Muslim Brotherhood Shows True Face Of Islam
Nov 25, 2011 Political
The Muslim Brotherhood is taking over in countries that experienced the so called Arab Spring and these people are not peace loving and they do not have tolerance. They follow the Koran’s teachings of murder and they do so without hesitation.
In Cairo speakers from the Muslim Brotherhood talked about the Jews declaring that one day they would kill all of them. This is from the people who want us to believe they are from the religion of peace. Their idea of peace is to be peaceful so long as people agree with them and do what they want (though their peaceful acts toward one another are anything but peaceful to civilized people). They have no tolerance for people who are different and who practice different religions, particularly the Jews.
Israel should be on high alert and ready to strike out at those who mean to do her harm and it should do so with or without the blessing of the Obama Regime.
Obama has been cold toward Israel and his actions border on hatred for the country and its people. He would rather support the murderous Muslims than the Jews who would like nothing more than to live in peace.
So be it. Israel has a right to defend itself and needs to do so regardless of what Obama desires.
I stand with our friends in Israel regardless of what the Obama regime decides to do.
Source:
YNet
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Israel, muslim brotherhood, obama regime, peace, terrorists
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Jan 12, 2011 Political
So now that more evidence has come out that the AZ shooter was a few beers short of a six-pack, and wasn’t actually commanded or influenced by talk radio, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Hot Air, Huffington Post, OR Jesus Christ himself, some are starting to calm down (a little). The recent trends I’m seeing are now that we need to “calm the rhetoric” and do more to “get along.”
Know what? I’d like to. Seriously, I really would. But I’m not allowed to.
You see, when people say things like, “Oh, we just need to agree to disagree” and the like, that’s not good enough — especially in politics. We can talk about “differing opinions” all we like — and I have no problem with opinions. What makes today’s politics different is force: today’s government wants to use force to make me do things.
That’s not a “difference of opinion.” That’s government sending men with guns to make me do things I don’t want to do.
For example, Washington, DC is considering killing and jailing people who do not shovel their sidewalks within 8 hours of the end of a snow event. Now, when I oppose that, that’s not a “difference of opinion.” That’s supporters of that law saying, “If you don’t agree with me, I will send men to kill you.” You cannot talk about opinions, when one side is willing to use force against peaceful people who are not harming anyone.
So talk about rhetoric and opinions and divisiveness all you want — but when you use government force to get your way, or when you support government using force to get your way, don’t be surprised when others use force to defend themselves. And of course, those who defend themselves against government force will be called terrorists.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
The Nobel Appease Prize
Oct 9, 2009 Opinion
Barack Obama was the “surprise” winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As my co-writer Blake points out, he has not done anything to earn it. I have to agree, what has Obama done to earn the award? He has been in office for only nine months and nothing he has done has resulted in any kind of peace.
Even those except his most ardent supporters would have to ask what he has done to get this award.
As far as I am concerned the award means little. It has been given to people who have had little to do with peace including Al Gore (who received his for something that was supposed to be science) and Yasser Arafat (who was anything but peaceful). The award is basically a political award and is used to push an agenda, to give some credibility to the people who espouse the same views of the committee regardless of accomplishment.
The nomination of Obama was made just before the 1 February deadline and only 2 weeks after he took office. What was he nominated for? His acts up to that point certainly did not warrant the prize. If the nomination is for past deeds then he certainly did not qualify.
If it was for the deeds of the past nine months then one has to ask what he has done to earn it. What did he do that made him more deserving than the other nominees who actually have accomplishments in the area of peace? Obama has not brought peace to the Middle East. His relationship with Israel is strained and he has coddled terrorists as well as others who wish to do us harm. He has talked a good game but that is not worthy of the award.
This was purely a political move designed to bolster a man who was hurt by the IOCC and by his continual missteps on the world stage.
I am not saying that Obama would not have a term in office (or work after he is out of office) that eventually led to him actually deserving the award, that is something we cannot know. However, it is clear that he has done nothing, up to this point, to deserve it.
The award has always meant little as far as I am concerned because of some of the folks who received it and more importantly, those who did not. Reagan never received one and he certainly had more to do with peace than Carter, Gore or Obama. But the award has been made political and that tarnishes it, in my view.
If Obama has done anything to earn this award it was his appeasement of our enemies and the rogues around the world who would do us harm.
Perhaps the committee thought they were voting on an Appease Prize*…
*Thanks to my friend Doug Ross for this term.
Others:
Absurd Decision (Times UK)
Mixed Reviews, Embarrassing Joke (al-Reuters)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Pat Buchanan Is Off His Meds
Dec 31, 2008 Political
Pat Buchanan is no admirer of George W Bush and that is perfectly OK. But Buchanan allows his hatred for Bush and his obvious dislike for Jews to cloud his judgment.
It is no secret that Buchanan is not a supporter of Israel. Every time there is an issue he jumps at the opportunity to blame them or fault some failed peace process. In his latest piece, he blames Bush for the failure of the peace process and Israel for the war. Buchanan is on the disproportionate force bandwagon and erroneously states that the rocket attacks have killed no one when other media outlets are reporting 17 deaths as a result of the attacks (over the entire time). Be that as it may, the fact is Israel is being attacked and the purpose of responding to an attack is to kill the people attacking you.
Buchanan also asserts that George Bush refused to meet with Arafat and notes that Clinton met and negotiated with him. Arafat was a terrorist and Clinton was a terrorist appeaser so it stands to reason he would talk to him. But Bush did not. If talks were the answer then Clinton would have achieved something since he met with the terrorist more than any other US president.
Buchanan is hoping that Obama will not allow Israel to use American tax dollars to punish the million or so innocent people who are affected because Israel turns off electricity and denies them supplies:
While the United States must support Israel’s right to defend her towns and to strike bases from which Israelis are being attacked, Obama should denounce the collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, by Israel’s cutting off their electricity in the dead of winter and denying them the food and medicine many need to survive.
For us to remain silent in the face of this comports neither with our interests or our values. Israel’s policy of withholding from the weak and innocent of Gaza, women and children, the necessities of life, to punish the guilty who rule at the point of a gun, is a policy that Obama should declare the United States will no longer support with tax dollars.
It is important to note that Israel has allowed humanitarian supplies to cross the border and that the country has worked very hard to minimize the civilian casualties that are inevitable in any war. Hamas shoots rocket into neighborhoods and deliberately targets civilians. The leaders in Palestine are responsible for much of the problem. Corruption keeps needed supplies from the people.
It is also important to note that Israel gave up Gaza in exchange for a promise of peace. That peace never came and, true to form, more demands were made of Israel. Each time they capitulate another demand for more land is made. Israel made a deal and the Oslo Accord spelled out the terms. When Hamas took control it failed to recognize any of the agreements made by the prior government. It refuses to recognize Israel and has been attacking the small country since it took control.
Buchanan might get his wish because Barack Obama is not friendly to Israel. He talks a good game but he has associates who are anti Semites and he made fun of Jews at a party (the video tapes of which the LA Times refuses to release).
Israel does not need Patrick Buchanan to decide what is in its best interest. Israel needs to rout Hamas and ensure it has no ability to regroup. It is time for Israel to finish off this terrorist organization and get responsible people ruling the Palestinians. Then there will be hope for peace.
That is all that Israel has ever wanted. Israel would be happy to live in peace next to its neighbors.
But, when everyone around you wants you dead then you tend to be a bit jumpy. Let’s hope Israel is able to end this mess once and for all.
As for Buchanan, he should start taking his medication again.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Obama Redeemed by a Mistake?
Jul 20, 2008 Political
Jesse Jackson said it was a redemptive campaign. Obama’s foreign policy wisdom has caused great joy in moonbat-ville tonight. Only problem, it is all predicated upon a mistake.
The MSM and the Internet are all atwitter as liberals frolic at the news that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has agreed with the Messiah, Barry Obama. A German publication quoted Maliki as agreeing with the Messiah on a 16 month withdraw plan for US forces. I have been reading the reports of this at ABC’s Political Punch and the liberals are having multiple orgasms. They are thanking Obama and attributing all this to his vast foreign policy experience. The only problem in all this is that Maliki never said that he agreed with Obama. He was either misquoted or his statement was mistranslated.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: experience, Iraq, Obama, peace, rock star, war, withdraw