Posts

VIDEO: It doesn’t Matter if Obama is a Muslim

One of the most common questions is: Is Obama a Muslim? Who knows, but it doesn’t make any difference. He always supports Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sharia.

What is important is the Islamification of the United States.

Hillary Clinton is not a Muslim but her chief advisor is Huma Abedin. Huma is closely linked with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hillary is an apologist for Sharia and Islam.

George Bush is not a Muslim but he advanced Islam with his declaration that Islam is the religion of peace. Bush would not use the word jihad, and gave us the “war on terror”.

The governor of Tennessee is not a Muslim but he only allows Muslims to train Tennessee law enforcement about “terror”.

Schools in America are beginning to adopt Sharia compliant textbooks.

Obama will be gone, but what difference does that make? Our politicians are Islamifying the U.S. without him.

VIDEO: Minneapolis Muslims prefer Sharia, want blasphemy laws in U.S.

Note the unanimous opposition to the freedom of speech and support for criminalizing criticism of Islam — and even for murdering those who insult Muhammad. All freely and openly expressed on a sunny day in Minneapolis.

Video thanks to Ami Horowitz.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Freedom, Provocation and Targets

Islamic State has 30,000 foreign jihadis from over 100 countries

U.S. humanitarian aid going to the Islamic State

Does Obama not know this? Or does he just not care? Certainly the latter would be in line with his foreign policy, which has been consistent since the day he took office.

“U.S. Humanitarian Aid Going to ISIS,” by Jamie Dettmer, The Daily Beast, October 19, 2014:

GAZIANTEP, Turkey — While U.S. warplanes strike at the militants of the so-called Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, truckloads of U.S. and Western aid has been flowing into territory controlled by the jihadists, assisting them to build their terror-inspiring “Caliphate.”

The aid—mainly food and medical equipment—is meant for Syrians displaced from their hometowns, and for hungry civilians. It is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, European donors, and the United Nations. Whether it continues is now the subject of anguished debate among officials in Washington and European. The fear is that stopping aid would hurt innocent civilians and would be used for propaganda purposes by the militants, who would likely blame the West for added hardship.

The Bible says if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him something to drink—doing so will “heap burning coals” of shame on his head. But there is no evidence that the militants of the Islamic State, widely known as ISIS or ISIL, feel any sense of disgrace or indignity (and certainly not gratitude) receiving charity from their foes.

Quite the reverse, the aid convoys have to pay off ISIS emirs (leaders) for the convoys to enter the eastern Syrian extremist strongholds of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, providing yet another income stream for ISIS militants, who are funding themselves from oil smuggling, extortion and the sale of whatever they can loot, including rare antiquities from museums and archaeological sites.

“The convoys have to be approved by ISIS and you have to pay them: the bribes are disguised and itemized as transportation costs,” says an aid coordinator who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition he not be identified in this article. The kickbacks are either paid by foreign or local non-governmental organizations tasked with distributing the aid, or by the Turkish or Syrian transportation companies contracted to deliver it.

And there are fears the aid itself isn’t carefully monitored enough, with some sold off on the black market or used by ISIS to win hearts and minds by feeding its fighters and its subjects. At a minimum the aid means ISIS doesn’t have to divert cash from its war budget to help feed the local population or the displaced persons, allowing it to focus its resources exclusively on fighters and war making, say critics of the aid….

EDITORS NOTE: The below CNN report on  the Islamic State (IS) shows excerpts from an IS propaganda video. If you look closely at the IS video you will see printed on the tents “U.S”. Video courtesy of CNN.

U.S.’ Nuclear Weapons Policy Puts Country At Great Risk

While China and Russia are upgrading their nuclear weapons inventory and are going forward with advance nuclear weapons research, and while Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the Executive Branch has been degrading America’s once superior and advanced nuclear weapons technology capability. The once most powerful U.S. nuclear weapons research facility in the world is rapidly falling behind Russia and China. Please read the below article by VADM Robert R. Monroe, USN (Ret).

Sandia Lab0ratory scientists have ceased doing exploratory and research work to avoid technology surprise by other nuclear powers, and work on new smaller and more effective design nuclear weapons has ceased all together. The U.S.‘s unilateral cessation of safe underground testing has prevented scientist from testing our aging nuclear weapons, and allowing the United States with the ability to replace them with modern smaller, more effective, and safer weapons—it leaves the Republic at the mercy of the Chinese and the Russians who have no such limitations and are progressing rapidly.

“Peace through Strength”, a policy that the endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress support, could be achieved by having a modern and more effective nuclear weapons inventory. That policy has been shouted down by leftist and Socialist supporters of the Obama administration in the U.S. Congress.

The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress who are running for election in 2014 will fight to reverse the current U.S. Nuclear Weapons policy that is putting the nation at great risk–please give them your support.

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
September 12, 2014

U.S.’ Nuclear Weapons Policy Puts Country At Great Risk

By ROBERT R. MONROE

At the dawn of the nuclear era, when America created its nuclear weapons laboratories (Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia), one of their primary missions was to avoid technological surprise.

The labs were charged to conduct advanced nuclear weapons research, development and testing of all types so that no adversary could ever take us unawares by producing some new and dangerous types of nuclear weapons.

The labs performed this mission superbly throughout World War II and the five decades of the Cold War. For over half a century our nuclear weapons and related advanced technological capabilities were supreme in the world.

But since 1992, the U.S. government — executive branch and Congress — has actively prevented the labs from doing work of this type. For 23 years Democrats and Republicans, using laws, regulations and denials of funding, progressively restricted the labs from taking any of these needed actions.

Lab scientists have not been able to even think about new weapons, exploratory work has ceased to exist and the high-priority mission of avoiding technological surprise has been closed down.

These grave mistakes resulted from the simplistic belief that they would help prevent nuclear proliferation. Wiser voices, making the obvious point that true national security — and effective prevention of nuclear proliferation — lay in nuclear weapons strength, were shouted down.
This two-decade rampage has resulted in a staggering list of national disabilities:

  • Most damaging is President Bush’s unilateral 1992 moratorium on underground nuclear testing. It bars the labs from essential testing of our overage nuclear stockpile, prevents development of relevant replacement weapons, denies our scientists use of the scientific method (the basis of all advancement) and leaves us at the mercy of Russia, China and other adversaries.
  • From 1993-2003 Congress explicitly made it illegal to carry out any research or development on low-yield nuclear weapons, which are vital to deter today’s grave new nuclear threats. This established the wrong mindset in a generation of lab scientists which still exists.
  • In 1989 the executive branch shut down the nation’s only facility to produce plutonium pits — the hearts of nuclear weapons — making us the only nuclear weapons state in the world unable to produce nuclear arms. Since then, executive branch fumbling and congressional denials have combined to prevent replacement of this absolutely essential production facility. If a decision were made today, it would still be 10 to 15 years before pit production could start.
  • In 1996 President Clinton signed the extremely damaging Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which denies nuclear weapons testing for all time. The Senate emphatically rejected ratification in 1999, but several adverse effects of the signing remain and President Obama is determined to get it ratified. The CTBT has an overpoweringly adverse effect on the labs.
  • In 2003 the executive branch belatedly proposed three important new nuclear weapons programs. The Advanced Concepts Initiative would have enabled the labs to commence research and development on advanced nukes. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program would have met the mushrooming threat of hard, deeply buried targets. The Enhanced Test Readiness program would have enabled the president, in a national emergency, to conduct an underground test within one to two years, rather than the current three to five. Congress delayed, then killed, all three programs.
  • In 2005 the Reliable Replacement Warhead program was proposed. Because it had no new military capabilities, it gained fragile bipartisan support. However, Congress soon backwatered on it, and Obama killed it in 2009 as not befitting his “world without nuclear weapons” vision.
  • The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which established the overall nuclear policy of the current administration, provided the blueprint for U.S. nuclear weakness, a stark reversal from the role of U.S. nuclear weapons strength that had been established and maintained by 12 Presidents (six Democrats, six Republicans) throughout the prior seven decades.
  • The urgently needed modernization program for the labs and America’s nuclear weapons infrastructure, formally agreed to by Obama in return for Senate approval of New START treaty ratification in 2010, has been progressively dismantled by both branches ever since.

These eight actions — and many others — by our national leadership have emasculated the labs’ ability to protect us from technological surprise in nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, for two decades Russia has been following exactly the opposite course. Its nuclear weapons labs have focused on low-yield weapons research, design, testing and production. It’s pursued advanced concepts, fifth-generation weapons and greater use of fusion and less of fission (possibly achieving pure fusion).

Such weapons might well emit only neutrons and gamma rays, and their tactics of use would be ones we’ve never seen. Furthermore, Russia’s new strategy calls for early use of nuclear weapons in all conflicts, large and small.

America’s current nuclear weapons course is one of grave risk. Our policy documents emphasize that “nuclear stability” must be our goal, yet the technological surprise we are encouraging by our actions is the antithesis of stability. We must return to a policy of nuclear strength.

ABOUT ROBERT R. MONROE

Robert R. Monroe is a retired Navy Vice Admiral and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency.

Blacks Missing from U.S.-Africa Business Forum

President Obama hosted the first ever U.S.-Africa Business forum last week here in Washington, DC. Leading up to the conference, the U.S. Commerce Department announced:

“On August 5, 2014, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the U.S. Department of Commerce will co-host the first-ever U.S.-Africa Business Forum, a day focused on trade and investment opportunities on the continent. The U.S.-Africa Business Forum will be part of President Obama’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the first summit of its kind, and the largest event that any U.S. president has ever convened with African heads of state or government.”

I must admit that the various panels consisted of executives who all had a track record of great achievement. Panelists included Americans, Indians, Africans, and women. But, I couldn’t help but notice that there was not one Black American on any of the panels.

Not only has the first Black president continued to ignore his most loyal voting block, the Black community, but by his actions he has made it perfectly clear to African leaders that Black business leaders are totally irrelevant within the U.S.

There was not shortage of Blacks who could have fit the bill: Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express; Dick Parson, former CEO of Time Warner; Dave Steward, CEO of World Wide Technology ($ 6 billion in annual revenue); Junior Bridgeman, owner of 195 Wendys (doing more than $ 500 million in annual revenue); Bob Johnson, CEO of RLJ Holdings, who has already invested money in hotels in Liberia.

There was one panel that had five African presidents: Macky Sall (Senegal), Paul Kagame (Rwanda), Jacob Zuma (South Africa), Jakaya Kikwete ( Tanzania), and Moncef Marzouki (Tunisia). The panel was moderated by Charlie Rose. I guess the White House has never heard of Black interviewers such as Charlayne Hunter-Gault, Michelle Norris, or Gwen Ifill.

The first question Rose asked was about the ebola virus. The presidents seemed to have been quite offended by the question and pushed back that America only views Africa in terms of the negative.

The blame is totally Africa’s fault for the negative portrayal they receive in U.S. media. African presidents come to the U.S. and rarely, if ever, engage with the American media and definitely not with the Black media.

Kagame admitted as much when he told Rose, “We [must be] able to own up to our weaknesses, our mistakes and own up to our solutions and contribute to our solutions. We can’t even tell our story. We even depend on others to tell our stories which leads to distortions.”

When the president of Cameroon landed in the U.S. on his presidential jet at Andrews Air Force Base (where Obama’s presidential jet is stored), there was a huge story written about his arrival in the Washington Post. No, no it was not on the front page. No, not in the business section, But on the gossip page. There was not one mention of the president’s name. The full page story was all about the president’s wife hair. Yes, you heard right, her hair; and the author of the story was a Black female.

This is how irrelevant Africa is viewed by the U.S. media. This is what happens when African presidents and their U.S. based ambassadors have no meaningful engagement with the media.

Africa can’t continue to demand to be a player on the world’s stage in the 21st century and yet govern and lead with a 20th century mentality. In many ways, having a media strategy is just as important as having a military strategy.

Controlling how you are perceived in the global market place has a direct impact on the investment community throughout the world. One needs to look no further than Equatorial Guinea to prove my point. It is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet; and outside of the oil industry, it’s almost impossible for them to get investment in their country.

I didn’t see or hear one media interview with any of the presidents during their stay in the U.S. The daily media coverage was focused on all the traffic problems being created by the street closures because of the various presidential motorcades.

Obama spent more time discussing the unemployment rate in Africa than he has the unemployment rate within the Black community here in the U.S. He talked about targeted incentives for investment and job creation on the continent of Africa; but can’t find the time to create opportunities for Blacks here at home.

Obama even created the Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders. According to the White House, “through this initiative, young African leaders are gaining the skills and connections they need to accelerate their own career trajectories and contribute more robustly to strengthening democratic institutions, spurring economic growth, and enhancing peace and security in Africa.”

How about a similar program for Blacks in the U.S.?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of Yahoo News.

U.S. rushes 75 Hellfire missiles to Shi’ite regime in Iraq

Has the Maliki regime noticed yet that Obama is arming the Sunni jihadists in Syria and arming their foes in Iraq? This incoherence should be the lead story on every nightly news program and the lead story in every major news outlet. Instead, of course, they continue to cover for this disastrous Administration.

“US Rushes Hellfires to Iraq, Trying to Rebuild Arsenal,” by Hamish MacDonald, ABC News, June 29, 2014:

The U.S. has rushed 75 Hellfire missiles to the Iraqi government, but that small arsenal will last the regime only about three days as they battle to take back the city of Tikrit.

The government of President Nouri al-Maliki ran out of the missiles shortly after the al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS chased his troops out of northern Iraq by taking Mosul, Tikrit and the border posts with Syria.

This weekend, the government made its first concerted effort to take back territory and is battling ISIS and its Sunni Muslim allies in Tikrit, the one-time hometown of former dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi army is receiving information used in its offensive from U.S. advisers who have been using intelligence gathered by U.S. drones that have been flying over Iraq.

Other highlights in the murky fog of war that has enveloped Iraq are expectations that it will likely be at least six months before Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, can be recaptured by government forces.

Before moving on Mosul, the government will need to recruit forces from the region and rebuild the 2nd Division of the Iraqi army, which totally collapsed and fled in the face of the ISIS attack.

Three U.S. teams of miltary advisers are now operating in Iraq, some of them north of Baghdad. Three more teams are expected to arrive. President Obama has authorized as many as 300 miltary advisers to return to Iraq.

The advisers, along with the intel from the drones, will help direct the Iraqi offensive and give Obama targets to hit if he decides to become more aggressive in Iraq.

There is some skepticism that two Russian Sukhoi fighter jets that are being prepared by technicians can be made ready in three days as promised.

The introduction of help from Russian now means that three of the U.S.’s rivals — Russia, Iran and Syria — are helping Iraq’s Shia-dominated government.

Iraq needs some help in the air, however. Sixty of its helicopters have been damaged since January and six have been shot down.

Despite the huge swath of territory through northern Syria and northern Iraq that ISIS — the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq — has conquered, the radical Sunni militants are believed to have vulnerabilities….

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS/ISIL declares Islamic State, shortens name to “The Islamic State” (IS)
ISIL crucifies eight of its foes
Iraqi military fails to retake Tikrit from Islamic State jihadis
“With this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him”
Ramadan in Nigeria: Boko Haram attacks five churches, murders 100