularist dress and with my daughter wearing her army uniform, and not a single resident said a single word to us about it. Even when my daughter was not carrying her gun.

The Israeli media managed to uncover a tiny handful of cases in which local chareidi residents spoke disrespectfully to some women or girls. Well, I am a native Pennsylvanian and I have to tell you that I have seen a few Pennsylvania Dutch hotheads speak disrespectfully to other people. So what? Why is this news? The media rarely report cursing or disrespectful speech by radical secularists.The Israeli chareidi attitudes towards women and gender separation are actually not any more “pre-modern” or feminist-challenged than are those among Israeli Moslems, Druse, and some other non-Jewish minority populations. It was rather curious that Hillary and the rest of the Obama team did not denounce Israeli Moslems and Druse for also practicing gender separation in public spaces in the name of “modesty.” Condemning non-Jews for gender segregation is just not politically correct.

In a sense, Hillary was just following the lead of numerous Bash-Israel leftist feminist organizations. Radical feminists and their organizations have never been able to identify any mistreatment of women in Arab countries beyond the supposed “suffering” of those women due to Israeli “occupation.” The feminists cannot conceive of a better way to promote the interests of Moslem women than annihilation of Israel and the accompanying genocide of Israel’s Jewish population. Feminist groups have rarely spoken out against Arab anti-Israel terrorism, even though many of the victims of that terrorism are themselves women. Even most of the feminist groups operating inside Israel are radically pro-“Palestinian,” pro-terror, anti-Israel, and some are fronts for the Israeli communist party. They do not seem to feel uncomfortable in the role of streetwalkers on behalf of Islamofascism.

The treatment of women in Arab and Moslem countries is so atrocious that space here would not allow for even a superficial survey. In the very same week that Iran announced that a woman convicted of adultery would be mercifully hanged to death instead of stoned to death, the Obama team could find nothing more deserving of condemnation than the treatment of women in the only country in the Middle East in which women are treated as humans deserving of equal rights.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 12-30-2011, 04:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Obama’s Loyal Allies

Obama’s Loyal Allies
The news media is gearing up for battle in 2012
by Tait Trussell


http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/30/o...-loyal-allies/



If Barack Obama​ wins in 2012, he can bestow his gratitude largely on his news media worshipers.

Appearing on Dec. 25 Meet the Press, New York Times​ columnist Thomas Friedman, full of his usual arrogance and ferver, said he was deeply worried about Obama’s prospects for re-election: “I really, really worry about him. Republicans are starved for a candidate … they think is as smart and mellifluous as the president.”

During the 2008 campaign, the network morning shows were cheerleaders for the Democratic field. In 2012, they are sure to be providing far more hostile coverage of various Republicans who are running, while treating Obama’s re-election campaign to the same personality-driven coverage that was so helpful to the then-Illinois Senator four years ago.

For instance, NBC News​, Dec. 28 hyped Gallop Poll​ numbers indicating a slim improvement in Obama’s approval/disapproval numbers after House Republicans agreed to the payroll tax cut extension compromise, although recently following numbers indicated his approval was sliding backward.

On NBC Nightly News​, reporter Kristen Welker first enthusiastically touted the out-dated and more positive number. She failed to inform viewers that Obama’s disapproval rating had increased more than the approval rating had fallen.

Excerpts from Barbara Walters’ ABC interview with Barack and Michele Obama in the White House, released Dec. 23, was defended by left-wing Media Matters publication as a conservative attack by such publications as the National Journal and the Daily Caller. Why? Because they reported the President had said:

“[D]eep, underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me.”

The portion of the interview released by ABC news did not include the part in which Obama also says, “I’m saying to myself. You know what, you could be doing better, push harder…”Politico’s correspondent Ben Smith fearfully is called this the “next anti-Obama talking point” for Republicans.

The Hill newspaper recently held a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research about media bias. The results indicated 46 percent of likely voters felt that the news media favored Democrats. “This figure outstripped by more than two to one the share of the electorate (22 percent) that believed Republicans” were beneficiaries of media bias.

As Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, told The Hill: “You never lost a vote in a Republican primary by attacking the media” Lichter has studied media bias for a generation.

Over on ABC, World News correspondent Jim Avila​ spun the fight as one between unpopular Republicans and a resurgent Barack Obama.

According to Avila, the country’s anger is “reflected in today’s ABC News​/Washington Post​ poll, showing a job approval rating of just 20 percent for Republicans in Congress who have blocked the payroll tax cut while President Obama’s approval rating jumped to 49 percent.”

NBC and ABC on following days knocked House Republicans for potentially “messing up” an extension of the payroll tax cut. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell derided this as “holiday cheer gone sour.”

The previous night, O’Donnell portrayed Boehner as “feeling the heat” and unable to control his own members. She gossiped, “And there is political fallout too, there are some questions about Speaker Boehner​’s leadership, his ability to deliver votes…”

Officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc. (NPRC) have expressed concern to members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be implemented properly.

ABC’s Good Morning America​ mostly ignored the subject, providing only two news briefs on the payroll extension. CBS’s Early Show​ (as well as the network’s Evening News from Monday) provided more restrained coverage.

On The Early Show​, Nancy Cordes explained, “House Republicans say that just creates too much uncertainty for the taxpayer, not knowing whether this payroll tax cut is going to expire after two months or not. And so, they want a one-year deal.”

Pete Isberg, president of the NPRC wrote to the key leaders of the relevant committees of the House and Senate, telling them that “insufficient lead time” to implement the complicated change mandated by the legislation means the two-month payroll tax holiday “could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.” But among Democrats, who cares?

The best (or worst) “notable quotables” for 2011 as listed by the Media Research Center were topped by New York Times​ columnist Paul Krugman in a Jan. 8 blog hours after the shooting of Democrat Gabielle Grifford, indicating a supposedly danger-filled national anti-Obama environment.

“We don’t have proof yet that this was political, Klugman wrote; but the odds are that it was…..Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.”

Even liberal-tilted “Fact checkers” can’t be trusted the Weekly Standard Dec. 19 issue indicated. They “come with a veneer of objectivity doubling as a license to go after any remark…they find disagreeable—particularly if it’s anti-Obama. The venerable wire serve, Associated Press​ “fact check” scheme can’t be trusted.But of the most untrustworthy is The St. Petersburg Times’ “Polifact,” which purports to decide what is fact and what is not.

The Media Research Center’s (MRC) mission is to “prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values” and to “neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene.”

During the 2008 campaign, the network morning shows acted as cheerleaders for the Democratic field. This time around, they are providing far more hostile coverage of the various Republicans who are running, while treating Obama’s re-election campaign to the same personality-driven coverage that was so helpful to the then-Illinois Senator four years ago.

If the real decisions in our democracy are to be kept the hands of voters, then the news media owe viewers a fair and unbiased look at the candidates in both parties. That means asking the candidates questions that reflect the concerns of both sides — liberals and conservatives alike. And the syrupy coverage awarded year after year to the Democrats’ celebrity candidates in no way matches the pretense of journalists holding both sides equally accountable.

And the drumbeat goes on.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/30/o...-loyal-allies/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-30-2011 at 04:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 01-03-2012, 05:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The Year We Lost Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and Most of the Middle Eas

The Year We Lost Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and Most of the Middle East
The ugly story of how Obama helped topple regimes that served as the obstacles to Islamist takeovers
by Daniel Greenfield






About the only people having a Happy New Year in the Muslim world aren’t the Christians who are huddling and waiting out the storm, but the Islamists who use a different calendar, but are having the best time of their lives since the last Caliphate.

The news that the Obama Administration has brought in genocidal Muslim Brotherhood​ honcho Yusuf Al-Qaradawi​ to discuss terms of surrender for the transfer of Afghanistan to the Taliban caps a year in which the Brotherhood and the Salafists are looking to carve up Egypt, the Islamists won Tunisia’s elections, Turkey’s Islamist AKP Party purged the last bastions of the secular opposition and Libya’s future as an Islamist state was secured by American, British and French jets and special forces.

Time Magazine declared that 2011 was the Year of the Protester, they might have more honestly called it the Year of the Islamist. In 2010 the Taliban were still hiding in caves. In 2012 they are set to be in power from Tunisia to Afghanistan and from Egypt to Yemen. They won’t go by that name of course. Most of them will have elaborate names with the words “Justice” or “Community” in them, but they will for the most part be minor variations on the Muslim Brotherhood theme.

2011 will indeed be remembered, but not because of any Arab Spring or OWS nonsense. It will be a pivotal year in the rise of the next Caliphate. A rise disguised by angry protesters waving cell phones and flags. And clueless media coverage that treated Tahrir Square as the new fall of the Berlin Wall.This was the year that Obama helped topple several regimes that served as the obstacles to Islamist takeovers. The biggest fish that Ibn Hussein speared out of the sea for Al-Qaradawi was Egypt, a prize that the Islamists had wanted for the longest time, but had never managed to catch. That is until the Caliph-in-Chief got it for them. Egyptian Democracy splits the take between the Brotherhood and the Salafists, whom the media is already quick to describe as moderates. First up against the wall are the Christians. Second up against the wall are the Jews. Third up is all that military equipment we provided to the Egyptian military which will shortly be finding its way to various “moderate militants” who want to discuss our foreign policy with us.

But there’s no reason to sell the fall of Tunisia short or the transition in Yemen. And when mob protests didn’t work, NATO sent in the jets to pound Libya until Al-Qaeda got its way there. Turkey’s fate had been written some time ago, but 2011 was the year that the AKP completed its death grip on the country with a final crackdown on the military, which has now ceased to be a force for stability.

Left out of the picture is Somalia. Liberals fulminated when Bush helped drive out Al-Shaab and its jolly Muslim lads with a habit of beheading people who didn’t grow beards or watched too much soccer. Any number of editorials complained that we had destabilized the country and that the Islamic Courts Union were really a bunch of moderates in disguise.

Sadly Obama has not been able to salvage the position of Al-Shabab which is low on money and has turned to forcing 12 year old girls into prostitution and torturing and murdering those who refuse. They’re also forcing the elderly to join its militias. But there is good news. Like every terrorist group, Al-Shabab has gotten itself a Twitter account and when O finds 5 minutes in between vacations and golf tournaments, the White House will order neighboring African countries to withdraw their armies and send in Al-Qaradawi to negotiate.

But even if the Islamists don’t get Somalia, they’ve got a nice chunk of North Africa to chew over, not to mention a few more slices of the Middle-Eastern pie, and Afghanistan will be back in their hands as soon as they manage to outmaneuver Karzai, which given his paranoia and cunning may admittedly take a while. But the Taliban are not big on maneuvers, they have the manpower, which means it’s only a matter of time until they do what the Mujaheddin did to the puppet Soviet regime. A history that everyone in the region is quite familiar with.

The ugliest part of this story isn’t what Obama did. It’s when he did it. If he really had no interest in winning Afghanistan, and if as he had said, the Taliban are not our enemy, then why did we stay for so long and lose so many lives fighting a war that the White House had no intention of winning? The ugly conclusion that must be drawn from the timing of the Iraq and Afghanistan withdrawals is that the wars were being played out to draw down around the time of the next election.

What that means is Obama sacrificed the thousands of Americans killed and wounded in the conflict as an election strategy. The idea that American soldiers were fighting and dying for no reason until the time when maximum political advantage could be gained from pulling them out is horrifying, it’s a crime beyond redemption, an act worse than treason– and yet there is no other rational conclusion to be drawn from the timetable.

If the Taliban were not our enemy, then the war should have ended shortly after the election. Instead Obama threw more soldiers into the mix while tying their hands with Rules of Engagement that prevented them from defending themselves or aggressively going after the Taliban.

Casualties among US soldiers and Afghan civilians increased. Now the Taliban are no longer our enemy and we are negotiating a withdrawal.

There are only two possible explanations. Either we lost the war or Obama never intended to win it and was allowing the Taliban to murder American soldiers until the next election. If so we’re not just looking at a bad man at the teleprompter, we are looking into the face of an evil so amoral that it defies description.

But whatever motives we may attribute to the Obama Administration the outcome of its policies in backing the Arab Spring with influence, training and even weapons is indisputable. What Carter did to Persia, Obama has done to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan and that’s not the whole of the list.

Iraq will likely fall to Iran in a bloody civil war, whether it will be parts of the country or the whole country depend on how much support we provide to the Kurds. Under the Obama Administration the level of support is likely to be none.

Once the Islamists firmly take power across North Africa they will begin squeezing the last states that have still not fallen. Last month the leader of the murderous Enhada Islamists who have taken power in Tunisia stopped by Algeria. Morocco has not yet come down, but at this rate it’s only a matter of time.

Syria remains an open question. The Muslim Brotherhood​ is in a successor position there and would welcome our intervention against the Assad regime. The Assads are no prize and they’re Iranian puppets, but shoving them out would give the Brotherhood yet another country and its sizable collection of weaponry.

All that is bound to make 2012 an ugly year in its own right, especially if the Obama Administration continues allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to control its foreign policy. For all that Time and other mainstream media outlets continue splashing the same protest pornography photos on every page, the region has become an indisputably worse place this year with the majority of moderate governments overthrown and replaced, or in the process of being replaced by Islamist thugs.

Carter can breathe a sigh of relief. In one year the Obama Administration has done far more damage than the bucktoothed buffoon did in his entire term. After 2011 we can look back with nostalgia on the days when all that an incompetent leftist in the White House did was lose one country, one canal and a bunch of hostages. Things have gotten so bad that we can safely say that Obama on a good day is worse than Jimmy Carter​ on a bad day.Forget the usual end of the year roundups which focus on pop stars, dead celebrities and who wore what and when. None of that really matters. It didn’t matter four years ago. It certainly doesn’t matter now.

2011 was not the year that Steve Jobs died, it was the year that any hope that we were not headed for a violent collision of civilizations died as Western governments helped topple the few moderates and let the worst have their harvest of power.

Will that be considered a bad thing in the long run? It’s hard to say. What Obama did was speed up the date of an inescapable conflict. A day when it will no longer be state-supported terrorists setting off bombs, but when much of the Muslim world will look like Iran and will openly declare that they are at war with us. That was almost certainly bound to happen anyway, but bringing the day forward by ten or twenty years means that we will be weaker than we might have been when it happens.

Evil has a way of destroying itself, and in his own backward way, Barry Hussein may have helped save civilization. It will be a long time before we know for sure, but giving the Brotherhood what it wanted before they were ready for it, and before we are so completely crippled by the left’s political correctness that we are left helpless, may be our best hope.

2011 was the year we lost Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and many others, but it should not be the year that we lose hope. For all that the bad guys have been gaining and domestic prospects don’t look good, the bad guys have a way of destroying themselves. Give evil its head and it will kill millions, but it will also self-destruct in a spectacular way. Even when it seems as if we have run out of productive things to do, it is instructive to remember that there is a Higher Power in the destinies of men and that the aspirations of evil men to play at being gods eventually leads them to complete and utter ruin through their own arrogance.

But 2011 is also a reminder that the world cannot afford another year of Obama. That it cannot afford the appeasement, the destructive policies or the post-American politics that have made his regime the worst administration in this country’s history. 2011 may be the year that we lost the Middle East, but let’s work to make 2012 the year that this country loses one Barack Hussein Obama.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 01-03-2012 at 05:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 01-03-2012, 05:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s Genocidal Mediator

Obama’s Genocidal Mediator
The administration appoints Islamist Nazi Yusuf al-Qaradawi to negotiate with the Taliban
by Arnold Ahlert

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/03/a...lf-of-america/




The Obama administration, fresh from abandoning Iraq at a critical time in its post-war development, is apparently preparing to do the same thing in Afghanistan. According to a report published late last month in The Hindu, radical Islamist cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is serving as a “key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban.” Unnamed government sources assert that Qaradawi helped in putting together a “road map” whose purpose is to provide America a “face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan which is due to begin in 2014.” Once again, for an Obama administration concerned with the 2012 election, a “political settlement” becomes a viable substitute for victory.

How viable? Viable enough to pretend that a rabid anti-Semite such as Qaradawi is a “moderate” Islamic cleric. Here is part of a speech he made in Tahrir Square in Cairo before a huge crowd on February 18, 2011, after returning to Egypt from 30 years of forced exile:
A message to our brothers in Palestine: I have hope that Almighty Allah, as I have been pleased with the victory in Egypt, that He will also please me with the conquest of the al-Aqsa Mosque to prepare the way for me to preach in the al-Aqsa Mosque. May Allah prepare the way for us to [preach] in the al-Aqsa Mosque in safety–not in fear, not in haste. May Allah achieve this clear conquest for us. O sons of Palestine, I am confident that you will be victorious.
The speech was hardly unique. Mr. Qaradawi has a track record of anti-Semitic, genocidal statements. In 1995, at a conference held by the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA) in Toledo, Ohio, he told his audience that “the balance of power will change, and this is what is told in the Hadith of Ibn-Omar and the Hadith of Abu-Hurairah: You shall continue to fight the Jews and they will fight you, until the Muslims will kill them. And the Jew will hide behind the stone and the tree, and the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh servant of Allah, Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!’ The resurrection will not come before this happens.” In 1998, the Associated Press quoted his writing: “There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords.” In April 2001, he characterized suicide bombings as “heroic martyrdom operations.”In 2009, he had this to say during two TV broadcasts on al-Jazeera: “I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Allah’s mercy and blessings upon you.” Two nights later it was this: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them–even though they exaggerated this issue–he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”

One would be inclined to think that a “key mediator” advocating for the destruction of America’s foremost ally in the Middle East might be inclined to provoke second thoughts about his “moderateness” among officials in the Obama administration. Yet as this administration has more than amply demonstrated, its relationship with Israel might be most charitably described as tenuous. Thus, Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s anti-Semitic rants didn’t disqualify him from representing American interests at the bargaining table with the Taliban.

Nor apparently did his anti-American interests. In 2003, Qaradawi issued a fatwa for the killing ofAmerican troops:
Those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs given their good intentions since they consider these invading troops an enemy within their territories but without their will…Although they are seen by some as being wrong, those defending against attempts to control Islamic countries have the intention of jihad and bear a spirit of the defense of their homeland.
Perhaps those “good intentions” of “martyrs” bearing a “spirit in defense of their homeland” is what prompted Vice President Joe Biden​ to declare that the Taliban isn’t an enemy of the United States. “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical,” he told Newsweek. ”There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests.” The Foundry blog at the Heritage Foundation puts the lie to rest, reminding us of the most recent Taliban attacks against Americans, including the Chinook helicopter shot down in August, killing 30, and the ramming of a military bus by a Taliban car bomber in October, killing 18.

Yet once Biden established the administration’s rationale in public, what followed was unsurprising. Reuters reported that, in addition to having Qaradawi act as a moderator, the administration is considering transferring to Afghan custody five terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, including Mohammed Fazl, a senior commander of the Taliban army. Administration officials claimed the men would not be set free, but remain in “some sort of further custody.” Reuters also reported that another part of the deal included allowing the Taliban to establish an “office” somewhere outside of Afghanistan.

How far afield have we traveled? “On my order, U.S. forces have begun strikes on terrorist camps of al Qaeda, and the military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” said president George W. Bush on October 7, 2001. Later in the same speech he added, “Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.”

Apparently, “neutrality” is a far more flexible concept for the Obama administration. Thus, a certified anti-Semite who advocates the destruction of Israel and the killing of American troops becomes a “key mediator” between America and our country’s newest “non-enemy,” the Taliban. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy puts such grotesqueness in perspective:
After thousands of young Americans have laid down their lives to protect the United States from jihadist terror, President Obama apparently seeks to end the war by asking Qaradawi, a jihad-stoking enemy of the United States, to help him strike a deal that will install our Taliban enemies as part of the sharia state we have been building in Afghanistan…The administration will also agree to the lifting of U.N. sanctions against the Taliban, and recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political party (yes, just like the Muslim Brotherhood​!). In return, the Taliban will pretend to forswear violence, to sever ties with al-Qaeda, and to cooperate with the rival Karzai regime…It would mark one of the most shameful chapters in American history.
Only if shame still has meaning. For an administration mired in the morally relative swamp of progressivism, headed by a president willing to do virtually anything to reassure his re-election, sacrificing America’s strategic interests in the Middle East is becoming something akin to Mr. Obama’s favorite pastime: par for the course.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/03/a...lf-of-america/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 01-03-2012, 09:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Israel Security Council: Obama Naive on Muslim Brotherhood

Israel Security Council:
Obama Naive on Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood plans to cut off Israel, The Hindu says Obama wants them to talk to Taliban, Israeli officials call Obama naïve.


By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
1/3/2012
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...9#.TwNpYkpzCWE



Muslim Brotherhood symbol and Obama
Israel news photo montage


Israel’s National Security Council thinks that President Barack Obama is naïve in his attitude towards the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which stated Sunday it can’t fathom the idea of recognizing Israel.

Dr. Rashad Bayumi, the Brotherhood’s number two leader, said on Sunday, "No Muslim Brotherhood members will engage in any contact or normalization with Israel.”

President Obama has asked the Muslim Brotherhood’s leading jurist, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to mediate secret talks between the United States and the Taliban, according to The Hindu newspaper. The jurist previously has called for killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq and has vowed that Islam “will conquer Europe [and] will conquer America,” whether by force or by the spread of radical Islam.

In early 2010, when American foreign policy experts could not imagine that the radical Muslim Brotherhood would emerge as the most powerful political force in Egypt, President Obama dismissed the party as a “faction,” adding that “they don’t have majority support in Egypt. But they’re well organized. There are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S.”

Less than a year afterwards, the Brotherhood has emerged as the winner of the first three rounds of legislative elections in the post-Mubarak period. Its closest contender represents the even more radical Salafist Muslim sect.

Last summer, the official Obama administration policy changed from shunning the Muslim Brotherhood to “engaging” it. Last month, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry met in Cairo with top members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel's National Security Council, headed by Maj.-Gen. Yaakov Amidror, recently discussed "The Challenge of the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its Offshoots” and concluded that the US president is naïve, according to the Hebrew daily Yisrael HaYom.

The National Security Council expressed the hope that the Obama administration will use economic leverage to keep the Muslim Brotherhood from spreading its ideology to other Muslim Arab countries.

The party was outlawed under the Mubarak regime, and its deep roots and ideology of terrorism resulted in its creation of the Hamas terrorist organization, which now rules Gaza and is working its way back into the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas, who leads the rival Fatah party.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...9#.TwNpYkpzCWE
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 01-04-2012, 02:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation By His Fruits Ye Shall Know Him: Obama's Subversive Appointments

By His Fruits Ye Shall Know Him:
Obama's Subversive Appointments
When Obama made his initial cabinet appointments upon assuming the presidency, it looked as if he had been a moderate Democrat. Now we know better.
By Jesse Weed




When President Obama made his initial cabinet appointments upon assuming the presidency, it looked as if the president had been, despite his history and associations with Wright, Ayers, Davis, et al., a moderate, left-leaning Democrat. His appointments were practically all ex-Clintonites.

In a 2008 Human Events article, "Obama's Cabinet So Far," Ross Kaminsky wrote that Obama's cabinet looked "like the third Clinton Administration." That soon began to change with Executive Office appointments, Regulatory Agency appointments, and appointments of czars and czarinas.

Thus began Obama's rule by judicial intimidation through the DOJ and by behavioral modification through the myriad of government agencies, from the EPA to the DoE. Behavioral modification by red tape has especially become the imprimatur of the Obama administration -- i.e., bypass congress and rule by regulatory edicts.

It has become increasingly evident that the original Clintonista appointments were just a smokescreen regarding what was to be Obama's stealth agenda. Subsequent appointments have revealed two persistent themes that that would be a hard sell outside the Beltway. To wit:

Transnationalism and Postconstitutionalism
Transnationalism is, in part, the theory/doctrine that the U.S. should subordinate its sovereignty to the U.N. in the interest of world comity. Policies which weaken national sovereignty such as open borders, rights of illegals, and the promotion of challenges to dominant religious and cultural institutions are consonant with transnationalist objectives.

Postconstitutionalsim (or, more commonly, non-originalism) is the theory/doctrine that the Constitution should be a "living" document adaptable to modern realities. Indeed, the Constitution should not be locked into the 18th-century mindset of the original framers.

The two doctrines dovetail nicely, and many of Obama's most influential appointees openly advocate the agenda of the twin sisters. They include:

Harold Koh - Chief Counsel, State Department
Koh believes that America should defer to the International Court of Justice to determine legal precedents. He believes that all distinctions between American Constitutional law and international law should vanish. He further believes that sharia law should be applied to some disputes in U.S. courts. Koh is also a prominent member of the American Constitution Society. The mission statement reads:
The American Constitution Society (ACS) believes that law should be a force to improve the lives of all people. ACS works for positive change by shaping debate on vitally important legal and constitutional issues through development and promotion of high-impact ideas to opinion leaders and the media; by building networks of lawyers, law students, judges and policymakers dedicated to those ideas; and by countering the activist conservative legal movement that has sought to erode our enduring constitutional values. By bringing together powerful, relevant ideas and passionate, talented people, ACS makes a difference in the constitutional, legal and public policy debates that shape our democracy.
Todd Stern - Climate Czar
Stern thinks that international agencies, such as the United Nations, should take the lead on forcing climate change solutions down the throats of national governments. Stern has proposed that world powers form an "E8" group, which would meet yearly and dictate environmental policy to the rest of the world.

John Holdren - Science Czar
Holdren wants the government to dictate family size and advocate a "planetary regime" run by the United Nations

Eric Holder - Attorney General
Can there be a better example of undermining national sovereignty than Holder (who is also a member of the ACS) joining with a foreign country (Mexico) to sue Arizona over its immigration laws? "It's almost like they are competing with each other to see who will be the plaintiff," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped write the law.

Holder also uses the DOJ to mainstream Islam. Under his guidance, training manuals for the FBI and other security agencies have been bowdlerized to ensure that Islam and violence are made to appear antithetical. Speaking for Holder, Dwight Holten (U.S. attorney) said, "I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated."

Samantha Power - National Security Council
Ed Lasky, news editor for American Thinker, writes in his article The Power of Samantha Power that "the Soros-linked Samantha Power continues to work with Barack Obama to weaken the concept of American sovereignty and empower the international community at the expense of American independence. He [Stanley Kurtz of NRO] also notes that Obama has always been clever about hiding his motives behind a façade of pragmatism."

Preeta Bansal - General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Management & Budget
Bansal is a leader of the American Constitutional Society. Like the ACS, Bansal is a strong supporter of illegal alien rights, terrorist rights, and other rights not enshrined in the Constitution. ACS is America's main networking group for far-left attorneys and is where Bansal is recruiting many of Obama's judicial nominees.

Bansal is also a member of the "critical race theory" (CRT) school of legal thought that boils all legal concepts down to racist conspiracies and alleges that racism permeates all aspects of American society. Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals called CRT supporters the "lunatic core" of "radical legal egalitarianism."

Cecilia Munoz - Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Executive Office of the President
Munoz is an open-borders advocate who served recently as the vice president for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), where she supervised all legislative activities. La Raza is the nation's foremost supporter of "rights" for illegal aliens and the granting of amnesty to the millions of illegals here in America. She believes that they should enjoy the same rights as citizens. She also served on the U.S. Programs board of the Open Society Institute, a George Soros-funded group.

Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar
Sunstein openly advocates behavioral modification by "nudging" people into the proper mindset for the 21st century. The masses are too stupid to be convinced by argumentation and evidence. Naturally, he supports the "Fairness Doctrine," the wrongly named concept which allows the government to regulate the airwaves.

Mark Lloyd - FCCChief Diversity Officer
While Obama is playing coy with his plans to shut down conservative talk radio, we know what his real intentions are due to his appointment of Mark Lloyd. Lloyd's view of the 1st Amendment is...well, refreshingly novel:
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. ... [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.
Like many of Obama's appointees, Lloyd worked for George Soros, the foreign billionaire who funds anti-America groups. He seems to be enamored of dictators, even publicly praising Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chávez's "incredible ... democratic revolution." He also wants to use the Fairness Doctrine to "balance" talk radio and believes that there are too many white people in the media -- unless there are "more people of color, gays and other people ... we will not change the problem." One of Lloyd's solutions to "balance" the media is to fine conservative radio stations up to $250 million and give the proceeds to National Public Radio. Get ready for censorship like America has never seen before.

Forget the soaring rhetoric, and forget the imbroglios with Congress. Forget the blaming, the admonishing, the extolling, the visionary promises of a greater future for America under Obama's guidance. In fact, forget Obama's mouth -- it's his feet that count. The talk he talks is not the walk he walks.

If you vote for Barack Obama because of his charm, his urbanity, his soaring rhetoric that seems to endorse traditional American values, and presume that a man of such fine qualities must be open and honest in his agenda...well, you've been conned.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 01-05-2012, 02:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Obama Plans to Cut Tens of Thousands of Ground Troops

Obama Plans to Cut Tens of Thousands of Ground Troops
By Laura MacInnis and David Alexander



(Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said.

Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.

The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world's largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing U.S. forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.
"As Libya showed, you don't necessarily have to have boots on the ground all the time," an official said, explaining the White House view.
"We are refining our strategy to something that is more realistic," the official added.

President Barack Obama will help launch the U.S. review at the Pentagon on Thursday, and is expected to emphasize that the size of the U.S. military budget has been growing and will continue to grow, but at a slower pace.

Obama has moved to curtail U.S. ground commitments overseas, ending the war in Iraq, drawing down troops in Afghanistan and ruling out anything but air power and intelligence support for rebels who overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

The number of U.S. military personnel formally assigned to bases in Europe - including many now deployed in Afghanistan - is also set to decline sharply, administration sources said, while stressing that the final numbers have not been set.

'BASICALLY DISAPPEAR'
"When some army brigades start coming out of Afghanistan, they will basically disappear," one official said.

Many of the key U.S. military partners in the NATO alliance are also facing tough defense budget cuts as a result of fiscal strains gripping the European Union.

The president may face criticism from defense hawks in Congress, many of them opposition Republicans, who question his commitment to U.S. military strength.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Obama's remarks, which are also expected to stress the need to rein in spending at a time when U.S. budgets are tight.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the defense cuts stemming from an August debt ceiling deal - worth about $489 billion over 10 years - need to be enacted carefully.

"The president made clear to his team that we need to take a hard look at all of our defense spending to ensure that spending cuts are surgical and that our top priorities are met," Carney told reporters this week.

The military could be forced to cut another $600 billion in defense spending over 10 years unless Congress takes action to stop a second round of cuts mandated in the August accord.

Panetta spent much of Wednesday afternoon briefing key congressional leaders about the strategic review. Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said after speaking to Panetta that the review was an attempt to evaluate U.S. strategic priorities for the future rather than identify specific budget reductions.

Maintaining a significant presence in the Middle East and Asia, especially to counter Iran and North Korea, was a leading priority in the review, Smith said. So was making sure that military personnel are sufficiently cared for to guarantee the effectiveness of the all-volunteer force.

Reductions in the size of U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere are a real possibility, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the role of U.S. forces abroad.

"From an operational perspective it's ... an opportune time to take a look at what the U.S. military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said on Wednesday.

"So, yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Kirby said.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 01-05-2012, 03:10 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Historic shift in U.S. foreign policy: Obama seeks ties with Muslim Brotherhood

Historic shift in U.S. foreign policy:
Obama seeks ties with Muslim Brotherhood

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/world/middleeast/us-reverses-policy-in-reaching-out-to-muslim-brotherhood.html?_r=3


Reaching out in friendship to a group dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." "Overtures to Egypt’s Islamists Reverse Longtime U.S. Policy," by David D. Kirkpatrick and Steven Lee Myers in the New York Times, January 3:
CAIRO — With the Muslim Brotherhood pulling within reach of an outright majority in Egypt’s new Parliament, the Obama administration has begun to reverse decades of mistrust and hostility as it seeks to forge closer ties with an organization once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.

The administration’s overtures — including high-level meetings in recent weeks — constitute a historic shift in a foreign policy held by successive American administrations that steadfastly supported the autocratic government of President Hosni Mubarak in part out of concern for the Brotherhood’s Islamist ideology and historic ties to militants.

The shift is, on one level, an acknowledgment of the new political reality here, and indeed around the region, as Islamist groups come to power. Having won nearly half the seats contested in the first two rounds of the country’s legislative elections, the Brotherhood on Tuesday entered the third and final round with a chance to extend its lead to a clear majority as the vote moved into districts long considered strongholds.

The reversal also reflects the administration’s growing acceptance of the Brotherhood’s repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt’s treaty with Israel....
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation 'We Have a Constitutional Crisis'

Mark Levin: 'We Have a Constitutional Crisis'
"That is a forthright statement of a dictator.”

By Patrick Burke
On his radio show last night, Mark Levin said that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board and a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without going through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process.

“We have a constitutional crisis," Levin said. "It is in fact a constitutional crisis."
"The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,” Levin said.

At one point, Levin likened the explanation Obama made yesterday for appointing these federal officials without Senate confrmation to the "forthright statement of a dictator."

Listen to Levin's full argument here:


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:37 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama's Justice Department Says President Obama's "Recess Appointments" Are Invalid

Constitutional Crisis: His Own Justice Department Says President Obama's "Recess Appointments" Are Invalid

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...n-justice.html



Over 100 years of precedent and tradition were flushed down the toilet today when President Obama decided to defy Constitutional constraints on his federal appointments.


The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama would recess-appoint Richard Cordray as chairman of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.

There’s just one problem: The U.S. Senate is not in recess. The decision to appoint these officials nonetheless appears to contradict the Obama administration’s own stated position on the issue. ...According to Obama’s own Justice Department, the president is in the wrong. During a 2010 Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts and Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal had this exchange, in which the latter admitted that recess appointments may not be made within three days of adjournment:


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

It's worth recalling that Democrats used the same "gavel-in and gavel-out" tactic time and time again to block President George W. Bush's appointments.

The Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, said in 2007 he would keep the Senate in "pro forma" sessions to block Bush from making an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with controversial nominations. That's exactly what Obama's White House now calls a gimmick. Yet on Wednesday, Reid came out in support of what Obama did.


The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano correctly calls Obama's moves today "a tyrannical abuse of power."


The Constitution, in Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate—consistent with the requirements of the Constitution—is having pro forma sessions every few days. In short, Congress is still in session, and no one in Congress is saying (or can reasonably say) otherwise...

Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President has the power to fill vacancies that may happen during Senate recesses. That power has been interpreted by scores of attorneys general and their designees in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for over 100 years to require an official, legal Senate recess of at least 10–25 days of duration...

In other words, through his blatantly lawless activities, the President has initiated a Constitutional crisis.

And we all know that if a Republican President had even publicly considered this option, legacy media would be beating the war-drums for impeachment.

It's high time the clueless John Boehner and Mitch McConnell started playing hardball. Real hardball. Impeachment-style hardball.

Heaven knows, there are enough charges to impeach five or six presidents at this point.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...n-justice.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:47 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Muslim Brotherhood Realities New and Old

Muslim Brotherhood Realities New and Old

by Steven Emerson
IPT News
January 5, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3365/muslim-brotherhood-realities-new-and-old




The votes still aren't fully counted in Egypt, but the Obama administration has seen enough to reverse long-standing and well-rooted policies to shun the theocratic, global Caliphate-minded Muslim Brotherhood, whose philosophy spawned terrorist movements from Hamas to al-Qaida.

High level meetings between American and Brotherhood officials reflect a "new political reality here [in Egypt], and indeed around the region," the New York Times reported in a front-page article Wednesday, "as Islamist groups come to power."

What is astounding and dangerous about the new U.S. recognition is the fact that Brotherhood leaders became more openly radical and militant once Mubarak was thrown out, issuing incendiary speeches calling for "martyrdom" operations against Israel and aligning with Hamas and other terrorist groups. Yet as the New York Times wrote, the Obama administration accepts as truthful "the Brotherhood's repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt's treaty with Israel."

But there's another reality that seems overlooked. And that's the Brotherhood's history of deception and duplicity, policies that reflect its modus operandi in gaining legitimacy in Egypt and around the world but still promoting a militant agenda. While some MB officials may tell American officials they will respect individual liberties and honor Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, it's not hard to find massive evidence that paints a different and more disturbing picture.

As we reported last week, the Brotherhood is poised to dominate the next Egyptian government after vowing last spring that it sought no such power. The group's deputy chief says the Brotherhood "will not recognize Israel under any circumstances" and may place the peace treaty before voters in a referendum.

Earlier this year, it tried to hide its bylaws and their calls for "need to work on establishing the Islamic State" from English-reading audiences, striking them from its website. Last week, however, Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie gave an address reminding followers of the agenda laid out by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. "It begins with the reform of the individual and then to start building the family and society, then the government; then the rightly guided caliphate, then instructing the world; instructing guidance, wisdom, truth and justice."

Brotherhood members must see their electoral success as a huge step in the direction of creating "the rightly guided caliphate." The United States would be foolish to differ.

It also would be foolish to overlook the Brotherhood's record.

After American commandos killed Osama bin Laden, the Brotherhood told English language audiences "one of the reasons for which violence has been practised in the world has been removed," Reuters reported. In Arabic, however, they referred to the mass-murdering al-Qaida founder with the honorary term of Sheikh and called him a shaheed, or martyr. The statement also criticized the American attack as an assassination.

Despite their reputations among some in the West as supposed moderates, Brotherhood officials routinely endorse terrorism. Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group in control of Gaza, declares itself to be the Brotherhood's Palestinian branch. Its peaceful intent includes recent reiterations of its commitment to violent jihad and its vow never to accept the state of Israel's right to exist.

"Our presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity," Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said last month.

For all the talk of the Brotherhood renouncing violence, the Associated Press noted that "it supports Hamas in its 'resistance' against Israel."

But the Brotherhood's threat of violence is not limited to actions against Israel. Influential Brotherhood theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi endorsed kidnapping and killing American civilians in Iraq in 2004 as an "obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."

More recently, Qaradawi has called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies" and sanctioned killing Israeli women because they serve in the army. He has prayed to be martyred while killing a Jew.

Incredibly, there has been no American confirmation or denial of an Indian newspaper report last week which indicated Qaradawi is helping broker peace talks between the United States and the Taliban, which itself is scandalous.

But this is the same administration whose Director of National Intelligence called the Brotherhood "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence," during a February congressional hearing. James Clapper tried to walk this back in subsequent statements, but his assessment flew in the face of all the Brotherhood has said about itself since its founding in 1928, beginning with its motto:

"God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes."

There are good reasons why the United States does not deal with Iran or recognize Hamas government in Gaza: Granting unilateral recognition to totalitarian political movements or governments only emboldens their terrorist ideologies. Shunning, boycotting and ostracizing totalitarian movements and regimes that still promote violent ideologies and policies is the only proven way of undermining their legitimacy and containing them, short of military action. The Brotherhood, which supports the terrorist Hamas, can mouth to the West all the platitudes about peace it can muster. But the record of its actions and its statements in Arabic shows the emptiness of such words.

Here is Badie, the supreme guide, in October, following Israel's decision to release more than 1,000 prisoners, many of them Hamas killers, in exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit: "The deal also proved that Israel only understands the language of force and resistance. This language is able, with God's permission, to liberate the Palestinian people suffering under the captivity of the Zionists."

Deception is part of the Brotherhood's modus operandi in America as well. Evidence in the largest terror-financing trial in U.S. history shows the Muslim Brotherhood created a network of Hamas-support organizations here, operating as the "Palestine Committee."

One exhibit, a 1991 "Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," described the Brotherhood's work in the United States as a "kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Court records provided "ample evidence" placing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its founders in the Palestine Committee, but CAIR refuses to acknowledge those connections. The evidence prompted the FBI to cut off communication with CAIR, but plenty of U.S. politicians and policymakers continue to engage the group.

Even if U.S. government officials accept the premise that the Brotherhood is a new reality in international relations, it is profoundly troubling that the U.S. would unilaterally grant new-found legitimacy without extracting demonstrable concessions that the Brotherhood has truly changed its policies. We still carry great leverage, supporting Egypt with $1.3 billion in military aid each year and through economic support from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Beyond the leverage of financial support, there are many options for the U.S. to pursue, as it did through an international boycott organized against South Africa when it existed as an apartheid state.

In legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood more than any other previous administration, the U.S. undermines genuine secular and pluralist parties, admittedly in the minority in Egypt, but which hold out the only hope for alternatives to the empowerment of authoritarian policies of Islamist regimes. In the entire history of Islamist regimes taking over or winning by elections, there has never been an Islamist regime that has ever given up power peacefully.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt parallels its embrace of Muslim Brotherhood American branches and front groups whose officials say nice things on American television, yet continue to covertly spread the ideology of, and in many cases funded, Islamic militancy and terrorism. Throughout its history, Brotherhood groups and leaders around the world starting with al-Banna, its founder, in Egypt, have spread the incendiary conspiratorial doctrine that the West, Christians, Jews and infidels have secretly conspired to suppress Islam since 1095, the year of the first Crusade. And in the age of instant worldwide communications, this delusional paranoia that non-Muslims – especially the West, Jews and Christians are waging a war against Islam – has become the No. 1 factor in motivating Islamic terrorists to carry out their attacks. In Egypt as in the United States and Europe, Brotherhood leaders blamed Israel, Jews and the United States for the 9/11 attacks. Nearly every Islamic terrorist arrest in the United States has been described by Islamist leaders as evidence of a "war against Islam."

The Muslim Brotherhood, where ever it is around the world, from Cairo to Chicago, seeks to gain legitimacy through a campaign of deception and penetration of western regimes and institutions. It defies common sense to grant unilateral legitimacy to the Brotherhood without demanding concrete actions to openly disavow its support for Islamic terrorist groups or stopping the spread of its mass incendiary message that there is a war against Islam.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the United States has now become a de facto enabler of a militant ideology that ultimately seeks the destruction of our own way of life.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 01-06-2012, 08:54 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s Disastrous Islamist Outreach

Obama’s Disastrous Islamist Outreach
How the administration is helping the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban achieve power
by Joseph Klein






For three years, Barack Obama​’s engagement policy with Islamists, most notably in Iran, has proven dangerous. The Iranian regime exploited Obama’s show of weakness by moving ahead aggressively with its nuclear weapon program. Now the Obama administration is doubling down on its disastrous engagement policy. It is serving as the midwife to the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and of Afghanistan by the Taliban. And there is a distressing link between the two.

A front page article in the New York Times on January 5th reported what has been obvious since Obama took office. The administration has sought to “forge close ties” with the Muslim Brotherhood – “an organization once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.”

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and recently joined with the ambassador to Egypt, Anne W. Patterson, for a meeting with top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, compared the Obama administration’s outreach to President Ronald Reagan​’s arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. “The United States needs to deal with the new reality,” Senator Kerry said. “And it needs to step up its game.”

That is a ridiculous analogy. Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, but never waivered from his belief that the Soviet Union was an evil empire whose ideology must be defeated. The Obama administration’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood is based on its mistaken belief that it has reformed in a way that brings it much closer to the Western model of a pluralistic party committed to individual freedoms.

To the contrary, when push comes to shove, the Muslim Brotherhood’s dominance of the civil government in Egypt, by virtue of its parliamentary election victories, will mean the imposition of sharia law and jihad against infidels. Nothing the Obama administration is trying to do through its aggressive overtures, including recent high-level meetings with Muslim Brotherhood officials, will change that fact. Jihad is embedded in its history, as evidenced by the violent Islamic jihadist organizations such as Hamas that it spawned. And let’s not forget that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that gave Osama bin Laden’s former deputy and current leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, his start.

Jihad remains in the Muslim Brotherhood’s DNA. Its motto includes the words: “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood’s new offices are emblazoned with its emblem of crossed swords.

The Obama administration’s ostensible rationale for engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it is simply bowing to political reality. Based on the results of Egyptian parliamentary elections so far, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party looks set to play a dominant role in Egypt’s new parliament and in the civil government to which Obama administration officials are pressing Egypt’s military to hand over the reins of power. But, in fact, the Obama administration is not simply being reactive. It helped bring about what is now unfolding in Egypt by throwing Egyptian president Mubarak under the bus and lending its hand to legitimize the false image of the Muslim Brotherhood as some sort of alternative moderate advocate of peace, pluralistic democracy and freedom for all Egyptians.

At the same time, in order to find a face-saving way out of the quagmire in Afghanistan in which the Obama administration finds itself after escalating the war there while simultaneously announcing a timetable for withdrawal, the administration is pursuing talks with the Taliban. It is using an untrustworthy Muslim Brotherhood connection to do so.

According to a report appearing in the Indian newspaper Hindu, diplomatic sources have said that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is regarded as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, has emerged as a key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban:
Mr. al-Qaradawi helped draw a road map for a deal between the Taliban and the United States, aimed at giving the superpower a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan which is due to begin in 2014.

In return for the release of prisoners still held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, the lifting of United Nations sanctions on its leadership and its recognition as a legitimate political group, the Taliban was expected to agree to sever its links to transnational organisations like al-Qaeda, end violence and eventually share power with the Afghan government.
But what can the Taliban negotiators really deliver, even if it were serious in wanting to reach a peaceful settlement? There is no indication that these negotiators are in a position to turn over the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar​ and his inner circle, who harbored al Qaeda when the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan. Nor will they be able to diffuse the growing power of the new generation of Taliban commanders ideologically committed to al-Qaeda’s vision.

The Obama administration’s idea of negotiations is to consider releasing Taliban detainees who are likely to return to jihad against U.S. forces without even any commitment reported to date that the Taliban would return the U.S. soldier it kidnapped. The only concrete step the Taliban negotiators have reportedly agreed to undertake in the short term is to set up an office in Qatar for talks.

It’s bad enough that the Obama administration is even considering talks on such terms – a prescription for appeasement. The fact that the Obama administration is foolish enough to trust al-Qaradawi as an intermediary with the Taliban is mind-boggling. Have they not read what this jihadist has been preaching?

The Muslim Brotherhood​’s spiritual leader’s call for jihad extends not only to the conquest of Israel and the killing of Jews. It includes the conquest of Europe and beyond.

In 2003 al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa declaring that
Islam will return to Europe as a victorious conqueror after having been expelled twice. This time it will not be conquest by the sword, but by preaching and spreading [Islamic] ideology […] The future belongs to Islam […] The spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world and includes both East and West marks the beginning of the return of the Islamic Caliphate [.]
A 2009 State Department cable, published by WikiLeaks, quoted a sermon by al-Qaradawi in which he condemned Jews for spreading “corruption in the land” and called for “the revenge of Allah” upon them. And he didn’t spare the United States. He condemned the United States for acting “like a god in this world” and cautioned the U.S. and the West that “according to the law of Allah, they should collapse.”

Yet this is the man in whom the Obama administration places its trust to help mediate a peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Just as the Obama administration trusts al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood, to help it escape the mess in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has come to believe in the good intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood itself in how it plans to govern in Egypt.

Interestingly, President Obama himself, during his 2011 Super Bowl Day interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, wanted viewers to know he was concerned “there are strains of their [Muslim Brotherhood] ideology that are anti-U.S.” But he dodged the question whether the Muslim Brotherhood represented a threat to the U.S., saying that they were only “one faction in Egypt” that lacked majority support.

Despite that brief glimmer of Super Bowl Day reality about the Muslim Brotherhood coming from Obama himself, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said just a few days before Obama’s interview that any new Egyptian government “has to include a whole host of important non-secular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be [a] stable and reliable partner,” a remark most likely directed at U.S. support for the inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in any future government.

In February 2011, U.S. director of National Intelligence James Clapper said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the Muslim Brotherhood “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera….. There is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.” However, his characterization of the Brotherhood as “largely secular” went a bit too far, even for the Obama administration.

In June 2011, well before the recent parliamentary elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the Obama administration’s decision to ignore the “anti-U.S.” strains in the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and engage them in concert with its policy to deal with “peaceful” organizations. She said that “We welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.”

Now, with the election results pointing towards a possible Muslim Brotherhood​ majority in the parliament, the Obama administration is throwing caution to the winds and wholeheartedly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood – “anti-U.S. strains” and all. It is willing to accept at face value assurances by Muslim Brotherhood officials that its lawmakers will reach out across the Egyptian political spectrum in order to build a modern democracy committed to the individual freedoms of all Egyptians.

The Obama administration evidently swallows the propaganda put out by the Muslim Brotherhood for the benefit of gullible Western governments and opinion leaders or does not care one way or the other whether it is true. For example, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party head, Mohamed Mursi, said that while his Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party uses “Islam as the basis of our party which means that our general framework is Islamic sharia,” they “don’t issue religious rules in individual cases.” Mursi also said that “All political forces and intellectuals in Egypt, regardless of their political and religious allegiances, will take part in writing the constitution.”

These are comforting words to the Obama administration, reinforced further by the Muslim Brotherhood agreement to an 11-clause declaration of principles known as the “Al-Azhar Document around the future of Egypt.” Al-Azhar is Egypt’s 1,000-year-old seat of Islamic scholarship, which Obama referred to as the “beacon of Islamic learning” during the 2009 speech he delivered there to the Muslim world. Muslim Brotherhood members attended Obama’s speech, by the way, at the invitation of the Obama administration.

The Al-Azhar Document is intended to serve as a guiding framework for the constituent assembly that will be in charge of drafting Egypt’s new constitution. This document, which was read on national television on June 20, 2011 by Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam, Shaykh Ahmad​ al-Tayyib, purportedly commits Egypt’s intellectual, religious and civil political elite to establishing an open democratic society in Egypt that respects the right of “other divine religions’ followers to appeal to their religions in their personal issues.”

But there is a big catch. The Al-Azhar Document’s first clause stipulates that “the modern and democratic state” it has in mind would operate “in accordance with the true Islamic aspects.” It goes on to say that “Islamic jurisprudence is the main source for the legislation.”

True democracy, which respects the freedom of all its citizens, is inherently inconsistent with “Islamic jurisprudence” that is based on Islamist supremacy and sharia law. While the Al-Azhar Document pays lip service to granting some measure of freedom of expression, it does so only within the strict confines of Islamic principles and morals.

The Al-Azhar Document also envisions an expansive role for Al-Azhar itself. It is to be the institution Egyptians must refer to “in order to define the way in which the state relates to religion (taḥdīd ‘alāqat al-dawla bi’l-dīn) and to clarify the foundations of the correct siyāsa shar‘iyya that it is necessary to pursue.”This will invest the unelected Al-Azhar Imam Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib with significant power, since his institution will be arbiter of “the true Islamic aspects” governing Egypt going forward.

Secularist writer Salah Elissa argues that “if new laws need the consent of al-Azhar, then that immediately means we are in a religious (not civil) state.” The power of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in the new parliament will help ensure that al-Azhar’s decisions do not stray too far from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist agenda.

Where does al-Azhar Imam Tayyib stand on core democratic freedoms such as freedom of expression? As one indication, he praised Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s landmark fatwa banning insults to early historical Islamic figures, particularly the first two Muslim caliphs and A’isha, child-wife of Prophet Muhammad​.

Indeed, Tayyib admires the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. “I hope relations between Iran and the Arab countries will improve, and the good neighbor policy as well as brotherly ties on the one hand and the fight against the common threat against Muslim nations on the other hand will improve these relations,” al-Tayyib said after meeting with Iranian and Hezbollah officials last July.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership agrees with Tayyib. Kamal al-Halbavi, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, expressed gratitude to the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei​ for his support of the Egyptian revolution and said he hoped that Egypt would have a “good government, like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.”

The Obama administration is trying to deceive the American people into thinking that Islamism – whether the Taliban or Muslim Brotherhood flavor – is anything other than our ideological enemy. The administration may not be able to stop either the Taliban or the Muslim Brotherhood from eventually taking control of Afghanistan and Egypt, respectively. But actively helping them along, as the administration is doing, recklessly jeopardizes the security of the American people and the cause of freedom everywhere.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:34 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…

How Many Businesses Are Exempt?
The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…

January 6, 2012
by Becket Adams


Since the passage of the “Affordable Care Act,” it has been some cause for concern — scandal even — that several businesses have been granted waivers that excuse them from participating in the federal program.

And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from participation.

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.


“One for you, and one for you, and one for you…


“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on the granting of these waivers as an opportunity to further their argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”

So how does the HHS justify handing the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”
But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible” is anyone’s guess.

“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.

But what’s even more unsettling is the fact that the majority of the granted waivers were handed out to labor unions.

“Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation,” writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. “By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.”

Because of the backlash over the waivers, HHS announced last summer that it would stop accepting applications for one-year waivers and would simply grant or deny waivers all the way through the end of 2013, according to The Hill.

The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS granted — companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver and an extension, and companies that received a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension.

A total of 96 waiver requests were denied by HHS. Again, why the healthcare law couldn’t be flexible for those 96 requests is anyone’s guess.

“The final total is actually lower than the last monthly update. Earlier in the process, HHS had been granting waivers to a type of plan that it later decided should be completely exempt from the restrictions on annual limits,” Baker writes. “HHS had granted waivers to almost 500 of those plans before exempting them altogether.”

(h/t Weasel Zippers)
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 01-08-2012, 02:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow U.S. Official on Propping Up Islamist Democracies

U.S. Official on Propping Up Islamist Democracies

by IPT News • Jan 6, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/...st-democracies


Jeffrey Feltman, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, stated in a recent editorial for Dar al Hayat, that American officials will work with Islamist parties to prop up emerging Arab democracies.

"We are less concerned what a political party or organization calls itself than what it does in practice, and we will reach out to those who act according to democratic principles, respect their fellow citizens' rights, and do not use force or violence to impose their views," Feltman explains in the op-ed.

The Obama Administration's goal is "to reach out beyond the traditional government and business elites not only to articulate clearly our own goals but to listen to a wide spectrum of views. This includes reaching out to Islamist parties, who now play an important role in the political transformation of many countries in the region."

The United States intends to support the new democracies with both governmental aid and private economic investment. Feltman saluted the efforts of major American firms like Pfizer, Marriott, and Microsoft, who have already invested in Tunisia's new Islamist-led democracy. He also discussed the Administration's effort to convince Congress to facilitate job creation in Egypt, academic exchanges between the countries, and to "develop […] 'Enterprise Funds' to foster private-sector development."

The commitment of Islamist parties to democracy and human rights remains to be seen. While officials from Tunisia's Al-Nahda party and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood have said all the right things to Western news sources, they have continued to use traditional extremist rhetoric in addresses to their political base. Several Islamist groups also support a policy of gradualism, by incrementally introducing Islamism into local society and building their relationship with other Islamist regimes in the direction of a renewed Islamic empire [Caliphate].
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman Calls for

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman Calls for U.S. to Take Heed of Public Opinion in New Arab World, Reach Out to Islamists
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5977.htm


In a December 31, 2011 article titled "Embracing the New Year’s Opportunities for Change," which appeared in the English edition of the London-based daily Al-Hayat, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman praised the Arab Spring, and in particular Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution. Expressing optimism for the year 2012, he said the U.S. would continue working to "support the transitions to democracy underway in the Middle East and North Africa" by embracing the "wide spectrum of views" espoused by the Arab people. Accepting this plurality, he said, entailed "reaching out to Islamist parties, who now play an important role in the political transformation of many countries in the region."

Following is the article in full:

"When I served as Political-Economic Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia in the late 1990s, noisy and crowded diplomatic events -- dinners, receptions, national day parties -- were the best place to meet with Tunisians who assumed that President Ben Ali's mukhabarat [intelligence service] had bugged all offices. They believed the safety of the noise and crowds at diplomatic events protected candid conversations. But sometimes, even diplomatic receptions didn't work out as planned: one night, my wife and I hosted a reception at our residence in Gammarth, where a large number of human rights and civil society activists showed up, probably to the horror of the few Tunisian government officials who dared attend. At the end of the reception, the mukhabarat arrested a number of guests whom we had gathered in one location, inadvertently facilitating a crackdown.

"Foreign diplomats cynically nicknamed Tunisia, 'Syria with a smile': like Syria, the state was managed as if it were a mafia family business, with the denial of basic political rights to its citizens; but, unlike Syria, the smell of jasmine, beach resorts, growth of middle-class home ownership and genuine progress in the role of women soften the edges of harsh political realities.

"Yes, the United States and Tunisia had a long history of cooperative relations, rooted in strong U.S. support for Tunisia's independence. But by the time I served in Tunisia, the once robust bilateral friendship had by and large become paralyzed by the suspicions and fears cultivated by the Ben Ali regime. 'Stability,' in this case, meant frozen connections and lost potential, and, as Mohammed Bouazizi demonstrated, 'stability' turned out to be an illusion.

"Today, Tunisia is a far different place, thanks to the courageous Tunisian people. I had the privilege to visit Tunisia just a week after Ben Ali's departure and to join our Ambassador in openly meeting some of the same activists who had faced arrest there earlier. Even in those early days of the Jasmine Revolution, it was obvious that something fundamental had changed: people were no longer afraid to demand basic rights and economic opportunities. What started in Tunisia has spread elsewhere in the Arab world, with people insisting that their governments respect them and reflect their political and economic aspirations.

"For the United States, which pursues a complex set of foreign policy objectives globally, the transformation of the Arab world poses opportunities and challenges. Many of the overarching goals we pursued a year ago remain the same today: pursuit of genuine Arab-Israeli peace; promotion of global energy stability and freedom of navigation; countering violent extremism and the risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear; promotion of human rights and the development of democracy; and economic growth. But in the Arab world, the context in which we pursue these goals has changed dramatically in the past year.

"The U.S. recognizes that, in a region where public opinion matters more than ever before, we need to increase our efforts to reach out beyond the traditional government and business elites not only to articulate clearly our own goals but to listen to a wide spectrum of views. This includes reaching out to Islamist parties, who now play an important role in the political transformation of many countries in the region. We are less concerned what a political party or organization calls itself than what it does in practice, and we will reach out to those who act according to democratic principles, respect their fellow citizens’ rights, and do not use force or violence to impose their views.

"The United States is aligning our policies and programs with the legitimate aspirations of the region’s new democracies. New emerging leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and, yes, even Syria will undoubtedly be far more attuned to the nuances of public opinion than their authoritarian predecessors. They will face enormous challenges in trying to meet the political and economic demands of their citizens.
"As President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made clear, we are inspired to see people stand up for their rights and for better lives, from Sidi Bouzid, to Alexandria, to Taiz. A diversity of views expressed openly and peacefully is inherently healthy, even if we do not agree in all matters. Over time, a government that respects the rights of all its citizens and rules with their consent will be better placed to serve the needs of its people and also a better partner for the United States.

"The United States is working in many ways to help support the transitions to democracy underway in the Middle East and North Africa. The success of these transitions and of democratic and economic reforms across the region is in the interest of the United States as well as of the region’s people.

"The Arab Spring has shown us that people's legitimate demands for respect and dignity cannot permanently be denied, and it is inevitable that the Syrian people, too, will achieve the end of dictatorship. Until then, we will continue to work with the Arab League, U.N. Security Council partners, and others to find ways to stop Bashar al-Assad's killing machine and to help the Syrian people realize their dream of a united, democratic Syria where the rights of all are respected.

"Across the region, economic success will be vital to political progress, and U.S. private-sector companies will have a positive role to play in supporting growth and helping to create jobs. In Egypt, for example, we are working with our Congress to channel a $1 billion debt swap into job creation, and supporting new partnerships between American and Egyptian educational institutions. The United States is using our assistance funds in new and innovative ways, such as by developing Enterprise Funds to foster private-sector development. In Tunisia, we have been pleased to see major U.S. corporations, including Pfizer, Marriott, and Microsoft, make new investments, hirings, and donations to grow business and aid economic recovery.

"We would like to see the same investment in the success of reforms across the region, and are working to bolster economic investment and growth. However, for that to happen, inclusive, pluralistic and resilient political systems will need to take root. Without such responsive democratic governments, the stability and sustainability businesses seek to assure the viability of investments will be missing and a shadow will be cast over the dignity and pride that has empowered people to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges.

"Although none of this will be easy, the United States and our international partners will continue to engage and offer our support in the months and years to come. I remain optimistic that 2012 can bring the kind of positive and enduring change that this region has needed and deserved for so long."[1]

Endnote:
[1] Al-Hayat (London), December 31, 2011.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5977.htm
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 01-09-2012, 05:55 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Obama admin continues to reward "Arab Spring" Islamic parties for saying the right th

Obama admin continues to reward "Arab Spring" Islamic parties for saying the right things

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/ob...ht-things.html


The Assistant Secretary of State Feltman's remarks about the importance of actions sound good, but at what point would the U.S. actually pull the plug, if it has stood by this long in the face of human rights abuses in Egypt? If they are afraid to rock the boat now, when would be a good time?

For that matter, since there has been no action in governance yet, the U.S. is engaging what would at best be unknown quantities, but are in reality are only "unknown" through willful denial. As this report notes, the Islamic parties "have continued to use traditional extremist rhetoric in addresses to their political base, and several Islamist groups also support a policy of gradualism."

The possibility of duplicity appears to be off-limits in foreign policy toward Islamic countries, and that continues the practices of the previous administration. Both seem frequently surprised and in denial at being deceived. "U.S. Official on Propping Up Islamist Democracies," from the Investigative Project on Terrorism, January 6:
Jeffrey Feltman, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, stated in a recent editorial for Dar al Hayat, that American officials will work with Islamist parties to prop up emerging Arab democracies.
"We are less concerned what a political party or organization calls itself than what it does in practice, and we will reach out to those who act according to democratic principles, respect their fellow citizens' rights, and do not use force or violence to impose their views," Feltman explains in the op-ed.
The Obama Administration's goal is "to reach out beyond the traditional government and business elites not only to articulate clearly our own goals but to listen to a wide spectrum of views. This includes reaching out to Islamist parties, who now play an important role in the political transformation of many countries in the region."
The United States intends to support the new democracies with both governmental aid and private economic investment. Feltman saluted the efforts of major American firms like Pfizer, Marriott, and Microsoft, who have already invested in Tunisia's new Islamist-led democracy. He also discussed the Administration's effort to convince Congress to facilitate job creation in Egypt, academic exchanges between the countries, and to "develop […] 'Enterprise Funds' to foster private-sector development."
The commitment of Islamist parties to democracy and human rights remains to be seen. While officials from Tunisia's Al-Nahda party and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood have said all the right things to Western news sources, they have continued to use traditional extremist rhetoric in addresses to their political base. Several Islamist groups also support a policy of gradualism, by incrementally introducing Islamism into local society and building their relationship with other Islamist regimes in the direction of a renewed Islamic empire [Caliphate].
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 01-09-2012, 06:01 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Santorum hits Obama's banning of truth about Islam

Santorum hits Obama's banning of truth about Islam

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/sa...out-islam.html



Rick Santorum in last night's debate skewers Obama for banning the truth about Islam and jihad. It was good to see him bring this up, as it should be a much bigger issue than it is. The Administration has ruled out of bounds any investigation of the beliefs and goals of an international group dedicated to our destruction, and no one seems to care. So Santorum on that score deserves gratitude.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum