Fake Bomb Plot??? Very suspicious!

IT STINKS OF HIGH HEAVEN!

I leave you with a thought.

According to Steven Emerson, the "bombs" were found disabled with wires hanging loose. They were found not in the USA - but in Dubai and the UK. In Arabia and England. CNN said the bombs were "operational." I suppose this hype is in concert from instructions from up high. In contrast to terror expert Steve Emerson's opinion.

It was reported that none other than the Saudis notified the Obama Administration about the plot. Natch. The "bombs" had loose wires and were amateurishly constructed. No one knows where the bombs came from. No perps are connected to them other than from allegations from the president. No one took credit for the "bombs." They didn't explode and couldn't explode. No other intel agency is providing information or confirmation of legitimacy to the story. In other words, it seems to be much ado about nothing.

Wherefrom the Saudi Connection?

And why? 

Why now, three days before the elections?

ANSWER:

The Jewish Vote and Jewish Money that gets presidents and Democratic congressmen and senators elected.

American Jews have been disappointed by Obama for good reason and have been fleeing the Democratic Party in droves, their numbers dropped from over 80% support in 2008 to below 40% today. It's election time friends. Just a reminder.

Because of Obama's estranging America from Israel to the benefit of the Arabs and no one else - the Saudis to be specific - they are losing the Jewish vote and Jewish funds. Wall Street money for example, supported Obama three to one in 2008. Wall Street today is no longer supporting Obama and "Friends." In fact, among the four major Jewish fund managers who all supported Obama, not one is on his side today. Among those about to lose their seats in Congress are Jewish politicians.

Think of the TIMING for this fabricated "crisis" that began with Saudi notification, the collapsing Israeli-Palestinian "Peace" Talks, the estrangement of Jews from the Democratic Party partially because of Obama's anti-Israeli policies, partially because of his mishandling of the economy and other foreign policy, and the upcoming Tuesday's elections when desperate Democrats will be decimated even as they are about to bus the living-dead to the polls.

NOTE: Nothing was found on the jetliner that was escorted by Canadian and American fighter jets into JFK Airport.

F-15 Fighter just like the two that escorted the Emirates plane into JFK airport.

The news conferences were hastily called to "impress" the public, this accompanied by photographs of the "bombs." Tonight we see reports on CNN showing planes being blown up by bombs. No connection to these non-bombs. This is investigative reporting by innuendo. There is no evidence that these bombs could have done any serious harm, no evidence that they were valid plants by terrorists.

The so-called "targets" were synagogues in Chicago - Obama's home town.

The targets were Jews.

Was this the optimum time for Obama do "do something for the Jews" to deflect criticism and "mend things?"

After all, he stopped Jews from being blown up while worshipping. He "saved": Jewish lives.

I have a bridge to sell you.

You know the answer. I know the answer.  Most of America will eventually find out.

This terrorist plot appears to be a hoax.  A fabrication. It was conveniently timed for the upcoming elections and aimed at America's Jews who vote. If it was a conspiracy, as it may indeed be, I can't prove it, it was a conspiracy between friends. Not friends of America or the Jews.

Speaking only for myself, this scenario appears to be just like the election of 2008. A con job.

Orchestrated. Media supported Hope and Change.

What I see is shameless sensationalism, a staged production, and the media's willful reluctance to not investigate any of it.

There are no questions. Only answers.

What we have here is a government "story" that the mainstream is happily and cluelessly validating and hyping.

It is propaganda.

Take my word: No perps will ever be found. 

- AGB

DHS swears in an Islamist

DHS swears in an Islamist Elections have consequences  On the weekend before the crucial mid-term elections, we bring you the juxtaposition of two recent events. First, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in three new members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council—one of whom, Mohamed Elibiary, was a speaker at a 2004 event honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini! When a Dallas Morning News reporter exposed Elibiary, Elibiary threatened him. Incredibly, Elibiary is someone Napolitano believes should now be on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Second, two weeks ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in an obvious reference to the tidal wave of Muslim immigrants to Germany, made the stunning statement that multiculturalism in Germany has “totally failed.” This is emblematic of the broader pushback against the rising threat of radical Islam that is occurring throughout Europe—except, as celebrated author Melanie Phillips points out, in Great Britain (see story below). Europe is beginning to understand the threat of radical Islam. More and more of the American people are beginning to understand the threat of radical Islam. Unfortunately, it is clear that much of the Obama administration, as illustrated by Napolitano’s latest blunder, does not. Elections have consequences. Please remember this when you vote. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7684/pub_detail.asp October 19, 2010 Britain: Groveling Alone Melanie Phillips Angela Merkel has got the point. Multiculturalism has failed, she states flatly, as she surveys western Europe going down under the tide of radical Islam. Rather than liberal society creating the utopia of harmonious cultural pluralism, it is being swallowed whole by the giant predator whose voracious mouth it encourages, in the spirit of tolerance, to open ever wider in the unshakeable belief of western liberals that the jaws about to snap shut around their necks are actually stretched wide in a smile. All over mainland Europe, a few shoes are belatedly – maybe too late -- starting to drop. France and Belgium have banned the burqa and other countries are debating doing the same. Switzerland has banned minarets. Denmark has imposed ferocious limits on immigration. In the Netherlands the prosecution in the case against the Dutch politician Geert Wilders for allegedly inciting religious hatred -- through his criticism of Islamic hatred -- has thrown in the towel and asked the judges to acquit him of all charges. See here for an authoritative analysis of the significance of this. And so what of dear old Blighty, the country which in 1940 stood alone against the threat to democratic life and liberty and the values of western liberalism? Is the shoe of reality starting to drop in the UK too? A report by Quilliam about City University, central London, states that a hard-line Islamist ideology is being promoted through the leadership of the university’s student Islamic Society, leading to increased religious tensions on campus and to the intimidation and harassment of staff, students and members of minority groups by extremists and increasing the risks of students turning to terrorism. Ahmadi Muslims in south London have been targeted by Islamists in a hate campaign, and a Muslim woman in Bradford has died after being set on fire (via JihadWatch), underlining the fact that Muslims are themselves front-line victims of Islamic jihadis and sharia law. And in the Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan continues to chronicle the remorseless takeover of an entire London borough, Tower Hamlets, by the radicals of the Islamic Forum of Europe using intimidation, infiltration and corruption: According to one of its own leaflets, the IFE – based at the hardline East London Mosque in Tower Hamlets – wants to change the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.’ The group is accused by one of the area’s Labour MPs, Jim Fitzpatrick, of infiltrating and ‘corrupting’ his party in a way similar to the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. The response of other newspapers to what’s going on in Tower Hamlets? As far as I can make out, deafening silence. And what is the response of the rest of the British thinking classes to this and countless other signs of increasing Islamisation and Islamic radicalisation in Britain? The hitherto resolutely counter-counter-cultural think-tank Civitas, which in the past has produced some outstanding social and cultural analysis, has just published a set of essays on Women, Islam and Western Liberalism in which one author, Alveena Malik, states that the full-face Islamic veil, or niqab, should be regarded ‘...as part of a modern British way of life.’ She continued: ‘The wearing of religious symbols, including the full veil, should be a fundamental human right of an individual in both the public and private sphere. The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: “Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?”’ Britain is in a ‘unique’ position to embrace such a public display of faith because of the role the church plays in the affairs of the state and its ‘multicultural diversity’. To be fair, the Civitas pamphlet contains other views which profoundly disagree with this. Even so, the idea that advocating as ‘part of the British way of life’ the niqab, which presents such an obvious danger to security as well as intimidating non-radical Muslim women, inciting religious subversion by serving as a symbolic call to arms against western values and destroying the equality inherent in human interaction by virtue of the simple act that we can all see each other’s faces – the idea that this is, as Civitas appears to suggest, a contribution towards liberal diversity, is simply grotesque. And here’s the thing: the Telegraph also tells us: Mrs Malik was appointed by last government to a panel of faith advisers for the Department for Communities. She has overseen British Council guidance on ‘intercultural dialogue’. It looks horribly like, seventy years on, Britain is now once again alone -- this time, though, not standing but grovelling on its knees before those bent upon the extinction of freedom.

U.S. Islamic jurists sanction marital rape

American Muslim jurists  rule that forcing a wife to have sex is not rape Exposing their ignorance, there have been those in the media who have arrogantly dismissed Oklahoma’s proposed amendment that would prohibit its courts from using sharia law in deciding cases. They assert that there is no threat from sharia to America. We beg to differ. As our friend and historian Andrew Bostom notes in his column below, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has ruled that a husband forcing his wife to have sexual relations is not rape. Scroll down to the highlighted segment to read their fatwa on this matter. As you read it, remember—this is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of AMERICA—not Iran or Saudi Arabia. If you would like to help out our efforts to win passage of the ballot initiative in Oklahoma, where we have been running a radio ad statewide for nearly two weeks and doing hundreds of thousands of automated calls, please click here. http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2010/10/14/sharia-sanctioned-marital-rape-in-britain%E2%80%94and-north-america/ Sharia-Sanctioned Marital Rape in Britain—And North America Posted By Andrew Bostom On October 14, 2010 [1] Britain’s Sharia Council Avatars of Islamic Misogyny (Maulana Abu Sayeed being seated second, going from right to left) As reported in the UK Independent [2] (10/14/10), president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, has reiterated alarming comments made during a March, 2010 interview [3], sanctioning marital rape. Sheikh Sayeed was in fact responding to an inchoate effort at modernizing the contracts which govern Muslim marriages in Britain. The good Sheikh, representing Britain’s main Islamic Sharia court, the Islamic Sharia Council [4], promptly published a rebuttal of the contract, which included a statement on sexual abuse (page 6 here [5]). He opined [3] in the March interview: Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.” He further rejected both the characterization of non-consensual marital sex as rape, and the prosecution of such offenders as “not Islamic.” Sheikh Sayeed, who came to Britain from Bangladesh in 1977, also brazenly expressed his Sharia-supremacism and accompanying disdain for Western, i.e., British Law, stating …to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values. Sayeed re-affirmed these sentiments to The UK Independent [2]: In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape. Crowing with pride during his March 2010 interview [3], Sheikh Sayeed maintained, No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board. At present there are 16 main sharia courts around Britain, located in Birmingham, Bradford, and Ealing in West London. These institutions are “complemented” by more informal sharia-based tribunals—the think tank Civitas asserting that up to 85 tribunals currently exist [6] in Britain. But for those who naively—and smugly—proclaim such phenomena are absent within the Muslim communities of North America, consider AMJA, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America [7]. AMJA’s mission statement claims the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.” In response to the specific query, “Is there a such thing as Marital Rape?,” the AMJA issued fatwa #2982 [8]: In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed: For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable. An ocean apart from Britain—now a recognized Western hotbed for “Islamic fundamentalism”—the same Sharia-sanctioned misogynistic bigotry prevails in a North American clerical organization openly advising US and Canadian Muslims.

NPR, tax funding, and sharia law

Time to stop taxpayer funding of NPR  Sign our Open Letter to Congress today! Nearly 9,000 have signed so far  Regardless of whether one listens to NPR or not, or likes NPR or not, there’s one thing we should all be able to agree on: NPR’s sacking last week of Juan Williams was an egregious offense to our First Amendment. It was all the more egregious because NPR receives a portion of its funding from us—the taxpayers. This isn’t about liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. As we noted in our Friday email, NPR’s action goes beyond the “usual” political correctness. It is in effect a capitulation to the demands of sharia law that no critique or criticism of Islam or Mohammed be allowed. NPR’s claim that it doesn’t allow the expression of “opinions” by its commentators rings hollow. Of course it does—so long as they toe a certain politically correct line. Several Members of Congress have publicly proclaimed that it’s time to stop the taxpayer funding of NPR. We agree. Therefore, we are urging you to click here to read our one-page “Open Letter to Congress,” calling for an end to taxpayer funding of NPR. Please sign this letter today and forward this email to everyone you know. If NPR wants to kowtow to sharia’s suppression of speech, it should do so without any taxpayer funding.

NPR, Juan Williams, and sharia

NPR, Juan Williams, and sharia law Contact NPR today!  Our email yesterday focused on how sharia law’s prohibition against any critique or criticism of Islam or Mohammed is negatively impacting our nation’s ability to publicly discuss and debate the issue of radical Islam. Almost as if on cue, National Public Radio sacked commentator Juan Williams because of remarks he made on The O’Reilly Factor Monday. This goes beyond political correctness. This is a media company, partially financed with our tax dollars, in effect doing the bidding of sharia law. American newspapers that refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons did the same thing. With these actions they betrayed the first amendment while capitulating to the demands of sharia law. Particularly disturbing is that there is the appearance that NPR was kowtowing to CAIR, the Council-on American Islamic Relations, which quickly organized a public relations effort demanding NPR “address” Juan Williams’ remarks. (To see the CAIR media release, click here.) CAIR is the organization whose co-founder, Omar Ahmad, is on record declaring “the Qur’an should be the highest authority in America,” and whose chief spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, has said he would like the government of America to be Islamic sometime in the future. We urge you to contact NPR and express your outrage, in a firm but civil tone, at this politically correct assault on freedom of speech.      •   NPR “Listener Care” phone number: 202.513.3232.      •   Or, click here to send an email. Let NPR know the American people will not sit idly by while a taxpayer-funded media company runs roughshod over the First Amendment. And watch for our email on Monday, when we will announce our next action step!

What is Muslim Free Speech?

Why Islamists suppress free speech Recent forum and debate expose this Achilles heel DAny critique or expose’ of Islam is usually met with name-calling (e.g., “Islamophobia”) from Islamists and their enablers, rather than rational or factual responses and rebuttals. There are at least two reasons for this. First, sharia law does not provide for nor protect free speech. Criticism of Islam, Allah or Mohammed is a criminal offense. When Muslims attempt to suppress free speech critiques of Islam they are abiding by sharia law, and insisting that we non-Muslims bow before sharia law as well. They frequently get furious when we refuse to do so. Second, as two examples below will attest, public discourse and debates about radical Islam reveal the truth that Islamists don’t want Americans to see. Hence, they rant, rave, and name call in the hopes of demonizing those who dare to expose the truth so as to keep the truth from the American people. Two recent events reveal why Islamists and their enablers avoid genuine debate. A recent event held in Des Moines, Iowa, entitled “A Forum on Being An American Muslim,” produced a very illuminating exchange, where ACT! for America chapter leader Steve Kirby’s question about sharia law and free speech was completely ignored by the Muslim moderator. The moderator went so far as to prevent Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a reformist Muslim, from answering the question by taking the microphone from him! To read Steve’s short summary of this incident, please click here. (You will need Adobe Acrobat to open the PDF). A recent debate was held in New York, debating the motion “Is Islam a religion of peace?” To view this fascinating debate, please click here. Prior to the debate, the audience members were polled as to their position on the motion. 41% were for the motion 25% were against the motion 34% were undecided After the debate, the audience was polled again. Check out these eye-popping results! 36% were for the motion (a decrease of 5 percentage points) 55% were against the motion (an increase of 30 percentage points) 9% were undecided In other words, after seeing only one debate, most of the undecideds and some of those who initially agreed that “Islam is a religion of peace” changed their positions to opposing the motion.

Believe it, new FILM, Barack Obama meets Ronald Reagan and they have a chat!

 

FILM!

OBAMA MEETS REAGAN.  IN A THEATER NEAR YOU, OPENING TODAY!

Subject: IN THEATERS NOW: "I Want Your Money" - A Movie You CAN'T Afford to Miss



The Nation Magazine




Today, I WANT YOUR MONEY – the highly anticipated, hilarious Obama exposé that everyone is talking about - opens in movie theaters nationwide. If you’re tired of Obama’s big-government-tax-and-spend policies, YOU WILL LOVE THIS MOVIE!

Stephen Moore of the Wall St. Journal called it,
“A must see for Americans!”

MovieGuide called it,
"Hilarious, highly informative and inspiring!"
Former Attorney General Ed Meese called it
a “great film; entertaining and very clever!”


And you don't have to be Christian to enjoy this. You can be a Muslim or a Jew, A Buddhist or Hindu, or believe in nothing and actually learn something! If you're a "liberal" you'll probably sober up without a 12 step program and learn everything you never knew!


Click here to find a theater near you:
http://christianmediaonline.info/dbm83/l.php?225292&4095114

Click here to view the trailer:
http://christianmediaonline.info/dbm83/l.php?225293&4095114
(over 3.5 million people have watched the trailer so far!)

*PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY & SEE THE MOVIE THIS OPENING WEEKEND: Oct 15-17

ABOUT THE MOVIE:
I WANT YOUR MONEY is a controversial new film about the competing economic visions championed by Presidents Reagan and Obama –  a duel of speeches, wit, animation and narrative that leaves audiences laughing, cheering, yelling... and engages them in the national conversation about the mounting national debt, and why it matters.  After all, IT’S YOUR MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING.


Including insightful interviews with Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Ed Meese, Mike Huckabee, John Stossel, Michael Reagan, Congressmen Tom McClintock, Thad McCotter and former California governor Pete Wilson, among many others, EXPLAINING CLEARLY WHY OBAMA’S PLAN HAS FAILED, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO RECOVER.

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:

“This is not your usual (boring) political documentary. It’s engaging and funny, even as it conveys a serious message about economics and politics.”
- Hans A. von Spakovsky, National Review

“This film will make all American taxpayers laugh, think and, I hope, act to save our jobs, our economy and our future.”
- Grover G. Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

“A Tea Party party!”
- Kara Swisher, Wall Street Journal

“Barack Obama meets Ronald Reagan, in the Oval Office!”
- Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner

"Ray Griggs' I WANT YOUR MONEY has achieved the impossible: making the federal government's insatiable appetite for the fruits of your labor both enlightening and entertaining."
- U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter, Republican House Policy Com mittee Chairman

“Why don’t politicians think like us when it comes to money? Watch I WANT YOUR MONEY to find out -- and do it before the next election.”
- Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women For America

"I WANT YOUR MONEY exposes the venality of the Obama economic plan, but does so in a playful, lighthearted way. The result is that its humor is as devastating as its factual revelations."
- Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring

“A sobering yet humorous look at the damage we are doing to our country by shirking our moral responsibility on fiscal discipline."
- FRC Action President Tony Perkins

“Where's the lefty documentarian Michael Moore? A young conservative Moore wannabe is out with new movie, I WANT YOUR MONEY - pretty good, too!”
- Michael Medved, radio talk show host

"I WANT YOUR MONEY is brilliant, entertaining and very funny.  Responsible citizens of voting age should view I WANT YOUR MONEY as required viewing."
- Pete Wilson, former Governor of California, US Senator

“Visually inspiring, spiritually uplifting, bravely accurate and at times hysterically funny.“
- Kerri Houston Toloczko, Institute for Liberty

“A concise, viewable history of how America got into its economic mess and what policies will free our country's citizens to prosper once again.”
- David A Keene, President, American Conservative Union

“Educational yet fresh and entertaining."
-  Darla Dawald, National Director of ResistNet.com

Sent with permission by:
Christian Media Updates/BuzzPlant
709 W. Main St.
Franklin, TN 37064

March 29, 2005

Workers of the World Unite!!!

 

A friend of mine, with whom I often debate the merits of private accounts within Social Security, was recently offended by this portion of a Gregory Mankiw article in The New Republic:

The second reason the left hates personal accounts is that, over the long term, they could destroy one of its favorite battle cries: the alleged conflict between evil capitalists and oppressed workers. (“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”) No ambitious political figure today would be stupid enough to quote Marx, but let’s face it, much of the left’s rhetoric is a less elegant paraphrase of his worldview.

Social Security reform could put a stake through the heart of this populism once and for all. After workers develop an equity stake in corporate America, they will start watching CNBC and the “Nightly Business Report.” Their view of how they relate to the economy will fundamentally change. Bush understands this, and it is one reason he talks about an “ownership society.” Democratic leaders understand it as well.Their biggest fear is that a nation of stockholders could easily morph into a nation of Republicans.

The association between Marx and the modern-day left he felt was a cheap shot, and in many ways I agree. It was an easy way for Mankiw to label the opponents of partial privatization, making them guilty by association before any facts were presented.

While I do agree with Mankiw that the flawed ideas of Marx (and Adam Smith for that matter) have had a profound effect on current political philosophies, I believe the case for voluntary personal accounts can stand on its own two feet.

Let's keep the debate to the facts (ala the second paragraph quoted above and the many more good points in the article) and I have no doubt that Americans will be convinced of the benefits of PSAs.

But given the context of the discussion above, I had to laugh when I saw the cover of The Nation as I passed an airport newsstand this weekend:




Do you think The Nation, like Mankiw, would be taken more seriously if they stopped the references to Marx?

October 17: Iraqi PM al Maliki said that Iranian intervention, interference and enabling of terrorism is DESTABILIZING Iraq & the Palestinian Territories!

Today on Fareed Zakaria on CNN, broadcast world wide, Iraqi PM al Maliki said that Iranian intervention, interference and enabling of terrorism is DESTABILIZING Iraq and the Palestinian Territories! This is coming DIRECTLY from the mouth of the Iraqi PM, a Shiite (Iranian) branch of Islam and a friend of Iran. In other words, American withdrawal from Iraq is, shall I put it mildly, premature. Draw your own conclusions about snatching defeat out of the mouth of victory.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/
AL Q'AEDA ADMITS DEFEAT!

MAY OUR SOULS BE SACRIFICED FOR YOU!

Al Q'aeda's new English speaking magazine INSPIRE, a professionally-produced magazine for faithful Jihadists like yours truly, cover and pages reproduced below, admitted that for all intents and purposes al Q'aeda has been defeated with the exception of small operations in Afghanistan. From the magazine you can learn how to make bombs in your mom's kitchen.

The violence in Lebanon, Yemen, and the DISPUTED territories in ISRAEL, according to Iraqi PM al Malaki and every sane person, is promoted by Iran - not al Q'aeda. Al Q'aeda's American spokesman recommends their international cells to give up spectacular operations such as blowing up entire cities, after all they have all failed, and get real: shootings in cafeterias and the use of kitchen knives with which they should go on stabbing sprees. I'm reminded daily why Americans say: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. It should get really interesting as fifteen Americans with .50 Desert Eagles blow away the towel head as he runs about screaming Allahu Akhbar!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/american-al-qaeda-proud-traitor/story?id=11855126

Now the only question remaining is, WHO exactly defeated al Q'aeda? Was he this man?:                              

      

Or....May I suggest a clue for "liberals" and libertarians who actually believe their own drivel:


LESSON: Never pick up a liberal.
He will either curse you or cry when
the truth is told him!

NEXT: You may have not heard, but before America invaded the Muslim World, there never was war. Muslims never slaughtered Christians or Jews for 1400 years before America was Founded two hundred years ago. And here is TRUTH for ya: Every war America fought for was over lithium batteries for your iPods. Betcha didn't know that!
 

Two Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Theories about War: America Wants Control of the World and AA Batteries

2010 October 16

by Lisa Richards

Whether it’s Salon, LewRockwell.com, or the phony has-been wrestler Jesse Ventura, anti-war left-wingers insist America invented every war in existence, because America seeks world dominance and battery power.
These leftists are 9/11 truthers, birthers, and anti-Semites.  They are adored by white supremacists, and include every radical fringe element hiding in their mother’s basement.

Here are examples of  extremism by two leftists: Glenn Greenwald and Jesse Ventura.

1. War and Terror Never Existed Until George W. Bush

Bush Invented 9/11, Islamic Terror, and War

Radical Libertarian Lew Rockwell published Salon.com Glenn Greenwald’s latest column, “They Hate Us For Our Occupations,” claiming America created violence in the Muslim world by being a war-mongering occupier.

Rockwell advertised the anti-war piece as “What is Wrong with Muslims?” But Rockwell and Salon never discuss the fact that Islam has consistently attacked the West for 1,400 years, attempting world domination and extermination of Jews and Christians; rather, the two spew anti-American hate, calling America an imperialist conqueror justifying illegal wars by using Islamic terrorism as an excuse.

The column starts by rehashing Greenwald’s 2009 Salon piece, “A Rumsfeld-Era Reminder About What Causes Terrorism,”:

The primary rationale for remaining—and escalating [the war]—in Afghanistan is the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything the U.S. has done since 2001: Terrorism.  Apparently, the way to solve the Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops into a Muslim country and committing to at least five more years of war there.  That, so the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us safer.

Leftists claim it’s anti-American to retaliate against threats and attacks, contending that George W. Bush invented Islamic violence in 2001.  Greenwald needs to re-read history. America has been attacked by Islam for 40 years: from the late 1960’s to 9/11, with attacks still continuing.  Before 9/11, America negotiated, arrested, and imprisoned as if terrorism is a misdemeanor.

Now we provide terrorists the U.S. court system so they can sue after attacking us.

The Iraq War is considered illegal Bush/Cheney/Obama war-mongering and mass murder, despite Saddam’s decades of mass murdering.  No matter, he was never a threat; Saddam pretended to gas, torture, imprison, and bury humans in mass graves.  Civilians never died in war until 2001.  America is the threat.

Greenwald claims Rumsfeld’s Commission report proves America created Islamic violence:

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact …the administration’s policies—specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism.   They issued a report in September, 2004…it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive… worsening the terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.  The Task Force…[said] the ’underlying sources of threats to America’s national security…’ [are]  the ‘negative attitudes’ towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and ‘the conditions that create them…’ what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and…the threat of Terrorism?  ‘American direct intervention in the Muslim world’ –through our ‘one sided support in favor of Israel…’ and… ‘the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan…

The Task Force took sides with Islam over Israel, giving Islamic violence justification as American government officials apologized, yet again, for America fighting evil to save the world.

Typical leftists, be they radical libertarians or Democrats, do not support the prevention of terrorism: to do so is mass murder.  Radical libertarians only love America when they fight to lower taxes, end the Fed, and eliminate government excess. Other than that, they are fundamentally anti-American left-wingers.

Greenwald followed up the rant with his latest published in Salon.com and LewRockwell.com.  He writes:

[A] new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is…already bleedingly obvious and…known to the U.S. Government for many years:  namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather…foreign military occupations.

So Mohammad was a peaceful warmonger who lovingly slaughtered Jews?
Greenwald says Pape proves Islamic attacks against America are America’s fault:

We have lots of evidence…when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns, … and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign, further saying Obama has made suicide bombings increase with additional troop presence.

Obama increased suicide bombings?  No matter who is president, Islam has always attacked non-Muslims, and consistently bombs Israel for conquer. 

American Middle East presence does not escalate Islamic terror.  America is not 1,400 years-old.  Pape may want to research further if he wants an honest assessment of who actually started Middle Eastern and worldwide terror and why it continues to this day.
Greenwald snidely disagrees:

Isn’t Muslim culture just so bizarre, primitive, and inscrutable…they actually seem to dislike it when foreign militaries bomb, invade and occupy their countries, and Western powers interfere in their internal affairs by overthrowing and covertly manipulating their governments, imposing sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, and arming their enemies.  Therefore…the solution to Terrorism is…interfere more in their countries …continuing to occupy, bomb, invade, assassinate, lawlessly imprison and control them… that’s the only way we can Stay Safe.  There are people over there…angry at us for what we’re doing in their world…we need …[ more war] to eradicate the anger.  That’s the core logic of the War on Terror.  How is that working out?

Had America retaliated for prior attacks, perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented and America would not be dealing with threats from an Iranian dictator who massacres Muslims protesting in Tehran streets, while preventing Western coverage, because Islam-loving leftists might see what the Muslim world actually does to human beings.

2.  Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory: America Goes to War for Lithium Batteries



Phony wrestler-turned-failed mayor-turned-failed-governor, Jesse Ventura,  can now claim the title Official Leader of Libertarian Tin Foil Capped Conspiracy Theorists.

Ventura’s new theory: war for lithium, and it is by far the looniest.
Ventura knows why America went to war after 9/11: lithium.  Ventura claims the United States planned 9/11 in order to create wars against Afghanistan and Iraq “so we could steal their lithium for our batteries and computers.”

On Thursday October 14, 2010, Fox Business News’ Eric Bolling interviewed Ventura about his crazy theories, which proved nuttier by the minute, as Ventura claimed all wars are concocted, going so far as to claim Mainland China never invaded Japan, or vice versa. Rather, Japan was so desperate for war, they made up Chinese invasions as an excuse to invade America, who created Pearl Harbor for the excuse to enter World War II.

The fact Ventura was elected governor of a state proves this country needs to think twice when standing at the polls.

After decades of attacks on Americans and our military by the Muslim world, and 1,400 years of constant war against the Western world, America went to war against Afghanistan for one reason: America needs lithium to power laptops, cell phones, and mp3 players.  That is America’s excuse for fighting terrorism.

I just want to be clear, we did not go to war to stop terrorism or steal oil (we still have yet to acquire from Iraq); we are at war to save the AA batteries.
Ventura could use a different kind of lithium.

If the lithium theory is true, Afghanistan would be second in wealth to Saudi Arabia, making America crawl and beg for battery power.

Ventura is adamant about his leftist libertarian theories: America created 9/11 and blew up the World Trade Center.  Listening to Ventura rant about 9/11 conspiracies is no different than listening to Rosie O’Donnell’s steel can’t melt theory, which was debunked by scientists, or other Hollywood elitists, who claim the War On Terror was invented for money and world domination.   All leftists, be they Democrat or Radical Libertarian, believe America is the evil empire controlling the world and inventing wars for oil.

Bolling, who witnessed the attacks and lost friends, tried to reason with the nutty Prairie Home Companion to no avail.  Bolling said, “3,000 people died on 9/11,” to which Ventura loudly interjected: “That’s right, and who really killed them; who really killed them; who really killed them!”

Bowling replied: “Who really killed them?  It was radical Muslims who flew planes in the World Trade Center that killed them.”

Ventura angrily disagreed.  Ventura never gave substantial evidence to back up his theories, because none exists; all he did was prove conspiracy theorists are as unhinged as their wild, uneducated conspiracies.

The left-wing, anti-war Ventura needs to remove the tin foil cap and get out of his basement once in a while to see there is a specific group of people on the planet—Muslims— who hate non-Muslims (they murder their own trying to be free of the radical religion).  They have been trying to conquer the West over the last 1,400 years.  Islam does not care about oil or lithium; they live solely for Koran verses and the written demands taught to them by Imams.
America did not create Islamic violence or 9/11, history proves this, but Ventura staunchly disagrees.

To prove the U.S. blew up the World Trade Center and not Islam, Ventura pulled out a photo of the collapsing towers, asking Bolling, “what do you see, a collapsing building or a building being blown up?”  Bolling said he saw what he witnessed in person on 9/11: “buildings collapsing.”  Ventura angrily demanded the buildings “never collapsed, they were blown up by the U.S. government.”

Ventura insists 9/11 was planned: “it was our entrance into Afghanistan, because America needed lithium,” which is apparently abundant in Afghan mines.  We were desperate “to power” our American “batteries and computers,” so “America started a war so we could steal their lithium.”

Now it all makes sense to me.  George W. Bush was furious, because his TV remote went on the blink, so, he started a war just before the 2001 World Series began.  In fact he made sure the first game would be stalled so he could steal enough lithium for TV remotes, that way American men would not lose their minds and be forced to watch Lifetime TV for Women.

Bolling attempted logic with Ventura about the 9/11 attack, terrorism, and wars, but Ventura refused to hear any statistical evidence disproving the theories he needs to promote his new Conspiracy Theory TV show.

Ventura and Greenwald, like all leftists, believe wars are illegal, America invented war, 9/11 is America’s fault, we made it happen, and we are murderers stealing from other nations for super power.

These leftists prefer evil destroy the world they believe is a haven of natural resources America is trying to conquer.  The truth is, the Left needs war to breed Western guilt.  It funds expensive anti-war/anti-American protests, Web sites, and conspiracy theory TV shows used to claim America invented terror and Islamic violence.

Good Judgment: Bad Judgment

Bad judgment is the result of inexperience. Good judgment is the result of experience. One of our leaders has no experience and bad judgment are the results. In that other nation, on top of 4.5% economic growth and a higher ownership of private property, they will tack on another 2% of economic growth for the coming two years. Results cannot be argued.

Here is a plan for America. Just substitute the words, Israeli or Jewish and replace with America and American. Now Obama can use more or less this very same speech and launch America on a new century of prosperity, safety, strength, learning, and morality. We are, as they have always been, EXCEPTIONAL. We Americans are exceptional, and as you can see, we need to apply the very same rules and principles they have outlined for their world, for higher education, control of our borders, uncompromising national security, economic and moral revival, and NO MORE BS! Read on, We Shall be Redeemed as soon as an American Leader learns from the Israeli Leader and STANDS UP FOR AMERICA AS THE ISRAELI HAS. - AGB

http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechkneset111010.htmIt

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the Opening of the Knesset Winter Session Translation 11/10/2010 Photo by GPO It is not by chance that the portrait of the State visionary, Benjamin Zeev Herzl, hangs here, on the wall of the Israeli Knesset.  In 1896, Herzl wrote in his book, “The Jewish State”: “The Jews who are seeking a state will have a state.  Finally, we will live as free people on our own land.” I mentioned these things at the beginning of yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, along with several other key sentences from the history of our country, and because of their importance, I would like to repeat them here at the opening of this session of the Knesset of Israel. In 1947, 51 years after Herzl, on the eve of the establishment of the State of Israel, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary: “The state that will be established will be Jewish in its purpose, designation and objective; not a state of those Jews who reside in the country but a state for the Jews, for the Jewish People.” In 1992, in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the Knesset determined the following: “The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Members of Knesset, The State of Israel is, therefore, both the nation-state of the Jewish people and a democratic country for all its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, enjoying full equal rights. There is no country in our region that protects the individual rights of its citizens and the rights of their minorities like Israel’s democracy does. The Zionist movement established an exemplary democracy and established an exemplary nation-state, a country that balances the national needs of our people with the individual rights of each and every one of Israel’s citizens. There is no other democracy in the Middle East, and there is no other Jewish state in the world. The combination of these two values – a Jewish state and a democratic state – expresses the foundation of our existence and the essence of the State of Israel. I will expand on this point later on. My fellow Members of Knesset, During the Knesset Winter Session, we will continue dealing with the great tasks the State of Israel faces. We intend to pass a second two-year budget in the State of Israel. We succeeded in returning the economy to the path of growth and stability.  An additional two-year budget will help us continue these trends. We are moving forward with the transportation revolution, developing a road and train network in the Galilee and the Negev.  You all travel the nation’s roads.  You see this revolution taking shape, the tremendous amount of work being carried out in order to connect the South and the North and to ease traffic jams in the center of the country. We are beginning to implement the land reform, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of families in Israel will move from leasing their apartments and homes to full ownership of them. We will continue to advance legislation regarding the planning and construction reform in order to finally alleviate the bureaucratic complications that hinder the increase in the supply of land, and which provide a constant incentive to practice nepotism and corruption. The land reform, the planning and construction reform and the work being carried out in transportation will provide additional growth of between one and two percent per year, and I believe even more, to the GNP.  This means that we will have the resources to invest in the national needs that rightly interest the members of this house, especially two needs: security and education. We are launching a program to rehabilitate education, including higher education, in Israel.  Higher education in Israel is in desperate need of resources.  Within six years, we will add NIS 7.5 billion to higher education. This year, we will establish four centers of excellence at the universities out of the eventual 30 that will be established over the next several years.  These centers will gather together the most brilliant minds in Israel and abroad.  We are dealing with what is called “returning and nurturing minds” in the fields of the future, four in particular that we decided to focus on: finding fuel alternatives; the computer- and cyber-world; brain research; and unlocking the genetic code in order to cure diseases. We are beginning to adapt the elementary education system to the 21st century.  In the next two years, teleprocessing systems will be introduced into 900 elementary schools in the North and South, with an overall investment of NIS 420 million. We are not only teaching excellence, but also Zionism.  We are beginning the project to restore 150 heritage sites.  We have already begun work on historic sites in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and on kibbutzim, including: at the cemetery near the Kinneret where the poets Rachel and Naomi Shemer are buried; and in the auditorium where the Declaration of Independence was presented, on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv. I will visit these two places in the next week.  All Israeli children should visit them.  As always, knowing our past is the key to our future.  However, there is a need to deal with the pressing problems of the present as well. During the Winter Session, we will begin erecting the land obstacle in the south to prevent the massive infiltration of illegal job-seekers, something that threatens that character and identity of the State of Israel.  This is a necessary step to preventing the country from being flooded by parties that undermine our economy, as well as the unique structure we have built here. In the coming months, we will begin implementing the urban policing plan in order to promote law and order in all areas of the country, first and foremost in Lod. Last week, I visited Lod.  I heard the Jewish and the Arab residents beg for protection from crime families and from violence.  They want to send their children to school without fear; they want to go out in the evening without fear for their lives. They’re right.  Every Israeli citizen – Jew and non-Jew – deserves to enjoy personal safety. Soon the Government will hold a special meeting in Lod. We already decided to set up a web of cameras there and make it the pilot in the City Without Violence Project.  We did these two things in nearby Ramla, and vandalism and violence was reduced by approximately 50%.  At the same time, we will begin investing in developing infrastructure in the non-Jewish sector, investing an overall amount of NIS 800 million.  We will invest an additional NIS 250 million in order to create special programs encouraging the non-Jewish sector to acquire higher educations. As we promised, we are making significant changes to the economy, society, infrastructure, education and domestic safety. We will, of course, continue to do so and we will continue in our efforts to return our kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, to his family and to his people. Now, Members of Knesset, I will move on to the political arena. From the first day of the Government’s tenure, I called on the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to enter into direct peace talks with us without preconditions. In my speech at Bar-Ilan University, I outlined the principles for a peace agreement with the Palestinians: a demilitarized Palestinian state which recognizes the state of the Jewish people and lives beside it in peace. I believe that under the right conditions, the establishment of a Palestinian state could bring about peace, but if it is done in an irresponsible manner, the establishment of a Palestinian state could also be the cause for a worsening of the conflict and an increase in terror. In order for the compromise to lead to peace and not war, it must be accompanied by two fundamental components: recognition and security arrangements. When I say recognition, I mean Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.  This is not just stubbornness.  This is the root of the conflict and therefore a central foundation for resolving it. For 100 years, the Palestinians have taught entire generations to believe that there is no Jewish people, that this land is their homeland alone. The refusal to recognize the rights of the Jewish people and its historic connection to its land is the root of the conflict, and without dealing with it, there will be no end to the conflict. As to security, any peace agreement between the Palestinians and us must be based on strong security arrangements in the field. We left Lebanon and Gaza without such security arrangements, and we suffered thousands of rockets fired at the Negev and the Galilee. I am not willing to make do with peace on paper.  The citizens of Israel are also not willing to make do with that. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 from the end of the Second Lebanon War, withdrawal from the Philadelphi Route after the Disengagement, the positioning of international forces in the North and the South – none of these things prevented the firing of thousands of missiles at Israel, and the smuggling of tens of thousands of additional missiles by Iran into hostile territory surrounding us. I will not allow Iranian missiles to be positioned 500 meters from Kfar Saba, or scant kilometers from Ben-Gurion Airport. We live in a small country – very small.  Our small dimensions pose existential security problems – problems that are unique to Israel. We must not take these security problems too lightly, and we must not allow ourselves to be tempted by the illusion that a peace agreement, in and of itself, will resolve them. We once had peaceful, normal relations, relations which included exchanges of delegations, contact between leaders, trade relations, especially of petroleum, with an important country.  That country is called Iran. We also had wonderful, friendly relations with another country, with military cooperation, with full diplomatic relations, with visits by heads of state, with 400,000 Israeli visitors to that country.  That country is called Turkey.  I still we can rehabilitate and restore those relations, which have deteriorated against our will.  Things have changed in Iran, and unfortunately in other places as well, almost overnight, and no one can promise us that, despite our desire, a similar thing won’t happen after the establishment of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Therefore we must insist on strong security arrangements in the field, with determination and without fear, in order to ensure that the peace will be upheld in practice, and also in order to defend our existence in the unfortunate but possible case that the peace is violated. Peace and security are interwoven, and they are the principles which guide me.  I firmly insist on the need for both of them, and I see that an understanding of our security needs has finally begun to penetrate international debate, beyond general statements.  I speak of our specific needs.  I believe, Members of Knesset, that if we stand together on this front, united around these principles, I am convinced it will help us achieve a peace agreement. I believe that the unity surrounding these principles, which are so basic, so important and so real, can greatly advance our ability to achieve a peace agreement. Although the Palestinians did not answer my call to begin direct negotiations for over a year, we took action.  We removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints.  We encouraged impressive growth in the Palestinian economy – impressive by any standards, especially given the fact that at the same time the entire world was mired in recession and economic crisis. And as you know, we also suspended new construction in the Jewish settlements for ten months.   We did so with a heavy heart. We knew that this step would weigh heavily on our brothers and sisters, good and loyal Israeli citizens, taxpayers, participants in the Reserves, law-abiding citizens.  As the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated, it was an unprecedented move that no other government in Israel had taken before. But we said we would do it and we did it.  We enforced the moratorium with determination and without compromise.  For ten months. Unfortunately, the Palestinians wasted those ten months as well. Now they demand that we continue the moratorium as a condition to continuing the talks.  I hope they are not doing so to avoid   making the real decisions necessary for a peace agreement. Because they too will have to make difficult decisions.  I don’t belittle that.  I know what kind of decisions we will have to make, but I also know what kind of decisions they will have to make.  The only way to reach a peace agreement is to try, through direct talks, to bridge the gaps and make decisions.  However, as Prime Minister of Israel, I am committed and want to advance towards an agreement, one that will bring an end to the conflict and achieve peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors. I know, Members of Knesset, that one can argue a great deal as to the path to achieving peace – but there is no argument that we will not achieve peace if we do not try. During the past several weeks, I have explored every path to ensuring the continuation of the talks.  I asked myself – what could convince the government and, more so, the citizens of Israel, that the Palestinians are truly ready to live with us in peace?  What would show that there has been a genuine change on the Palestinian side – something that would demonstrate to us, the majority of the public, that they are not only demanding concessions by Israel, not only issuing dictates, but that they are ready to take a meaningful step towards us. There is one thing.  I transmitted the message through quiet channels during the past month, and I am now saying it here, publicly: if the Palestinian leadership will unequivocally say to its people that it recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I will be ready to convene my government and ask for another suspension of construction for a fixed period. Because the Palestinians expect us to recognize the Palestinian state as their nation-state, we can expect them to recognize the Jewish state as our nation-state. I am not insisting that this recognition serve as a precondition for talks.  We will continue the negotiations in any event, without any conditions. However, there is no doubt that such a move by the Palestinian Authority would serve as a trust-building step, one that would open up a new horizon of hope and trust among broad sections of the Israel public who, in light of the events of the past decade, have lost their confidence in the Palestinian’s desire to end the conflict. Unfortunately, so far the Palestinians have not answered this call, and the United States is attempting other means to ensure that the talks take place. The United States has made various suggestions, and we are seriously and responsibly considering them, in accordance with Israel’s national interests, first and foremost security. Ladies and Gentlemen, We do not lack for difficulties and challenges, but I am convinced that we will overcome them.  We must only think of the obstacles we have overcome since Herzl expressed his vision. The ancient Jewish people, so experienced in suffering, returned to its historic homeland at the turn of the previous century and found it destroyed, neglected and desolate, full of swamps and malaria. For over one hundred years, we built it through sweat and blood, and we established a magnificent country. Those reverberating words of the Declaration of Independence, read by David Ben-Gurion, still touch our souls today: “We hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel to be known as the State of Israel.” This is the secret to our national existence, and recognition of this has always been and will always be the true foundation for peace.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

WESTERN TOLERANCE OF SHARIA IS A SUICIDE PACT!