Tuesday, July 31, 2012

History Repeats Itself in France

Why is it so difficult for people to see that they are making the same mistakes of their ancestors?  Do they ever bother to see the results of their poor decisions?

With all the anti-Semitism coming out of Europe, there is no surprise that the continent is going to hell in a hand basket.  The Europeans have rejected both God and His chosen people, the Jews.

Read from the Gatestone Institute, via John McTernan's Insights:


Anti-Semitism Sweeping France


If Europe fails to protect its Jews, it must be feared that soon Christians, too, will no longer feel safe in Europe. When the Jews are made to flee, it will not be long before others will have to flee as well.
Early this month, the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur devoted a cover article and several other articles to the phenomenon of the rising anti-Semitism in France. The magazine referred to several incidents of anti-Jewish violence during the previous weeks.
The Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) keeps track of anti-Semitic incidents. In the last decade, the number rose well above 300 incidents per year. In 2010, there were 466 incidents. In 2011, there were 389. However, 2012 will break the record. During the first five months of 2012, already 268 incidents of hatred against Jews have been reported. In certain neighborhoods of Paris, Marseille or Lyons it is no longer safe for Jews to walk the streets.
Young Jews in particular are made to suffer for their Jewishness. Le Nouvel Observateur relates how Elie M., a 12-year old Jewish Parisian, told his parents that he wants to have his name changed because he is being called "dirty Jew" at school.
On 26 March, an 11-year old Jewish boy was hit in the face in front of his school in Paris by a man who was screaming "Dirty Jew." That same day, in the Rhone Valley, youths threw stones at a rabbi. On 30 April, two Jewish boys were beaten up in Marseille by an aggressor shouting: "We support the Palestinians. You will be killed, you will be exterminated." On 8 June, a Jewish adolescent was beaten up by three youths who were shouting anti-Semitic insults. In early June, three Jews were attacked by a gang who hit one of the Jews on the head with a hammer.
On 5 July, the very day that the Nouvel Observateur was published, a 17-year old Jew was beaten up in a train near Toulouse because he was wearing a necklace with a Star of David. The aggressors were two 18-year old Frenchmen of North African origin who had just applied to join the French army. The victim was a student at the same Jewish school where last March the jihadist Mohammed Merah murdered a rabbi and three children.
Mohammed Merah, the Nouvel Observateur points out, has become a role model for many young French of Islamic origin. In many French schools, incidents occurred while a minute of silence was being observed for the victims of the Jewish school in Toulouse. Iannis Roder, a teacher of history and geography in Saint-Denis near Paris, confirmed in the magazine that anti-Semitism is rising in French schools and that almost always the anti-Jewish venom is coming from Islamic youths. As soon as the Holocaust is mentioned in class, or whenever lessons deal with a historic French figure who is Jewish, such as Léon Blum, Muslim pupils start making anti-Jewish remarks.
While the culprits of anti-Semitic acts are predominantly Muslims, analysts point out that there are some unsettling similarities with the European anti-Semitism of the 1930s. As then, anti-Semitism goes hand in hand with anti-Americanism. As then, the Jews are depicted as rich and powerful capitalists who manipulate the media and rule the world through their money -- a bizarre assertion when one considers that today Arab plutocrats control so many Western media outlets.
According to Muslim youths interviewed by the Nouvel Observateur, of every meal bought at McDonalds one euro is paid by McDonalds to the Israeli army. Coca Cola, too, is part of the Americo-Jewish plot as its logo, when read from back to front, allegedly reads: "No to Allah, no to the Prophet." This information, they claim, is well known, although it will never be heard on French television because French television "belongs to the Jews."
Because of the rising anti-Semitism, many Jews no longer send their children to public shools. The number of children in Jewish schools has increased to 30,000 and is growing every year. Many of the 600,000 Jews in France no longer feel safe in the country. "People ask themselves whether they should stay," says Sammy Ghozlan of the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism, a French Jewish organization. Young Jews dream of a safer future in the United States or Israel.
Unfortunately, the situation in other West European countries is grimly similar to that in France. Last month, the Italian journalist Giulio Meotti wrote an article about the plight of the Jews in Italy. He described how synagogues and Jewish schools in Rome are protected by cameras, metal detectors, security guards and police officers, while their windows are plumbed with iron grates like the Jewish homes of Hebron and the schools of Sderot.
Already in 2006, the London Daily Telegraph ran a story entitled, "Is this the last generation of British Jews?" In 1990, there were estimated to be about 340,000 Jews in Britain. By 2006, the population had declined by a fifth to 270,000. While the article dealt mainly with the consequences of secularism and intermarriage, it referred to a parliamentary inquiry which stated "that anti-semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses."
As in France, in Britain, in the past few years, emigration to Israel has doubled. The Jewish population in the United Kingdom is expected to decline to 240,000 by 2020, 180,000 by 2050, and 140,000 by 2080.
In the Netherlands, in 2010, Frits Bolkestein, a prominent Dutch Conservative and former European Commissioner,said there is no future for Jews in his country because of "anti-Semitism among Dutchmen of Moroccan descent, whose number keeps growing." He referred to the increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the Netherlands over the past decade and urged Jews to "emigrate to the U.S. or Israel."
As always, the Jews are like the canary in the coalmine. If Europe fails to protect its Jews, it must be feared that soon Christians, too, will no longer feel safe in Europe. When the Jews are made to flee, it will not be long before others will have to flee as well. Recently, Monsignor Anba Damian, bishop of the Coptic Church in Germany,warned that persecutions of Christians might soon be a reality in Germany. "There is a real danger that an ever more dominant Islam in Germany will seriously threaten Christians," he said. Many think the Bishop is scaremongering. However, as teacher Iannis Roder said in the Nouvel Observateur, in the late 1990s, he could not have believed that anti-Semitism would again become a common phenomenon in France. "I am from a generation that thought that anti-Semitism had died with the Shoah [Holocaust]. I could never have imagined that it would resurface."

Obama's Support for Partial Birth Abortion

Check out how radical our president really is.  All the fancy rhetoric and the endearing smile cannot make up for the fact that Barack Obama supports pulling an unborn baby out of its mother, all but the head, and poking scissors into its skull to create a hole so the baby's brains can be sucked out.  Any decent person would be horrified by such a procedure, but not our president.

Read about what Obama said about partial birth abortion in 2008 via LifeNews:


Barack Obama Defends Opposition to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in Interview


In a Sunday interview, pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortions. Though he wasn’t in Congress at the time it voted on the ban, he said he would have supported it had it contained a health exception.
However, doctors and medical groups readily acknowledge that the three-day-long abortion procedure — involving the killing of an unborn baby halfway through the birthing process – never helps women medically.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Obama said, "On an issue like partial-birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that."
In addition to providing no medical benefit for women, pro-life groups oppose a health exception because they typically allow virtually all abortions to remain legal.
In this case, the health exception, which the Supreme Court ruled was not required in the federal partial-birth abortion ban, would have gutted the legislation.
Obama also claimed pro-life advocates only brought the partial-birth abortion ban forward to "polarize" the abortion debate.
"Now, part of the reason they didn’t have [the health exception] was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion — and I don’t begrudge that at all. They have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral," he said.
"Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall," Obama contended.
In a speech before Planned Parenthood in July 2007, Obama decried the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban.
"There’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States," he said.
"For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors," he complained.
"Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong," he concluded.
LifeNews.com columnist Laura Echevarria took issue with his comments in the speech.
"Nowhere in his speech is there any concern over the unborn child who is stabbed in the back of the neck while her head remains inside her mother," she said. "Nowhere is there any concern over that child’s pain or death."
"What of the little girls who have been killed using this heinous procedure? What of their equal rights?" she asked.

The Liberals Are the Haters

Check out the title of the article below.  That pretty sums up the entire Chick-Fil-A controversy.  And please remember to show your support for the righteous Cathy family at Chick-Fil-A by dining there tomorrow.  I'll be there for lunch.

Read from Brendon Morelock:

CHICKEN FIL-A DOESN'T HATE GAYS, LIBERALS HATE CHRISTIANS


Judging by the recent reactions of gay activists, one would think Chick-fil-A had suggested Middle Eastern–style beheadings for homosexuals.
Are we supposed to be shocked that a private business run by Evangelical Christians and closed on Sundays isn’t particularly fond of same-sex marriage?
Last week, the president of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, told the Baptist Press this:
We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
About 100 years ago this would be simply referred to as “freedom of religion.” But today, “freedom of religion” means “freedom from religion”—banning manger scenes from public property at Christmas time, but putting Christ in a jar of piss.
Contrary to popular belief, Chick-fil-A does not hate gay people. A main tenet of Evangelical Christianity is, “Hate the sin; love the sinner.” Christians, Evangelical or otherwise, do not hate anybody. They’re Christians. It’s gay marriage they don’t like.
But no matter how much they will tout otherwise, liberals hate dissent. (That, and Christianity.) Liberals are very tolerant—insofar as you always agree with them. Dissent; and they will immediately become Mussolini, working to ban your restaurant from opening in any of various cities across the country.
The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, was one of the most vocal in the efforts to ban Chick-fil-A from opening its restaurants. He responded to their stance on same-sex marriage by telling the Chicago-Sun Times that Chick-fil-A’s family-orientated values aren’t “Chicago values.” Whom is he kidding? Does this godless despot really think anyone needs to be reminded that Chicago is breeding grounds for gun violence and out-of-wedlock children?
The mayor of Vice City didn’t stop there. He also said that Chick-fil-A “disrespect[s] our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad  investment, since it would be empty.” This alleged “disrespect” for the gay community—by which he means opposing same-sex marriage—didn’t seem to matter as much when it was Obama’s position. He then threw his support to Alderman Proco Moreno’s announcement that any construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district would be blocked.
Besides Emanuel, Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston has also threatened to ban Chick-fil-A from opening their restaurants there by writing a letter to Dan Cathy, telling him there was “no place for discrimination”—which Chick-fil-A doesn’t endorse—and “no place for your company” in Boston. The way liberals put it, you would think Chick-fil-A had a “Straights Only” drinking fountain.
Needless to say, to boycott Chick-fil-A is a very American ideal. To ban them because you do not agree with them is a fascistic one.
But why would liberals want to ban Chick-fil-A? Are they really so adamant about ending homophobia and protecting a “right” to marry the same sex that they would try to silence poor little Chick-fil-A?
The answer is: No, they’re not.
First of all, only a liberal would try to justify a boycott of Chick-fil-A because they don’t like the pro-family groups to whom they donate their profits, but would continue buying oil imported from OPEC nations who chop gays’ heads off.
And only a liberal would justify haranguing Christians for boycotting JCPenney (a private business) for using gay people as some of their models, then turning around to boycott Chick-fil-A’s “H8” sandwiches (also a private business). Because silencing the opposition is not a thought among conservatives, no conservative mayor forbade JCPenney from coming to their area.
But this is explained by far more than sheer stupidity. Even when actual homophobic bigotry exists, liberals couldn’t care less. Indeed they are some of the most virulent promoters of homophobia.
When everyone found out about Marcus Bachmann’s therapy clinic for converting gays to straight, they couldn’t call him gay quickly enough. When Rick Santorum tweeted about eating at Chick-fil-A with his sons, he was accused of sodomizing his children with chicken strips and receiving “dumpster head” from them, among other sexual innuendos involving incest and pedophilia.
Liberals pretend to care about decent causes like gay rights to cover up the real issues that concern them—in this case, silencing Christians. This would also explain why Rahm Emanuel never had a problem with Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage.
The real problem isn’t that Christians, gay marriage–opponents or bigwigs at Chick-fil-A are bigots. The problem is that liberals are bigots.

Good for the Colorado Baker

Chick-Fil-A's Dan Cathy is not the only one who is being targeted for taking a stand against gay marriage.  A Colorado baker has now refused to bake a wedding cake for two male love birds.  I wonder if he knows the can of worms that he has opened for daring to stand for righteousness in a world which calls evil good and good evil.

Read from Gateway Pundit:


Gay Mob Targets Baker Who Won’t Bake for Gay Wedding (Video)


It’s an Obama world… Chuck your freedoms out the window.
The lavender mob is targeting a baker because he won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding… at his business… that he built.
He says he will close down first.
The gay mafia wants their cake.
The poor baker forgot this is the Age of Obama. You gotta check your religious beliefs at the door. They don’t mean anything in Obama’s America.
CBS News reported:
Chick-fil-A’s president recently spoke out against same-sex marriage, sparking a huge uproar in the gay community, and now the issue is spilling over to a Colorado bakery, CBS Denver station KCNC-TV reports.
The owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood refused to bake a wedding cake for a local same-sex couple, and now people are pushing a boycott against the owner.
Shop owner Jack Phillips probably didn’t think he was going to be wading into a civil rights debate when he told the couple that he would not make a cake for their wedding, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig said they dated for nearly two years before getting engaged. They went into the Masterpiece Cake Shop thinking they’d spend a full day trying cakes for their ceremony. Instead the meeting lasted a few seconds.
“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig said.
Mullin and Craig were stunned. They went online and posted their experience on Facebook. The response has been huge.
Dozens of protesters gathered outside the shop on Saturday and were very angry.

Suffering for Christ

If you think that persecution against Christians is growing in the U.S., and it is, all you have to do is look at the Chick-Fil-A controversy, our brothers and sisters in Christ in our nations around the world only wish they had it as easy as we do.

Take a look at what they endure, via Prophecy Update:


Persecution Update:

As we know, persecution is a sign of our times and the article below gives an update of various extreme forms of persecution from around the world:




U.S.-backed rebels are committing Christian genocide in Syria, where they are sacking churches and issuing threats that all Christians will be cleansed from rebel-held territory. A mass exodus of thousands of Christians is taking place, even as mainstream Western reporters like Robert Fisk demonize those same Christians for being supportive of the secular regime.
 
The bloody jihad waged against Nigeria’s Christians, which has seen hundreds killed this year alone, now includes plans to kill Christians with poisoned food, as part of the Islamic organization Boko Haram’s stated goal of purging Nigeria of all Christian presence.

During Egypt’s presidential elections, Al Ahram reported that "the Muslim Brotherhood blockaded entire streets, prevented Copts from voting at gunpoint, and threatened Christian families not to let their children go out and vote” for the secular candidate.



Categorized by theme, June’s assemblage of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity.




Church Attacks
Egypt: Because many visitors were in attendance, Muslims surrounded a Coptic church during Divine Liturgy "demanding that the visiting Copts leave the church before the completion of prayers, and threatening to burn down the church if their demand was not met.” The priest contacted police asking for aid only to be told to comply with their demands, "and do not let buses with visitors to come to the church anymore.” Christian worshippers exited halfway through liturgy to jeers outside. As they drove away, Muslims hurled stones at their buses. Also, repairs to a Coptic church that was torched and gutted a year ago by rioting Muslims were woefully inadequate, leaving the congregation with a staggering debt from further necessary repairs.
Indonesia: Muslim mob of 300 wrecked a store that was being used for a Sunday church service on the pretext that it had not obtained "permission to hold Mass.” The mob wrecked the first floor of the store, breaking windows and damaging furniture. Police stopped them before reaching the third floor, where some 60 Christians had congregated. None of the Muslims were arrested, although 12 Christians were taken into custody for questioning. Separately, in compliance to calls by Islamic clerics, authorities ordered 20 churches to be torn down, following the closure of 16 smaller Christian places of worship in the same district last month. The congregations continue to hold services inside their sealed-off buildings as other members stand guard outside.
IranAuthorities ordered the closure of yet another church in the capital, Tehran, "amid a government campaign to crack down on the few recognized churches offering Farsi-speaking services,” according to a human rights group. The church originally served Assyrian background Christian members; however, "due to an increasing number of Farsi-speaking believers—mostly MBBs [Muslim Background Believers]—it [the church] has become a cause of concern for the authorities and they now ordered it to shut down.”
Kashmir: A 119-year-old church was torched by Muslims. The local bishop "said that the Muslim fundamentalists want Christians to leave the state… He said that the church had filed a case with the police but had been advised not to ‘play up’ such incidents.” Christian minorities "are coming under growing threat from Kashmir’s Muslim majority. A Christian human rights group in India said that over 400 Christians have been displaced as a result.
Kazakhstan: Land use regulations are being exploited "as a means to prevent religious communities and their members exercising freedom of religion or belief.” Most recently, authorities "forced a Methodist church to ‘voluntarily’ close and fined the wife of the Church’s Pastor, who further paid for an announcement in newspapers saying the church was ‘liquidating itself,’” simply because "We do not want more punishment from the authorities.”
Nigeria: Islamic militants attacked several churches during every Sunday of the month with bombs and guns killing dozens of Christian worshippers, and critically wounding hundreds, including many children. Growing numbers of Christians "dare not” attend church services anymore, even as reports suggest that some police are intentionallyabandoning their watch prior to such attacks.
SudanAuthorities bulldozed two church buildings to the ground and confiscated three Catholic schools, as a response to the secession of South Sudan in July 2011, saying that such buildings are associated with now unwelcome, largely Christian South Sudanese in the Islamic-ruled country. Another church building belonging to the Full Gospel Church was destroyed in the same area two months ago, also on the claim that it belonged to South Sudanese.
Turkmenistan: An Evangelical church in the Muslim-majority nation was raided by authorities: "All adult believers at the meeting were questioned about their faith and all of their Christian literature was confiscated.” Their literature was returned two weeks later.
Apostasy, Blasphemy, Proselytism
Egypt: A Christian student handing out Christian literature in Assuit University "raised the ire of Muslim students,” resulting in clashes on campus, "amid shouts of sectarian chants,” leading to many injuries. Likewise, a Salafi leader declared on Egyptian TV that Muslims have no right "to convert to Christianity.”
Iran: Five months after five Christian converts were arrested, their condition and fate remain unknown. They are accused of "attending house church services, promoting Christianity, propagating against the regime and disturbing national security.” Being imprisoned for 130 days without word "is an obvious example of physical and mental abuse of the detainees…. one of the prison guards openly told one of these Christian detainees that all these pressures and uncertainties are intended to make them flee the country after they are released.” Also, a young Iranian woman, who recently converted to Christianity and was an outspoken activist against the Islamic regime, was found dead, slumped over her car’s steering wheel, with a single gunshot wound to her head.

More Pandering to Gays

Go for it, Mr. President.  Keep pushing the homosexual agenda and see where it gets you.

The gays will vote for Obama no matter what. Where else would they go?  But, who is the most faithful voting bloc?  Seniors.  I kinda doubt they want all this homosexual agenda shoved down their throats.   They grew up in an era when Americans were actually taught traditional, Biblical values.  So, on that note, keep promoting the perversion, Mr. President.

Read about the new platform being promoted by the DNC, via Weasel Zippers.  And the Left has the audacity to claim that the GOP has moved to the extreme?  Have they looked in the mirror recently?


DNC Panders Uncontrollably To Far-Left Base, Makes Gay Marriage An Official Plank Of Party's Platform...


Fabulous!

Via Politico:
Democrats over the weekend put themselves on track to endorse a pro-gay marriage plank for their convention platform, but neither the party nor the Obama campaign wanted to talk about it Monday.

Six states have legalized gay marriage and three more have legalization measures on the ballot for the fall, but the gradual increase in acceptance of the issue hasn’t done anything to mitigate its political touchiness this election year. Though legalization is seen as a major boost to Democratic efforts to energize the base and stoke fundraising among an active LGBT donor community, wide swaths of voters — including in many swing states — remain opposed.

But even the platform plank — something LGBT activists had sought — sparked some worries. The platform is set to be adopted, after all, at the party convention in North Carolina, which in May passed a referendum banning gay marriage. Obama’s long-sought endorsement of gay marriage came the next day, increasing momentum for the effort.

The 15-member Democratic Party platform draft committee unanimously approved the pro-gay marriage language at its meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis and sent the platform draft to the full platform committee, which meets in Detroit in two weeks.

Keep reading...



Obama's Wrong Priorites

Barack Obama is spending most of his energy in this presidential campaign bashing Romney for his wealth and attempting to create class envy.  With a high employment rate, pathetic economy, and huge debt, are Americans that worried about Romney's success?  The polls say no.  Sorry, Mr. President, you may want to try a new approach.

Read from Hot Air:


Gallup: Voters don’t share Obama’s class-warfare priorities


So far, Barack Obama has tried to discuss nearly every issue but the one about which voters care most — jobs and the economy.  Obama and his campaign have tried offering distractions such as same-sex marriage, contraception mandates, and hiking taxes on the rich.  According to the latest Gallup survey, Obama’s effort has missed the mark entirely:
Creating good jobs, reducing corruption in the federal government, and reducing the federal budget deficit score highest when Americans rate 12 issues as priorities for the next president to address. Americans assign much less importance to increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and dealing with environmental concerns.
In more bad news for Team Obama, the distraction strategy isn’t working even among Obama’s supporters:
Supporters of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney likely disagree on how best to address the major issues facing the country, but they both rate job creation and reducing government corruption among their top priorities for the next president.
The Obama effort to play the class-warfare card doesn’t play at all among voters in general, with tax hikes for the wealthy coming in dead last among the dozen issues included in the Gallup surveyIt doesn’t even play well among Obama supporters, where it also comes in dead last.  Job creation comes in at #2 for both Romney and Obama supporters, with the federal deficit slightly more important among the former and affordable health care taking the top spot among the latter.
Byron York believes this to be a warning to Team Obama that they are allowing Romney and the Republicans to gain a critical edge in the campaign:
The point is not that any of the goals listed by Gallup is insignificant.  The point is that Americans prioritize what they want their political leaders to do, and right now, the things that are on top of the voters’ list — creating jobs, reducing corruption, and cutting the deficit — are issues that Mitt Romney and Republicans in Congress have been stressing every day.  And the goals the president has been stressing are simply not at the top of voters’ concerns.
Actually, I think this is worse than Byron thinks.  Just as with the character attacks and the earlier poll from The Hill, the Gallup results show that Team Obama has been almost entirely unsuccessful at setting the narrative for voters.  Successful candidates can set the narrative and get voters interested in their issues, and so far, Obama has failed to move attention at all from his poor record on job creation and economic growth.
Mitt Romney has a new ad out today hitting Obama on the issue that voters actually do care about:
Titled “The Right Kind of Leadership,” the ad hits on just the problem demonstrated by Team Obama’s lack of success in issue orientation.  They’re not leading — not from in front or behind.

Reward Offered for Video of Obama Supporting Jew-Bashing

Wouldn't it be nice if some greedy individual threw Obama under the bus and stepped up to the plate to collect this reward?  I don't know about you, but I'd rejoice to see Obama's hatred for Israel exposed to the public.

Then, what would the Jews do?  Actually, I'm afraid to answer that question because I'm not so sure they care all that much about Israel.  It's us Christians who are the most loyal to the Jewish state.

Read from Gateway Pundit:


Breitbart.com Offers $50,000 Reward for Obama-Khalidi Jew-Bashing Tape


In 2008   The LA Times withheld a video that contained footage of Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who were openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama reportedly even gave a toast to a former PLO operative, Rashid Khalidi, at this celebration. This was something the LA Times hid from the American public before the election. The media refused to release the video.

Terrorist Bill Ayers, Barack Obama and his good friend Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi
This controversial story was first reported at Gateway Pundit.
There were also reports that terrorists Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were at the same Jew-bash.
Khalidi was thought to be connected to the PLO.
Last year Stanley Kurtz figured out a great way to trick the media into releasing the Obama-Khalidi tape – by tricking them into thinking it would be bad for Sarah Palin.
Via Instapundit:
“I posted some thoughts on the media’s Palin/Obama paper-trail hypocrisy last Friday. Around the same time, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft highlighted the continued refusal of the LA Times to release the unseen but nonetheless famous video tape in which Obama toasted Rashid Khalidi at a testimonial dinner likely also addressed by Bill Ayers. . . . Will we ever get to see that tape, and if so, how best to shake it loose?” Er, convince ‘em it would be bad for Sarah Palin?
Today Breitbart announced a new strategy.
The conservative website is offering a $50,000 reward to whomever can provide the complete video recording of the 2003 farewell party for radical Palestinian academic and activist Rashid Khalidi.
Terrific.

Monday, July 30, 2012

A Dangerous Rumor


Let's face the facts.  Those of us who have followed the actions of Barack Obama are fully aware of the fact that he will do ANYTHING, whatever it takes, to maintain control of this country.  No question about it.  But, would he resort to a staged assassination attempt?

I'm guessing that he would, and gullible people in this nation would take sympathy on him and re-elect him.  A scary scenario, indeed!

Check this out from CP Florida:


Possible False Flag Obama Assassination Attempt Upcoming?

Personally, I believe something will happen the last quarter of this year.
Financial unrest or another false flag event that causes civil unrest.
Now is the time for all Americans to band together against the financial influences that
are running our puppets in Washington and the mass media that keeps us distracted
to that and their treasonous actions. Here is the rumor. Based on alot of factors,
I think it has potential. Divide and Conquer. Below, there is a link to one of the other
more recent false flag events.
Mark Pilling
Chairman
__________________________________________________________________________
Obama election Rumor
by Joe Angione
Joe Angione is a former columnist for The Villages Daily Sun.
An Obama rumor that must never become reality
A good journalist is usually taught not to print rumors or at least never to present them as the truth.
What I’m going to report here is only a rumor that presently can’t be confirmed. But it is of such magnitude that it must be made known if only to prepare America for a possible terrible eventuality. And while it has not been confirmed, neither can it authoritatively and convincingly be denied, certainly not in a United States where our Constitutional rights are under constant attack.
This rumor involves an agent of the Department of Homeland Security who allegedly informed a reporter at the Canada Free Press of a “false flag” or faked event to be initiated by Obama administration operatives in the hope of preventing the November presidential elections.
Canada Free Press (CFP) is an independent, conservative, electronic daily newspaper, updated several times a day. It boasts more than 100 writers and columnists who file stories regularly to the newspaper from all corners of the globe.
According to the newspaper’s coverage of this DHS “whistleblower,” the event would be a staged assassination attempt on the life of President Obama that would be blamed on “white supremacists” and subsequently used to enrage black and Hispanic communities driving them to rioting all across the nation.
The faked assassination, says the CFP report, would be carried out through the assistance of DHS agents, and “other colluders” taking their orders from the White House. The objective would be to stir up enough racial unrest to justify the imposition of martial law in major urban cities, including erecting DHS checkpoints, restricting travel, and delaying (possibly indefinitely) the November 2012 elections.
Doug Hagmann, reporting in the May 8, 2012 edition of the Canada Free Press wrote that his informant works in “the upper-echelon of DHS”, which he described as “effectively under the control of Barack Hussein Obama.”
Hagmann’s contact said: “The DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States . He then corrected himself, stating that ‘a civil war’ is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”
The DHS whistleblower mentioned a recent meeting at the Department of Homeland Security where plans were discussed to use pawns to simulate the rioting seen in the Arab Spring countries that would bring on a “controlled chaos” for the benefit of the Obama administration.
“Envisioned by these conspirators are riots starting in urban areas such as New York , followed by a disruption of business and commerce,” the DHS source added. “They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by the rioting and unrest…The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic .”
This certainly isn’t the first rumor to surface about Mr. Obama’s intention to subvert the U.S. Constitution, by manipulating economic, racial and social issues that would polarize Americans and bring on enormous conflict but the full measure of this contrived event, if true, involves total suspension of our democratic rights, and repression on a scale never thought possible in the America we’ve known and cherished all our lives.
It’s a rumor that bears watching…and is worth spreading because the more people who know about it–and understand the high level of deceit and treachery that confronts us daily in Washington –the less likely it is for the rumor to become a reality.
The lesson here is that if people are aware of the possibility, even remote, of some great calamity befalling them, they’re on guard…they’re prepared…their defenses are up, and those who would commit evil, will back down fearing a confrontation they can’t win.
The more we talk about the potential for a staged, bogus presidential assassination that would trigger massive civil unrest and possible martial law, the stronger is our defense against it actually occurring. The nation will be watching. Patriots everywhere will be on alert. The Obama administration will be under scrutiny more intense than ever before. It doesn’t have the guts to take on millions of Americans when we’re ready for anything.
Sometimes rumors are a good thing. –JA

Fort Hood, Aurora, and Terrorism

We really gotta get this man out of OUR White House.

Obama is so full of crap.  When I think of the Fort Hood shooting, I view it as an act of terror.  However, when it comes to the kiliing at the Aurora, Colorado, theater, I see that as a nutcase taking innocent lives.  Yes, people were terrorized in both instances, but in this day and age, most Americans view terror attacks as acts of war versus mere criminal acts.

But, no surprise, our president doesn't see it that way.  In his book, the soldier of Allah, Nidal Hasan, did not commit an act of terror, but James Holmes did.  Why did he differentiate between the two?  I think Pamela Geller nails it when she suggests that Obama wants us to think that terror is not Islamic.  Sorry, Mr. President, we aren't buying it.

Read from Atlas Shrugs:


OBAMA "TERRORIZING" AURORA KILLINGS BUT FORT HOOD JIHAD IS "WORKPLACE VIOLENCE"

When Obama spoke about the shooting in Aurora, he used the word “terrorize,” a word he never used when Nidal Hasan killed 13 of our serviceman in a jihad attack at Fort Hood. That was "workplace violence."
Obama knows what he is doing. He wants to drive home the point that "terror" is not Islamic. The Colorado shooting is terror, but Fort Hood is not.
Obama said this about the movie theater murders in Colorado:
“We may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. Such violence, such evil is senseless. It's beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.”
He used the same phrase in his address in his exploitative event in Aurora: “Even as we come to learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anyone to terrorize their fellow human beings. Such evil is senseless – beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes someone to take the life of another, we do know what makes that life worth living.” (minute 2:41)
This is his talking point on the Batman madman.
Yet when it came to the Fort Hood jihad massacre back in 2009, Obama showed no similar curiosity about what “causes someone" -- jihadist Nidal Hasan -- "to take the life of another.” And he did not use the word "terrorize."
Obama did not go to Fort Hood after US soldiers were mowed down in the largest attack on a military installation on American soil in US history. He cracked jokes, gave a shoutout and then made perfunctory remarks at a Native American confab.
Contrast that with Obama's immediate departure for Aurora and his attempt to elevate the actions of a sick, pathological mind to a level of some key poltical issue (a la Trayvon Martin, "the son" he never had). The only political lesson we can and should learn from Aurora is that we should get the insane help before they start shooting people for fun. And that "gun-free" zones are dangerous. Disarming the generalpopulation makes them sitting ducks for psychopaths and jihadists.

Individuals with Firearms Are Major Deterrent to Crime

With all the talk of strict gun control laws, guess who said the following:

"We are the first nation to have firearm registration. Our streets will be safer. Our police will be more efficient, and the world will follow our example."


Adolf Hitler


We all know how that worked out.

Read from Prison Planet:


Don’t Try That In Montana!


By now, everybody in the country knows about the horrific shootings at a packed theater in the metro Denver area last week. Twelve people were killed and scores were wounded. Predictably, gun-control zealots nationwide are shouting for stricter gun control laws. Not only that, some are even calling for the TSA to set up airport-style screening devices in movie theaters.
So, if the TSA is going to set up screening devices for movie theaters, why not grocery stores, department stores, malls, strip malls, churches, boy scout meetings, girl scout meetings, soccer matches, little league baseball games, concerts, rodeos, etc., etc. Heck, let’s just put TSA screeners at any gathering that attracts more than, say, ten people! What about the cost, you ask? Who cares? It’s all about being safe, right? If big-government toadies have taught us anything over the past several years it is that the American people are a bunch of helpless, defenseless sheep who owe all of their safety and security to the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring federal government, right?
Whether the Denver shooter was a plain old wacko or a product of some sort of sophisticated MK Ultra-type assassination program, as some are suggesting, the reason twelve people died and so many were wounded is because the laws of the city and rules of the movie theater demanded that patrons disarm themselves. Had only one or two individuals in that movie theater been armed, the outcome could have been much different. Twelve people are dead, because the movie theater was a gun-free zone! Obviously, bad guys do not pay any attention to gun-free zones, except to note that such zones create a free-killing environment.
Have readers ever noticed that these so-called “madmen” are never crazy enough to try and attack guys at a gun range? Gee! I wonder why not?
One thing the national news media will always ignore is the practice of lawful self-defense. For example, most people are probably not aware of the fact that American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times EVERY YEAR. That is more than 6,500times EVERY DAY. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring. That is what Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) concluded after extensive research. According to Rep. Bartlett, the number of defensive uses is four times the number of crimes reported committed with guns.
John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, agrees with Bartlett. His book “More Guns, Less Crime” documents the fact that firearms in the hands of private citizens are actually a major deterrent to crime–instead of being a cause of crime.
One thing America’s founders unanimously agreed on was the necessity of free people to keep and bear arms. In light of the Denver shootings, Thomas Jefferson’s counsel makes even more sense. He said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” If the Denver killings prove anything, they prove Jefferson’s perceptive pronouncement.
But civilian disarmament has consequences even greater than those of a lone gunman attacking people in a movie theater. Some years back, Alan Rice of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) wrote, “Since 1900 at least seven major genocides have occurred resulting in the murder of 50-60 million people:
*Ottoman Turkey, 1915-17; 1-1.5 million Armenians murdered; *Soviet Union, 1929-53; 20 million anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists murdered; *Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-45; 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and Anti-Nazis murdered; *China, 1949-52, 1957-60 & 1966-1976; 20 million anti-Communists murdered; *Guatemala, 1960-1981; 100,000 Mayan Indians murdered; *Uganda, 1971-1979; 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered; *Cambodia, 1975-1979; 1 million murdered.”
Rice continued to say, “In all seven of the genocides summarized above, gun control laws were in force before the genocide occurred, in some cases decades before. In five of the seven genocides, the lethal law, the gun control law was in force before the genocide regime took power.”
Rice also said, “Gun control laws are usually enacted during a crisis or a perceived crisis.” He then said, "Government officials, not hate groups or common criminals, were responsible for these seven genocides. In most of these cases the murder victims outnumbered their murderers; yet they were powerless to defend themselves because they were disarmed.”
It should not be lost to the American people that tomorrow (Friday, July 27, 2012) President Barack Obama is scheduled to sign the UN Small Arms treaty. See this Fox News report:
Many people are rightly concerned that this treaty, instead of doing anything to thwart terrorists, could be a tool of anti-gun politicians in Washington, D.C., (including Mr. Obama) to try to confiscate the firearms of the American people.
I really don’t know how to say this gently. And, of course, I cannot speak for everyone, but I suspect I’m speaking for millions of red-blooded Americans all over the country when I say that if the government–any government–tries to disarm us, it had better bring a lot of body bags, because, treaty or no treaty, law or no law, we will never surrender our firearms! NEVER!
And, for all of those potential “crazed killers” out there who are thinking about duplicating the Denver shootings someplace else, don’t try that in Montana! I promise you, in virtually every public gathering place of any size in this State, a substantial percentage of the citizens in the crowd are packing heat–and are well versed on how to operate their “pocket cannon,” and have the internal fortitude to do it, and to do it quickly!
So, if there are any lessons from this horrific incident in that movie theater outside Denver, Colorado, they are that an unarmed citizenry is a very foolish and vulnerable citizenry, that the American people cannot–and should not–depend on government to protect them, that they must be responsible to protect themselves, and that they must not allow any government–no matter how large or small–to disarm them! In other words, if you don’t own a gun, go buy one–and learn how to use it; if you have a gun, carry it; and if you live in a city or State that will not allow you to carry a gun, MOVE TO A PLACE THAT WILL!

Thankfully, the UN Small Arms treaty was not signed last Friday.  We are safe -- FOR NOW -- because Obama has an election ahead of him.  But, what will happen after the election?