We have seen any number of teachers and administrators suspending or expelling students for the possession of gun pictures, making gun noises while pointing their finger, accidently bringing a small knife to school.
So where were the school authorities when Trayvon Martin brought a deadly weapon to school?
Truth - Trayvon Martin was first suspended from school in October 2011 for an incident in which he was found in possession of stolen women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,”The Miami Herald has learned.
Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds. Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend. “Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.
Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.
A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.
“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”
Bottom line …
A screwdriver is a poor man’s knife, so why didn’t school authorities take action to protect other students. Or is it suddenly OK to bring screwdrivers, but not knives to school in Florida?
The single most important question is not who failed to provide security in Benghazi before the attack, it is not who gave the stand down order during the attack, and it is certainly not who changed the talking points after the attack. And, it is not about minimizing the al Qaeda threat prior to the election.
The single most important question is: was Ambassador Stevens tasked with retrieving military weaponry, including dangerous stinger ground-to-air missiles from terrorist after they were provided by the Department of State in a covert operation to supply weapons for various rebel groups?
If not what was the Ambassador's mission that demanded his immediate presence in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, with minimal security and a historic pattern of terrorist attacks?
What else could convince the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Ambassador to the United Nations to concoct a bogus story and lie to the American people, the United Nations, our allies, and others?
Keep your eye on the ball. If this alleged activity is true, Hillary Clinton will not be the next democrat candidate for the Presidency and President Barack Obama may be impeached.
How else can this be explained … and why is the Obama Administration and the Members of Congress dancing around the issue?
Even if they toss Attorney General Eric Holder under the bus along with IRS officials, it does not answer the Benghazi question.
Here is a piece written by a liberal, Rebecca Leber, a research assistant for the ThinkProgress war room …
ThinkProgress is an American political blog that "provides a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies.” It is part of the Center for American Progress, that bills itself as a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Its President and chief executive officer is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.Its first President and chief executive officer was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remains with the organization as chairman of the board.
The progressive democrats have a dog in this fight – not that they are seeking justice, but that they are pandering to the core constituency group of Blacks. Pretty much why they must portray George Zimmerman as a racist, cop-wannabe, looking to use his concealed weapon – and, conversely, portray Trayvon Martin as a ordinary Black youngster returning from a convenience store when he was set upon by a malicious Zimmerman and shot to death.
They do not care to examine the evidence, starting with the fact that Trayvon looked nothing like the little boy portrayed in media accounts – and was a known drug-using, troublemaker who was kicked out of his mother’s house for some as yet unspecified reason. He was physically fit, muscular, and experienced in fighting. On the other hand, Zimmerman appears to be a decent, law-abiding individual who donated his time to his community’s Neighborhood Watch. He called the police and appeared to be returning to his vehicle when he was jumped and pummeled by Trayvon – pulling his gun at the last minute as his head was being bashed into the ground.
So how do the progressive liberals spin the story …
Zimmerman Lawyer Goes On National TV To Smear Trayvon Martin With Inadmissible Evidence
Zimmerman has dropped his Stand Your Ground defense, but he will still argue he acted in self defense when he shot the unarmed teen on the street of a gated community.
A Florida judge ruled Tuesday that George Zimmerman will not able to use 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s school records, texts, and prior marijuana use in court for the second-degree murder trial for killing the teen last year, which begins June 10.
The case became notorious for Zimmerman’s claim he was protected from trial under Florida’s ALEC-modeled Stand Your Ground law. Since then, Zimmerman has dropped his Stand Your Ground defense, but he will still argue he acted in self defense when he shot the unarmed teen on the street of a gated community. The two sides appeared in court Tuesday to present a number of motions, including what evidence is admissible in court and a failed motion to delay the trial.
But before the hearing today, Zimmerman’s lawyer releasedimages and texts that attempt to cloud Martin’s public image.
On air last week, Mike O’Mara touted the new images he said portray a more “three-dimensional picture of Trayvon.” According to Mediaite, Fox broadcast images from Martin’s phone that showed a hand holding a gun and a photograph of marijuana, which O’Mara argues is central to his client’s argument that he acted in self-defense because it shows Martin was “street-wise.”
The judge has decided that none of this information will be permitted in court. However, Zimmerman’s defense may still hope the campaign has implications for the trial and for potential jurors.
Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Martin’s family, explained in a statement Thursday:
Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked? If so, this stereotypical and closed-minded thinking is the same mindset that caused George Zimmerman to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon, an unarmed kid who he didn’t know. The pretrial release of these irrelevant red herrings is a desperate and pathetic attempt by the defense to pollute and sway the jury pool.
In the Orlando Sentinel, state prosecutors said the information is “irrelevant… and would serve only to prejudice the jury.”
Reality check: While a person’s looks can be divorced from their behavior, you may wish to see the picture that the family is providing to the media and the picture they don’t want you to see …
The first picture is a younger Trayvon Martin; the second picture is the person who confronted George Zimmerman.
Here is what was found on Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. The origin and whereabouts of the weapon is unknown.
Bottom line …
There was clearly a rush to judgement when community activists, race-baiters, and the media believed that George Zimmerman was a white, wannabe cop and shot an unarmed Black child under suspicious circumstances. The circus was complete with the usual suspects and race-baiters chanting “no justice, no peace.”
Al Sharpton …
Flanked by Martin's parents, Sharpton spoke forcefully, pushing back against claims that there has been a "rush to judgment" against Zimmerman. "Trayvon Martin committed no crime," he said. "He had no weapon and he had every legal right to be where he was. The rush to judgment was those that moved against him, said he was suspicious, and took his life. So to lecture us about rushing to judgment, we're a victim of a rush to judgment in this case. Let's be real clear on that." He also cautioned against any violence, saying that Martin's name must not be "tarnished" by it.<Source>
But consider for a moment that Trayvon Martin may have brought about his own death by jumping a retreating George Zimmerman. In fact, had Zimmerman wanted to confront Martin, his gun would have been drawn. As it was, he pulled it at the last minute while his head was being bashed into the concrete sidewalk. Pictures clearly show physical trauma to his nose and back of his head – although the naysayers denied that this physical evidence even existed shortly after the confrontation.
The progressive will do or say anything to achieve their political agenda; including pandering to a constituency critical to their political ambitions. They are not about justice, just self-promotion and self-advantage. As for the ruling, it apparently only affects opening statements and that should the prosecution open the door, the defense is free to step through and examine the issue.
I believe Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, Zimmerman the victim, and that the court case will eventually produce a just verdict. If those who are already gearing up for riots will stand aside. Since the police have time to prepare for any verdict outcome, anyone who riots, loots, or destroys property should be arrested and prosecuted.
This is a civil war with Muslim terrorists on both sides. The United States has no tangible interest in Syria and no reason to stop Muslims from killing other Muslims. As for innocent people, there are none since Obama refuses to deal with the Muslim slaughter and oppression of Christians.
Exclusive: Obama Asks Pentagon For Syria No-Fly Zone Plan -- Along with no-fly zone plans, the White House is considering arming parts of the Syrian opposition and formally recognizing the Syrian opposition council, reports Josh Rogin.
The White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced by the U.S. and other countries such as France and Great Britain, two administration officials told The Daily Beast.
The request was made shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry toured the Middle East last week to try and finalize plans for an early June conference between the Syrian regime and rebel leaders in Geneva. The opposition, however, has yet to confirm its attendance and is demanding that the end of Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s rule be a precondition for negotiations, a condition Assad is unlikely to accept.
President Obama’s dual-track strategy of continuing to pursue a political solution to the two-year-old uprising in Syria while also preparing for more direct U.S. military involvement includes authorizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the first time to plan for multilateral military actions inside Syria, the two officials said. They added that no decisions on actually using force have yet been made. Source: Obama Asks Pentagon For Syria No-Fly Zone Plan - The Daily Beast
Bottom line …
Congress needs to exert its Constitutional authority to make war and keep the President from spilling more American blood and wasting American treasure to save the lives of terrorists and people who hate us as the infidels. We see what happened in Iraq when those ingrates took our money and their newfound freedom to sell their oil to others. And, we gained nothing by heartache in Afghanistan. Did anyone notice the Muslims in Bosnia thank us in an meaningful way?
And, where are the Muslims in the United Nations and why aren’t they sending their own people into the conflict. No matter how it turns out, someone is bound to hate the United States for its intervention. So we have absolutely nothing to gain and nothing to lose if these crazies kill themselves. Even if they use weapons of mass destruction, it is not worth one American life to save Muslims who will kill each other at a drop of a hat after they finish killing infidels.
The only people who profit from a U.S.-Syrian engagement is President Barack Obama who deflects and diffuses his many domestic crises and the arms dealers and military contractors. There is no need for the United States to intervene in a civil war in which Muslims are killing Muslims. Both sides hate America – so let them all take a magic carpet ride to hell.
If your financial institution engages in one or more of these behaviors, they are weakening your account security …
Demand that you use your e-mail address as your user name. Since your e-mail address is likely to be known or even used by the financial institution to send you unprotected e-mail, already one significant part of your log-on authentication (user name) has been compromised?
Demand that you restrict your password to a specific length such as 8 or 16 characters. The longer the password, the longer it may take to decode?
Restrict you from using special characters (!@#$%^&*()+=) in your password, thus precluding strong passwords?
Ask you easily guessed questions like your mother’s maiden name, family birthdates, etc.?
Your pin is restricted to four digits.
If you want to see how secure passwords may really be …
Anatomy of a hack: How crackers ransack passwords like “qeadzcwrsfxv1331”
In March, readers followed along as Nate Anderson, Ars deputy editor and a self-admitted newbie to password cracking, downloaded a list of more than 16,000 cryptographically hashed passcodes. Within a few hours, he deciphered almost half of them. The moral of the story: if a reporter with zero training in the ancient art of password cracking can achieve such results, imagine what more seasoned attackers can do.
Imagine no more. We asked three cracking experts to attack the same list Anderson targeted and recount the results in all their color and technical detail Iron Chef style. The results, to say the least, were eye opening because they show how quickly even long passwords with letters, numbers, and symbols can be discovered.
The list contained 16,449 passwords converted into hashes using the MD5 cryptographic hash function. Security-conscious websites never store passwords in plaintext. Instead, they work only with these so-called one-way hashes, which are incapable of being mathematically converted back into the letters, numbers, and symbols originally chosen by the user. In the event of a security breach that exposes the password data, an attacker still must painstakingly guess the plaintext for each hash—for instance, they must guess that "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" and "7c6a180b36896a0a8c02787eeafb0e4c" are the MD5 hashes for "password" and "password1" respectively. (For more details on password hashing, see the earlier Ars feature "Why passwords have never been weaker—and crackers have never been stronger.")
While Anderson's 47-percent success rate is impressive, it's miniscule when compared to what real crackers can do, as Anderson himself made clear. To prove the point, we gave them the same list and watched over their shoulders as they tore it to shreds. To put it mildly, they didn't disappoint. Even the least successful cracker of our trio—who used the least amount of hardware, devoted only one hour, used a tiny word list, andconducted an interview throughout the process—was able to decipher 62 percent of the passwords. Our top cracker snagged 90 percent of them.
The only real protection you may have is personal … your bank may reimburse any loss from your account – but only under certain conditions. It remains up to you to discover what those conditions may be … and those conditions must be in writing as employees of financial institutions are not always truthful, accurate, and cannot bind the institution to any obligation or duty relating to performance.
If your system permits it, one way to add length (and cracking time) to your password is to precede it with a long pattern of special characters. And, never use the same password for multiple accounts.
Even if you choose to avoid electronic banking, your account is still at risk.
Once more we appear to have an inkling that Lindsay Graham is following in the aisle-hopping RINO (Republican In Name Only) footsteps of his mentor and BFF, John McCain …
Progressive Eric Holder, dealing with issues of interfering with the mainstream media, and especially targeting Fox News, turns to the two most progressive people in the socialist democrat party, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) … and for some inexplicable reason to RINO republican Lindsey Graham. One would think that he would want to talk to the actual leadership of the House or Senate – but then again, they might be less sympathetic to his progressive cause than Lindsey Graham.
Holder’s Regrets and Repairs - The Daily Beast
By week’s end, Holder knew he had to be proactive in stemming the criticism and restoring the department’s credibility with the press. He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department’s internal guidelines for investigating leaks to safeguard the media against overly intrusive tactics. (Obama announced a review of the guidelines during a major speech on counterterrorism last Thursday.) Meanwhile, on Friday, Holder made a round of calls to Capitol Hill in an attempt to mollify concerned lawmakers. In calls to Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Holder said he understood why there had been such an outcry over his department’s actions. As one of Holder’s advisers put it, the message was: “Look we get it. We understand why this is so controversial, and we’re ready to make changes to find the right balance.” At the same time, Holder enlisted their help to get a media-shield law passed in Congress. (On Sunday, Schumer announced the formation of a bipartisan “gang of eight” to press for the legislation.)
As attorney general, a position at the intersection of law, politics, and investigations, Holder has been at the center of partisan controversy almost since taking office. But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department’s—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves. “Look, Eric sees himself fundamentally as a progressive, not some Torquemada out to silence the press,” says a friend who asked not to be identified. And yet late last week even the progressive Huffington Postwas calling for Holder to step down over the leaks furor. (Obama has continued to express confidence in his attorney general, and Holder has given no indication that he would step aside.) Source: Holder’s Regrets and Repairs - The Daily Beast
This story is troubling on a number of issues …
Eric Holder bypassed the leadership of the Republicans to seek a friendly RINO in the person of Lindsey Graham.
The mainstream media has seemingly adopted Chinese and Russian communist terminology such as “Gang of Eight” and “Czars” when speaking about American government.
The democrats now label anything containing at least one RINO as being bi-partisan.
The larger story is being spun as Holder as being subject to “partisan controversy” – rather than the truth that Holder continues to violate the United States Constitution and his oath of office.
The media thinks Holder sees himself as a “pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance.” Nothing could be further from the truth as Holder’s function is to protect his BFF Barack Obama and do what is ever necessary to cover-up democrat violations of election law and campaign finance – and to harass republicans and their donors, not to mention delay any investigation that might prove embarrassing or illegal (aka Fast and Furious, Benghazi, AP, Rosen, etc.)
Note the comparison with Barack Obama: “not unlike the president he serves.” The only thing Holder and the President have in common is that they are lawyers, they are incompetent, hyper-partisan, and have little or no sense of shame, that is, until the day they are exposed for what they are and have done.
What kind of friend offers compliments and requests anonymity?
Obama needs to express confidence in his attorney general, lest he be left without protection from any high crimes and misdemeanors which could see him impeached, tried, and convicted.
Bottom line …
Lindsey Graham is a RINO. Graham's call for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS appears to be a dodge; as a special prosecutor is likely to complete the investigation after Barack Obama is out of office -- which means after the upcoming election cycles. Eric Holder needs to resign or be impeached.
There has never been any doubt in my mind that Members of Congress were too stupid to craft, read, and understand the actual unreadable legalese found in most legislation. And, that the staff lawyers only served to keep their members out of the slam while hiding the work of the lobbyists. Something that has just been confirmed by the progressive New York Times.
Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills
Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.
One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.
In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)
The lobbying campaign shows how, three years after Congress passed the most comprehensive overhaul of regulation since the Depression, Wall Street is finding Washington a friendlier place.
The cordial relations now include a growing number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, whose support the banks need if they want to roll back parts of the 2010 financial overhaul, known as Dodd-Frank.
And as its lobbying campaign steps up, the financial industry has doubled its already considerable giving to political causes. The lawmakers who this month supported the bills championed by Wall Street received twice as much in contributions from financial institutions compared with those who opposed them, according to an analysis of campaign finance records performed by MapLight, a nonprofit group.
In recent weeks, Wall Street groups also held fund-raisers for lawmakers who co-sponsored the bills. At one dinner Wednesday night, corporate executives and lobbyists paid up to $2,500 to dine in a private room of a Greek restaurant just blocks from the Capitol with Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a co-sponsor of the bill championed by Citigroup.
What I see here is a political extortion scheme. Legislation is suggested that would impact two different groups, consumer organizations and industry supporters. Both rush forward with money and voter support to purchase politicians on both sides of the aisle. And, in the end, the industry wins and the consumer loses. The consumer organization engages in an orgy of fundraising for the next round and the industry members set aside a portion of their new profits to begin anew corrupting politicians to advance their self-serving interests.
It appears that there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats, with the exception that some democrats want to destroy the United States as part of their political agenda. The republicans just want to rob consumers blind.
Not only do we need to elect a new breed of politicians, but to convince them only to consider three-page, single-purpose bills readable in English.
I have long wondered why the United States continues to cover for Saudi Arabia after 9/11, knowing that their state religion, Whabbism, is one of the strictest and most radical sects of Islam …
Wahhabism is an ultra-conservative branch of Sunni Islam. It is a religious movement among fundamentalist Islamic believers, with an aspiration to return to the earliest fundamental Islamic sources of the Quran and Hadith, with inspiration from the teachings of Medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and early jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Al-Wahhab's teachings have become the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. <Source>
And, especially when the Saudis appear to be financing the worldwide spread of Whabbist Mosques, some saying in return for a Faustian deal where some of their wealthiest citizens fund international terrorists in exchange for not attacking the Kingdom and deposing its leadership.
The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imam training; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year. <Source>
The Saudis have spent millions attempting to convince Westerners that Islam is the religion of peace, and if not that, Saudi Arabia is not complicit in international terrorism …
And, what better way to spread the word than establish institutional endowments and well-paid teaching sponsorships as a platform to spew favorable propaganda.
What connection, if any, there is between Wahhabism and Jihadi Salafis is disputed. Natana De Long-Bas, senior research assistant at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, argues:
The militant Islam of Osama bin Laden did not have its origins in the teachings of Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and was not representative of Wahhabi Islam as it is practiced in contemporary Saudi Arabia, yet for the media it came to define Wahhabi Islam during the later years of bin Laden's lifetime. However "unrepresentative" bin Laden's global jihad was of Islam in general and Wahhabi Islam in particular, its prominence in headline news took Wahhabi Islam across the spectrum from revival and reform to global jihad.
Noah Feldman distinguishes between what he calls the "deeply conservative" Wahhabis and what he calls the "followers of political Islam in the 1980s and 1990s," such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Saudi Wahhabis were "the largest funders of local Muslim Brotherhood chapters and other hard-line Islamists" during this time, they opposed jihadi resistance to Muslim governments and assassination of Muslim leadersbecause of their belief that "the decision to wage jihad lay with the ruler, not the individual believer". <Source>
Is this spin? A difference without a distinction? At least to the hijackers in the September 11 attacks, where of the 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, 15 were citizens of Saudi Arabia?
Although bin Laden possessed views similar to Wahhabi Islam, his ideology was different in crucial ways.
First, Wahhabi doctrine is very clear that only political leaders can call for jihad, making bin Laden's calls illegitimate.
Secondly, Wahhabi Islam has positioned itself very clearly behind the Saudi royal family, in contradiction to bin Laden's repeated calls for the overthrow of the Saudi government, and it does not allow for disobedience to a ruler unless the rule commands that his/her subjects violate religious commandments.
Furthermore, the basic goals of bin Laden are different. bin Laden was most interested in "resisting western domination and combating regimes that fail to rule according to Islamic law." However, Wahhabism focuses on correct methods of worshipping God, removing idols, and ensuring adherence to Islamic law. <Source>
It really doesn’t matter who is calling for jihad as long as they have followers and funding. Both appearing to come from Saudi Arabia.
Now, we are hearing rumblings that Saudi interests may have bought overwhelming influence in the current administration …
Sheik Obama Tells Islamists His United States Is Willing To Surrender
The king of double speak, President Obama, has just admitted that he has no intention of keeping Americans safe from Islamist aggression here or abroad. This should come as a tremendous comfort to terrorism’s big money backers. Saudi Arabia and Qatar will no longer have to worry about the Obama Administration getting in the way of their terror financing and global Islamic aspirations. I am referring to Sheik Obama’s recent National Security speech.
Over the last 5 years, Obama has gone to great lengths to shield and encourage aggressive Islamist influence inside the United States and elsewhere. Nothing is an act of terror unless Obama says so. No one is our enemy unless the boy King proclaims it so and anyone who says different find himself or herself vilified, investigated and harassed by federal authorities. Unless of course they are Muslims. Granted access to the highest levels of government, Muslims now help shape Obama’s new anti-American national security policies.
Do not be fooled by the token drone strike or the alleged masterful use of special operations to eradicate terrorism’s leaders. If the missiles fired are not finding targets in Saudi Arabia and Qatar chances are the Sunni leaders of global Islamic terrorism are directing them
The people with the RPG’s and AK-47’s have never really been the big problem. It is the people who provide the money to recruit, train, arm and execute small and large offensives in the Islamist war on US Judeo-Christian freedoms and liberty. The same people who escaped criminal responsibility for the 911 attacks. Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s terrorism sponsors that direct Obama’s Islamic appeasement strategy and anti-American foreign policy. That is the problem.
Obama’s true loyalties were on display a few days ago. He does not surprise me. Neither will the predictable gullibility of the ignorant masses who believe his lies. After all, government paychecks and handouts buy a lot of misguided loyalty from those that conveniently proclaim executive branch criticism as racially motivated.
Obama’s regurgitated shift from combat operations to intelligence and law enforcement based terrorism opposition is another deception.
Obama ended operations in Iraq only to fuel the growth of Islamist insurgency that is tearing Iraq apart. He publicly ordered the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, but the Taliban continue the fight. Obama wants America to believe that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat, a ”shell of its former self” and Muslim Brotherhood appeasement is now beneficial to US national security interests. Yet America is excoriated as one country after another is being radicalized by a re-packaged Al-Qaeda and it‘s affiliates. Moreover, all over the world, Islam is destroying Christian houses of worship and enslaving or murdering its faithful as its violent Sharia influences spread. Not a peep about this in Obama’s National Security address. No outrage. No condemnation for these unprovoked attacks on non-believers. Just talk about closing Gitmo and setting Islamists free.
For five years, Obama has attacked American traditions and snapped to attention when Islamic influences cry foul. Somehow, Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon bombing and citywide lockdown, Americans murdered on US soil in Libya by Al Qaeda and the global Islamic attacks on Christian faithful seem to escape our myopic President. Treasonous Islamic activism is at an all time high in America. Yet our Justice Department has not only ignored it, but also embraced it.
Obama’s loyalties are no longer debatable.
Make no mistake the threat of Islamic jihad—both violent and stealth—has never been higher in America. The war waged on America by Islam started long before the first World Trade Center bombing. It will continue until our enemies have destroyed our economy and reshaped American law. The only people who could possibly believe different are Islamists themselves or people on their payroll. Source: Sheik Obama Tells Islamists His United States Is Willing To Surrender : The Last Resistance
But can it be true? Is it possible for foreign interests to have infiltrated the democrat party? How else can you explain the sudden emergence of socialists, communists, and those with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood given access, clearance, and even positions within the government? It’s not racist to condemn Barack Hussein Obama, not for his skin color, but for his policies and associations – things which are now manifestly evident as he has created a historical record.
While it is true that Obama appears to have adopted the Bush policies towards terrorism, re-named and amplified some of them, other of his acts are deeply puzzling. Continuing to call the Fort Hood shootings “workplace violence.” Arguing over whether or not Benghazi was called an act of terror in the early days following the attack. Misleading the American public about the cause and nature of the attack. And, then there is the strange case of the Boston Bomber’s Muslim friend who was shot dead by an FBI agent as he was about to give a confession. One that might have shed light on the deaths of three observant Jews on the anniversary of 9/11, their throats ritualistically slit. If it was a drug deal gone bad, why were pounds of Marijuana and at least $5,000 found at the scene?
Something stinks here.
Bottom line …
Letting someone believe something that is not true is every bit as much a falsehood as a deliberate lie. It appears that President Obama’s very actions are problematical when it comes to Islam and Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps the best answer is to maintain and open mind and throw the Congressional bums out of office in the 2014 congressional election cycle; and elect an honest American president in 2016. And, not the corrupt Hillary Clinton who may have been complicit in giving stinger missiles to terrorists in a State Department operation.
We are in deep trouble here … our President is untrustworthy and appears to be unpatriotic. Our Congress appears to have been bought and paid for. No wonder they want to disarm the American public before any public outrage develops when the truth is told – and, at some point, someone, somehow will tell the truth.
