Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Obama Is The Head Of Muslims World-Wide. His Eid Al Fitr Makes It Clear



President Obama’s July 6th Greeting to Muslims for Eid al Fitr


It is the end of Ramadan and the Eid-al-Fitr feast. A greeting from the American President is appropriate. But, as ever, this President uses this opportunity not to bring diverse people together but to further divide them; perhaps, even to drive a stake through the heart of reality.
Obama literally talks only about Muslims who have recently been slaughtered; he does not mention, even in passing, the fact that infidels have also been slaughtered and that the slaughterers have all been Muslim Jihadists.
He fails to note that Muslim-on-Muslim violence is embedded in the history and character of Islam; that the Sunni-Shiia religious war is even more fratricidal than ever before; and that Western “Caucasians” did not cause this and probably cannot cure it.
BIN-OpEd-Experts-300x250(1)Again, Obama harps on “a rise in attacks against Muslim Americans.” Say what?  This is simply not so; what is true, which he fails to mention, concerns the precipitous rise in anti-Jewish attacks.
The President insists that “Muslim Americans have been part of our American family since its founding.” Here I pause, take a deep breath, and understand that what he means is that some of the black Africans whom other black Africans once so treacherously sold into slavery in the New World had previously been converted to Islam via the sword.
This must be what he means. He cannot mean that native-Indians were Muslims, can he? Or that pre-revolutionary British pilgrims, indentured servants, farmers, mercenaries, were Muslims, can he? Whom else can he be talking about?
Obama does not come right out and quote his mentors: Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright on this point. Perhaps he is thinking about Steven Spielberg’s stirring film Amistad, in which the rebel slaves cry “Allah, Allah” and insist on burying one of their dead “according to their (unnamed) religion.”
Obama claims that his “prayers are with the hundreds of innocent lives, many of them Muslim, taken during the month of Ramadan.”
First, far more than mere “hundreds” died in Jihadist attacks this month of Ramadan.
Second, why does he fail to mention that non-Muslims, infidels i.e. Christians, Jews, (Jews in Israel too), Hindus (in India) secularists, gays, (everywhere) were also innocent and slaughtered by Islamist Jihadists?
Obama states: “Muslims Americans are as diverse as our nation itself…Eid celebrations around the country remind us of our proud history as a nation built by people of all backgrounds; our history of religious freedom and civil liberties, and our history of innovation and strength. These legacies would not be possible without the contributions of Muslim Americans that make our country even stronger.”
Islam is not a religion of peace or of tolerance for other religions. If radical reformers have their way perhaps one day this might change; but until then–reality demands that we note how intolerant Muslim leaders, Muslim mobs, and Muslim history have been to those of other religions.
Dangerously, demonically, intolerant.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Israel National News

Read more at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19153#FAWWy5X32zgJsY5Z.99

Hillary Did Have Intent On Violating Security




image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Hillary-TW.jpg
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
FBI Director James Comey let Hillary Clinton off the hook, but his explanation of why may prove to be even more politically damaging than an indictment. And his comments support what one of the people most familiar with the Clintons, Bill Clinton’s childhood friend and former lover Dolly Kyle, has long alleged.
The presumptive Democratic Party nominee is suffering from a “cognitive impairment.”
In testimony before Congress on Thursday, Comey said Hillary Clinton was not just careless, but implied she didn’t understand the importance of the information she was handling.
U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., asked Comey if a “sophisticated” person would understand the importance of handling very sensitive information. Noting Clinton signed documents from the FBI, which acknowledged the importance of appropriately handling classified information, DeSantis asked how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could possibly have thought having an unsecured private server was appropriate.
Comey responded with a bombshell that cuts to the heart of Hillary Clinton’s competence.
Comey stated: “Well, I want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication. I don’t think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment.”
DeSantis replied, “Isn’t she an original classification authority, though?”
While she was secretary of state, Clinton would, as an “original classification authority,” have had the authority to designate certain information as Secret or Top Secret, implying extra responsibility for her to safeguard her own records.
Comey responded, “Yes, sir. Yes, sir.”
“Good grief!” replied a stunned DeSantis.
Other testimony revealed Hillary Clinton used multiple devices while secretary of state to store information, failed to return all work-related emails to the State Department as she had claimed and had sent classified email on her own email system. Nonetheless, Comey refused to recommend charges, telling members of Congress it would not be “fair.” He also implied she simply didn’t know the severity of what she was doing wrong.
Dolly Kyle, a childhood friend of “Billy” Clinton who had a romantic relationship with the former president for several years, even after Bill and Hillary were married, said that situation is precisely backward. Kyle, a former award-winning lawyer in Texas, slammed Comey’s contention Hillary Clinton did not intend to break the law.
“The law that Hillary violated did not require ‘intent,'” she told WND.
The author of “Hillary The Other Woman” said Hillary Clinton is characterized by a combination of carelessness, ignorance and entitlement.
“Hillary’s lack of the most minimal technological knowledge not only illustrates her increasing cognitive impairment, but it also illustrates her lifelong above-it-all arrogance,” she said. “Hillary does not need to know what the little details mean because none of those details apply to her and none of the requirements of the law apply to her, as we have seen for the past 30 years.”

In “Hillary The Other Woman,” Kyle assembles a formidable case Hillary Clinton’s mental ability is beginning to deteriorate, as the candidate has shown emotional instability, memory loss and difficulty planning and carrying out tasks. Kyle also details how Hillary Clinton’s troublesome temperament has manifested over the years, including her long history of what Kyle calls a “pathological” tendency to lie, even where there is nothing to be gained.
More importantly, Kyle alleges Hillary Clinton has an inability to handle situations spontaneously and without a script.
“Note her irate response about Benghazi, when she yelled, ‘What difference does it make?'” said Kyle. “Hillary Clinton has not had a press conference since December 4, 2015. She’s terrified to have a press conference because she is unable to listen attentively to a question and formulate an answer under pressure. Don’t forget, she recently even read the word ‘sigh’ when reading off the teleprompter!
“She has now told so many lies on so many topics on so many different occasions that even if she were playing with a full deck, she would have trouble pulling out the right card.”
Kyle predicts Hillary will be forced to rely increasingly on Bill Clinton.
“They used to say when ‘Billy’ was running and Hillary was by his side, that we were getting ‘two for the price of one,'” she said. “This time around, the bargain is two outdated, technologically incompetent, out-of-touch, power-hungry, money-grubbing globalists who have consistently lied to the American people. They have sold out the American people in their self-serving, addictive grasp for more power and more money.”
Kyle argued Hillary Clinton is on the brink of both physical and medical collapse and referred to the former first lady’s reliance on powerful medicine to fight blood clots and the evidence she is suffering from “post-concussion syndrome.”
She also did not rule out a surprise withdrawal of Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.
“I truly believe that the issue of Hillary’s increasing cognitive impairment, if driven home and widely publicized, would be sufficient to cause many of the Democratic superdelegates to back away from her,” she said. “It would not be a political decision for them then, but more a matter of medical practicality. At some point, many people have to decide to take responsibilities away from a parent who is no longer able to handle important life matters.”
Regardless, Kyle said the American people cannot allow someone who she believes may be mentally incapable of handling responsibility to become commander in chief.
“Hillary has already proven that she is incapable of playing with matches after the disasters she set in motion in Libya and throughout the Middle East,” Kyle said. “She is too cognitively impaired to recognize and appreciate the potential consequences of her actions. We cannot let the cognitively impaired Hillary Clinton escalate from playing with matches as secretary of state to controlling the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America as commander in chief. Clinton’s Muslim aide Huma Abedin, with her Muslim Brotherhood family, would become the shadowy figure in control.
“Anyone who cannot see the danger there is probably on the way to cognitive impairment as well.”

Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-testimony-reveals-hillarys-cognitive-impairment/#P86RDKuSm6qvti68.99

The US Will Lose The Jihad War As It Cannot Come To Identify Its Enemies

The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis


Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is reportedly being vetted by Donald Trump as a potential running mate, was fired as head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military. Here he tells the real story of his departure from his post and why America is not getting any closer to winning the war on terror.
Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).
I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.
I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.
At the time, I was working very hard to change the culture of DIA from one overly focused on Washington, DC, to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders. It was not an easy shift, but it was necessary and exactly the reason I was put into the job in the first place.
In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are).
I would not change a lick how I operate. Our country has too much at stake.
We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.
That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.
If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.
As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will.
This approach is doomed. We have real enemies, dedicated to dominating and eventually destroying us, and they are not going to be talked out of their hatred. Iran, for example, declared war on the United States in 1979 — that’s 37 years ago — and has been killing Americans ever since. Every year, the State Department declares Iran to be the world’s primary supporter of terror. Do you think we’ll nicely and politely convince them to be good citizens and even (as President Obama desires) a responsible ally supporting peace? Do you think ISIS or the Taliban wants to embrace us?
No, we’re not going to talk our way out of this war, nor can we escape its horrors. Ask the people in San Bernardino or South Florida, or the relatives of the thousands killed on 9/11. We’re either going to win or lose. There is no other “solution.”
I believe we can and must win. This war must be waged both militarily and politically; we have to destroy the enemy armies and combat enemy doctrines. Both are doable. On military battlefields, we have defeated radical Islamic forces every time we have seriously gone after them, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their current strength is not a reflection of their ability to overwhelm our armed forces, but rather the consequence of our mistaken and untimely withdrawal after demolishing them.
We have failed to challenge their jihadist doctrines, even though their true believers only number a small fraction of the Muslim world, and even though everybody, above all most living Muslims, knows that the Islamic world is an epic failure, desperately needing economic, cultural and educational reform of the sort that has led to the superiority of the West.
So first of all, we need to demolish the terror armies, above all in the Middle East and Libya. We have the wherewithal, but lack the will. That has to change. It’s hard to imagine it happening with our current leaders, but the next president will have to do it.
As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will. After defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we should have challenged the Islamic world and asked: “How did we win? Did Allah change sides?”
We need to denounce them as false prophets, as we insist on the superiority of our own political vision. This applies in equal measure to the radical secular elements of the enemy coalition. Is North Korea some sort of success story? Does anyone this side of a university seminar think the Cuban people prefer the Castros’ tyranny to real freedom? Is Vladimir Putin a model leader for the 21st-century world?
Just as the Muslim world has failed, so the secular tyrants have wrecked their own countries. They hate us in part because they know their own peoples would prefer to live as we do. They hope to destroy us before they have to face the consequences of their many failures.
Remember that Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government.
It infuriates me when our president bans criticism of our enemies, and I am certain that we cannot win this war unless we are free to call our enemies by their proper names: radical jihadis, failed tyrants, and so forth.
With good leadership, we should win. But we desperately need good leaders to reverse our enemies’ successes.
Flynn is the author of the new book, “The Field of Flight,” (St. Martin’s Press), out Tuesday.

Black Leaders Must Lead Against Black On Black Crime First. Once Black Violence Is Reduced, Cops Will Be Less Fearful

Rudy Giuliani: Black Lives Matter Is 'Inherently Racist'

Image: Rudy Giuliani: Black Lives Matter Is 'Inherently Racist' Rudy Guiliani (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
By Cathy Burke   |   Sunday, 10 Jul 2016 01:09 PM
The Black Lives Matter movement is "inherently racist" – and African Americans must deal with "how and what they're doing" among themselves about crime in their own communities, Rudy Giuliani said Sunday.

In a interview on CBS News'  'Face The Nation,' the former New York City mayor derided the slogan for the black activist group.
"That's anti-American and it's racist. Of course black lives matter, and they matter greatly," Giuliani said in a sharp exchange with host John Dickerson.

"But when you focus in on 1 percent of less than 1 percent of the murder that's going on in America and you make it a national thing, and all of you in the media make it much bigger than the black kid that's getting killed in Chicago every 14 hours, you create a disproportion."

African Americans must explain "how and what they're doing among themselves about the crime problem in the black community," he insisted. "If you want to protect black lives, then you've got to protect black lives not just against police."
Latest News Update
Special:
Police killing black people "happens rarely although with tremendous attention," he declared, but black-on-black violence, "happens every 14 hours in Chicago, and we never hear from Black Lives Matter."

"If I were a black father and I was concerned about the safety of my child, really concerned about it and not in a politically activist sense," he said. "I would say 'be very respectful to the police, most of them are good, some can be very bad and just be very careful.'

"I'd also say 'be very careful of those kids in the neighborhood, don't get involved with them because son, there's a 99 percent chance they're going to kill you not the police.'"

Giuliani said solving both police brutality — and anti-police violence — will have to involve looking "differently at race" and trying "to understand each other."
White people, he added, have to understand "that African American men have a fear — and boys have a fear — of being confronted by the police because of some of these incidents."

"Some people may consider it rational, some people may consider it irrational," he added. "But it's a reality, it exists."
© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-racist/2016/07/10/id/737959/#ixzz4E4317Wgn