Saturday, October 11, 2014
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Obama endangering us all
How Obama jeopardizes all our safety; Isn't the first obligation of the president to protect our common welfare?
1. No control over borders
a. all kinds of diseases are coming north from the masses coming across. Several children have died from these diseases so far, diseases either unknown in the US or that have been wiped out here before. Obama's only interest in massive immigration of potential democratic voters, with no regard for the health of America. now 4200 US troops have been sent to Ebola areas. How many will come back with the disease? Some countries have banned flights from some of these countries, not the USA. http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html
b. How many Islamic terrorists have crossed over?
We can't know because
2. Obama has handcuffed our security agencies from investigating local terrorists. Guest Column: Terror's Virus on the Northern Border
by David B. Harris
Special to IPT News
October 7, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4602/guest-column-terror-virus-on-the-northern-border
Ever since full-blown cases of the disease hit the United States, Canadians have dreaded the contagion's arrival north of the 49th parallel.
Its effects: blindness and a deadly incapacity to recognize and adapt to reality.The malady? The White House's refusal to identify the leading terrorist enemy by name and combatant doctrine.
President Obama began his administration by avoiding counterterror language likely to link Islam with violence. This reflected a civilized and practical impulse to avoid alienating Muslims at home and abroad.
But perhaps influenced by the demonstrable fact that President Obama, as former terror prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy put it, "made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors," this effort quickly got out of control. Now the White House fetishizes and enforces on its security agencies, a refusal to identify the doctrine underlying the bulk of the world's terrorism woes: radical Islamism.
Remarkable, considering that Muslims sounded the alarm years ago.
"Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims," wrote Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed in a 2004 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat article flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Despite this, the Obama White House banned words like "Islamists," "Muslims" and "jihad" from security documents, even from FBI and other government agencies' counterterror training manuals.
Lawyer and retired US military intelligence officer Major Stephen C. Coughlin exposed the censorship's extent at a February 2010 conference. In 2004, he noted, the 9/11 Commission Report made 126 mentions of "jihad," 145 of "Muslim," and used the word "Islam" over 300 times. No surprise.
But Washington later purged such terms completely from the FBI counterterrorism lexicon (2008), National Intelligence Strategy (2009) and even the 2010 panel reviewing jihadi Nidal Malik Hasan's 2009 Fort Hood massacre – except as unavoidable parts of names of terror organizations or the like. The practice seems to continue.
1. No control over borders
a. all kinds of diseases are coming north from the masses coming across. Several children have died from these diseases so far, diseases either unknown in the US or that have been wiped out here before. Obama's only interest in massive immigration of potential democratic voters, with no regard for the health of America. now 4200 US troops have been sent to Ebola areas. How many will come back with the disease? Some countries have banned flights from some of these countries, not the USA. http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html
b. How many Islamic terrorists have crossed over?
We can't know because
2. Obama has handcuffed our security agencies from investigating local terrorists. Guest Column: Terror's Virus on the Northern Border
by David B. Harris
Special to IPT News
October 7, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4602/guest-column-terror-virus-on-the-northern-border
Ever since full-blown cases of the disease hit the United States, Canadians have dreaded the contagion's arrival north of the 49th parallel.
Its effects: blindness and a deadly incapacity to recognize and adapt to reality.The malady? The White House's refusal to identify the leading terrorist enemy by name and combatant doctrine.
President Obama began his administration by avoiding counterterror language likely to link Islam with violence. This reflected a civilized and practical impulse to avoid alienating Muslims at home and abroad.
But perhaps influenced by the demonstrable fact that President Obama, as former terror prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy put it, "made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors," this effort quickly got out of control. Now the White House fetishizes and enforces on its security agencies, a refusal to identify the doctrine underlying the bulk of the world's terrorism woes: radical Islamism.
Remarkable, considering that Muslims sounded the alarm years ago.
"Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims," wrote Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed in a 2004 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat article flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Despite this, the Obama White House banned words like "Islamists," "Muslims" and "jihad" from security documents, even from FBI and other government agencies' counterterror training manuals.
Lawyer and retired US military intelligence officer Major Stephen C. Coughlin exposed the censorship's extent at a February 2010 conference. In 2004, he noted, the 9/11 Commission Report made 126 mentions of "jihad," 145 of "Muslim," and used the word "Islam" over 300 times. No surprise.
But Washington later purged such terms completely from the FBI counterterrorism lexicon (2008), National Intelligence Strategy (2009) and even the 2010 panel reviewing jihadi Nidal Malik Hasan's 2009 Fort Hood massacre – except as unavoidable parts of names of terror organizations or the like. The practice seems to continue.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Is this possible?
- Paradigm Change for Solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict- Editorial
Prime Minister Netanyahu broke new ground in his speech Monday before the UN General Assembly, speaking of a "historic opportunity." Countries in the region that were antagonistic toward Israel - ostensibly because of its conflict with the Palestinians - increasingly realize that they share common interests with the Jewish state. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE all see a nuclear Iran, an exultant Islamic State, and a reactionary Muslim Brotherhood as direct threats.
Jews share with the Christians, Kurds and Yazidis of the region similar threats and interests as well. For all these groups, defeating militant Islamists is an existential imperative.
Rapprochement with the Arab world could also radically transform the paradigm for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Increasing cooperation between Israel and its neighbors can serve as a catalyst for a new, more creative solution that will enable Palestinians and Israelis to live together in peace.
We Jews - like the Kurds, the Christians, the Yazidis and other non-Muslim faith and ethnic groups - are an integral part of this region. Our roots go back over 3,000 years. It is only logical that a solution will be found to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that includes input and support from the entire region in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. (Jerusalem Post)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
