Saturday, November 3, 2012

Letter: Dear World ...For the Love of my Country

Dear World,

Americans will vote for a new President on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

Our enemies have been rubbing their hands with glee, believing the majority of America's media, that Obama has already "won".  Do not believe your lying eyes or ears!  

America's apology tour for our great nation ends after November 6th.  The only apology you will hear is one that is sorry for misleading this world in thinking America has become soft, feeble, and prefers to support the very nations that wish us harm.

What you will see happen on November 6th, is Americans giving a voice to the disaster of the past four years.  It will be our turn to pass out candy in celebration of an end to the worse four years in America's history.

And it will send a message to our true allies and friends around the world that we appreciate your trust in America, as we appreciate your standing by us in enduring a presidency that put his feet up on a desk and mocked, taunted, and shamed one of our best friends in the Middle East, Israel.

On November 6th, dear world, you will hear America sing their songs of patriotism - something that has been silenced these past four years.  You will watch, as our American flags will wave proudly throughout the land and no amount of burning our flags will have had any consequences in your countries.  We are stronger than your attempts to insult the United States.

You will witness an American President embrace all that our country holds dear, close to their hears and that love for country will shine like a beacon throughout this world. We will once again support our allies and send a warning to those who wish to destroy our nation and its people.  You may have thought you  infiltrated our highest offices in this land, but be forewarned, Americans plan on doing lots of house cleaning after November 6th.

The sacrifices of all our soldiers will never be in vain.  Americans support their military.

You should also know that this thing called "political correctness" will be abolished, for we intend to call a "spade a spade" and that means we no longer intend to call "evil-good and good-evil".  

For the Love of My Country,
Bee Sting 

The Islamists' Need to Feel Wronged

Egyptian Muslims attacking U.S. Embassey 


by Nonie Darwish
November 1, 2012 at 5:00 am

As "the true focus behind jihad…. is to defend, not destroy", the Muslim world is constantly looking for excuses to confirm the need to feel wronged to justify attacks on American and Western interests. The US should by now have understood that because Islamic anger and terror are always on the search for these excuses, one must never fall for them. The Islamists do not want co-existence; they want surrender.
When the truth finally came out that three loyal Americans and the American Ambassador had been murdered in Benghazi, Libya, on 9/11/12 as the result of a calculated terror attack and not, as the White House had been insisting for two weeks, a YouTube video made privately by an American and released months earlier, the President abruptly changed his discredited story, and surreally tried to slip the world into believing he had called that attack an act of terror all along.

It must be difficult for any American administration to deal with aggressors in the Muslim world; so far it has been treating them as if they were immature, spoiled children who must be given their way.

What America fails to, or does not want to, understand is that Islamic scriptures forbid Muslims to take non-Muslims as friends, or even as partners worthy of cooperation, compromise or equal rights: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews or Christians for friends…or helpers." [Qur'an 5:51; 3:28; 3:118; 9:23; 53:29; 3:85; 3:10; 7:44, and 1:5-7; and half a dozen entries from the Hadith] Although for Western consumption there have been attempts to tart up how these verses are interpreted, throughout the Arab and Muslim world, they are clearly understood by most Muslims to mean what they say: "Smite the neck" means "smite the neck," as can see nearly every week, from innocent civilians blown up on the streets, to the recent attempted murders of a teenage girl for the crime of wanting an education; for even allegedly mishandling a Qur'an, or for enduring gang rape].

One would think that America, after 9/11/01, would have learned, that, as "the true focus behind jihad…. is to defend, not destroy", the Muslim world is constantly looking for excuses and cracks of weakness to confirm the need to feel wronged, to justify attacks on American and Western interests.
Muslims have learned from their history that terror works. They have also learned that for terror to achieve its goal of surrender, the Islamic tender touch must accompany the terror: both the Islamic father who holds the stick and the Islamic mother who hugs while the father is beating.

The US should also by now have understood that just because Islamic anger and terror are constantly on the search for these excuses, one must never fall for them. Islamist chatter in the Arab media and on Arab websites is constantly itching for confrontation and looking for justification for terror. It was possibly this mindset that prompted the U.S. embassy in Cairo to release the following statement condemning the video even before any attacks on the Cairo embassy:
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Four hours after the release of this statement, crowds stormed the embassy, destroyed the U.S. flag and replaced it with an Islamic flag. By issuing such a statement, the US embassy in Cairo, not only took the bait, it provided the bait by creating the excuse the Islamists needed. The anger in Egypt about the two-month-old video, which had to come out exactly on the eve of 9/11, should have been proof enough that it was merely a pretext.

As someone born and raised in the Muslim world, I know that Islamic anger and terror against the West lurks and lies in wait for any excuse to explode at the culture that is the object of their jihad. Jihad, once the pride of the Islamic world, is now an international crime that Muslims have learned to camouflage as self-defense. Not one mosque Friday sermon in the Middle East is devoid of cursing of the non-Muslim (kafir) enemies of Islam. As jihad is a violation of the rights of others, both individuals and nations, Muslims have become all too eager to assert their victimization by others, meanwhile looking for an opportunity for weakness in their prey, a flinch or an apology, which they consider a signal to do their holy violence.

When anyone dares to say jihad means violence, or when violence is committed in the name of Islam, the so-called moderate Muslims are outraged but manage to look the other way. The more some Muslims terrorize, while others stand by in denial, the more they confuse, soften and weaken their victim. While one face of Islam is doing the terror, the other face tells the world, we love peace, so please don't you dare judge us by our terrorists because if you do, we will riot, kill, and burn. Both faces of Islam work together; one cannot survive without the other.

We now have an American president who refuses to make the American people number one for his empathy, and would rather cater to the outside world and to the cat and mouse game they are playing with American sensibilities. Many in American mainstream media and government have turned not against the perpetrators, but against the victims of Islam, whether they are Americans, Egyptian Copts, or apostates of Islam. To many in the government and in the media who think they know better, these objects of Muslim breach of trust are simply "Islamophobes" or "racists." Members of the government and the media have denied the American people the right to identify their enemy and eradicate it. They have turned a blind eye to American victims of terror and their families and disregarded America's need for a healing process based on justice. By saying that Americans and Europeans are to blame, Western governments and the media have, like the President, been refusing to treat Americans as adults.

America, with its superpower knowledge and status, has fallen for the old tricks of Islamic culture; many believe they must have done something wrong to deserve terror, if not over a movie, over a cartoon or a video or, as with kindergarten children in Africa, over a stuffed teddy bear. 'How dare we deal with these dictators?', they may think; or, 'How dare we liberate these people from their tyranny?' Human rights groups would say those were acts of aggression or acts of interfering with their internal affairs -- and all excellent excuses for jihad.

Many Americans, unable to stand up and call the terror attack by its name, have reacted to 9/11 by blaming each other but never the perpetrator of the terror. That old Arab trick has always worked on many cultures, such as the Coptic Christians when Egypt used to be a pluralistic Christian nation and a superpower.

Consciously or unconsciously, the American people elected as their first president after 9/11/01, Barack Hussein Obama, a man proud of his Islamic heritage, who seems to have believed that during his administration, because of his unique heritage and understanding of Islam, he was best fit for bringing about a reconciliation between the West and Islam.

But when the Muslims did not reach out and take Obama's "outstretched hand," and attempted terror attacks were repeated under Obama's watch, no matter how hard he tried, both Obama's credibility and Islamic excuses were threatened, Obama's legacy of being the only president in recent history who managed to have no major terror attack during his presidency, was destroyed. He now has nothing to show for having changed American/Muslim world relationship, except for emboldening Islamism by a refusal to say even one word to deter it. He now cannot say that everything he did was worth it for the sake of peace and that those who criticized his appeasement, his bow to the Saudi kind and his Cairo speech, were right.

Obama appears to have been aiming at a legacy of peace with Islam, but that legacy came crashing down with the terror attack on 9/11/12. The Muslim world was most likely disappointed with Obama who they thought was not appeasing enough. But then again, the Islamists always want more -- more than what Obama or any other president can give them; they do not want co-existence, they want surrender.

Obama's theory failed. He overestimated himself and his belief that he understands the Muslim world and will show future presidents how to do it has also failed.

In desperation, Obama pursued a policy of denial in an attempt to save face. He went as far as telling the American people, just like many Muslims do, that terrorism is really not terrorism and that it must be because of a logical reason and that Muslims are reasonable people without an agenda of jihad.

The video became the handy excuse not only for the Egyptian people to save face, but also for the Obama administration to save face. If that excuse came at the expense of the truth, or the lives of American diplomats and heroic Navy SEALS and servicemen, then so be it. Many Americans are proud they finally have their first black president, but as someone born and raised in Egypt, I see many similarities between Obama and the Arab leaders I grew up with. Obama might be best described as the first Arab president.
Nonie Darwish, President of Former Muslims United and author "The Devil We Don't Know"
Related Topics:  Nonie Darwishreceive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list

Islam the knife in America’s back wielded by B Hussein Obama

Boudica BPI Weblog

We have been posting for years that Islam is nothing more than an evil cult of intimidation, subjugation, death and destruction spawned from the wet dream of a mad man called Muhammad. Contrary to what one of the major purveyors of Islam as a great religion, a tolerant and peaceful religion with many proud achievements (Barack Obama) says Islam is none of the aforementioned. We are at war with Islam, not a war declared by us but a war declared upon us by Muslims in the name of Islam. Wake up. We all saw how Obama had Ambassador Christopher Stevens back along with other American citizens for 7 hours before the knife struck. Do you honestly believe he cares any more for you than for them?
Islam and Muhammad depicted where they properly belong. Islam dead Muhammad’s head on a woman’s spear.

Islam: The Knife in Our Back By Eric Allen Bell

The racist, Muslim, mad man of decades past, Malcolm X, once remarked that, “You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you’re making progress”.  And how right he was indeed.
At the end of his life, Malcolm X was said to have come to a point of peace within himself.  He renounced his hatred of “the white man” and non-Muslims publicly. And then of course he was mowed down by bullets, savagely assassinated by devotees of the “religion of peace”.
Once upon a time there was a destructive deity named Allah, who kept the whole world under constant surveillance and was very, very pissed off at everyone.  And Allah emerged from the disturbed mind, of a mad man named Muhammad.  And so it came to pass that Muhammad and Allah decided to work together, to bring peace into the world, by slaughtering and enslaving everyone who disagreed with them.  The end.  Or not.  You see, before Muhammad went off to Paradise, to meet his 72 virgins, he wrote a best seller which he quaintly titled, “The Holy Quran”.  It’s all the rage these days.  And this rage has really created quite an endless riot.
Anyway, as it turns out, Muhammad’s mental condition was never properly diagnosed, prior to the publishing of “The Holy Quran”.  And this has had grave consequences – about 270 million graves actually, according to Jihad death toll estimates from Dr. Bill Warner of The Center for the Study of Political Islam.  For the past 1,400 years, Muhammad-mania has swept across the globe, cutting off heads and hands, raping, torturing, crucifying, genitally mutilating, bombing, hijacking, Jew hating, fist shaking, rock throwing, nose cutting, child molesting, kidnapping and otherwise spreading the religion of peace.
And yet to this day, many in the field of Psychiatry are still unwilling to admit that Muhammad’s mental illness is in fact contagious.  Sadly, it seems that several Psychiatrists are suffering from another common mental disorder, known as “Political Correctness” or simply PC.  The diagnostic manual for the field of Psychiatry, called the DSM-IV-TR, refuses to acknowledge the personality disorder of PC because this would not be Politically Correct. Read more…
Follow us, donate and help us stay on-line.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Obama With an Exclamation Point! - by Daniel Greenfield

Thursday, November 01, 2012

Obama With an Exclamation Point!

It may one day become a footnote in campaign lore that in the dying days of the campaign, the Obama 2012 team decided that the answer to reinvigorating their candidate’s hopes lay in adding an exclamation point to his already vapid slogan. The blue bumper stickers, signs and banners would no longer read merely, “Forward” instead they would now say, “Forward!” to indicate just how emphatic their candidate was about going forward.

There could hardly be a better sample of the style over substance politics of the style over substance candidate than a press release issued touting the energetic qualities of its exclamation point. Sure the Romney campaign might be gaining in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, but Team Obama is getting vigorous with its punctuation signaling the progressive netroots that no longer will their man be satisfied with saying, “Forward.” From now on when Obama says “Forward”, there will be an imaginary exclamation point after it.

The triumph of punctuation over substance punctuates a campaign that has not really been about anything. For months Obama sleepwalked through campaign appearances, relying on his big money donors to convince swing state voters that Romney murdered steelworkers and keeps all his money in a Swiss bank account labeled Mitt Rommel.

With the first debate, Team Big Bird realized that wouldn’t work, and Valerie Jarrett got out the cattle prod and put an exclamation point at the end of Obama. Since then Obama has been putting exclamation points at the end of everything, but putting exclamation points at the end of every sentence doesn’t make people pay attention to you; it just makes you sound desperate. The problem with Obama’s sentences never lay in their punctuation but in their lack of content. And no matter how Obama punctuates them, they still don’t contain the reassurances that voters want to hear.

Since his first sentence, Obama has used stylistic tricks, weighing his pauses, asking and answering his own questions, and reaching for grandeur through cheap rhymes and even cheaper metaphors, and now as he approaches the inevitable period, the tricks just aren’t working anymore.

Every good writer and speaker knows that technique is a way of setting out the message, while technique for the sake of technique is like cake, it’s fine if you’re in the mood for desert, but it’s no substitute for a full dinner. Obama has been feeding his audiences wads of sweet sticky cake, ladling on the vanilla frosting and the chocolate, but as the unemployment numbers have risen and more families are going hungry, the voters who ate his cake last time are asking this time, “Where’s the Beef?”

Obama has more tricks than ever, but the time when he could distract his audience by finding a nickel behind their ears or making doves fly out of his hat has flown away. The people have seen the tricks and they want something more. They want an adult who takes his responsibilities seriously instead of a charming child doing tricks while picking their pockets.

The exclamation point is yet one more childish trick, it’s texting rendered as a slogan, it’s an emphasis with nothing to emphasize. It says that we are going forward even more so than before, but where is forward and where will following the bouncing exclamation point at the end of it take us?

Forward asks us to take the trajectory on faith, to be swept away by the sheer delight of seeing that much emphasis place at the end of a slogan. And not even the worst rally swooners are going to fall for it this time.

The energy of a campaign comes not from exclamation points but the faith that people put into it. And what people, the masses who show up in sweating groups to listen to a candidate speak, who hold up banners and make Election Day phone calls, want is a better world. Four years later it takes a great leap of faith to believe that another four years will offer anything better than we already have.

Liberals embraced Obama as an antidote to the grimness of the Bush years. Conservatives embraced Romney as an antidote to the grimness of the Obama years. But why would anyone embrace another four years of the great exclamation point taking us forward into even deeper debt, greater foreign instability and further partisan wrangling?

If the Obama campaign were genuinely an optimistic creature, instead of a zoo of spinning memes and frantic Tumblr pages, then it wouldn’t need to fight its wars on women or its hysterical attacks on its opponents. It could run a positive campaign rooted in its accomplishments, rather than clawing at media oxygen by manufacturing memes aimed at making Romney look silly, which only rebound and end up making Obama look silly.

But there’s nothing optimistic about Obama 2012. It shares some of the aesthetic sensibilities of its 2008 campaign, but little of the mood. It is not a campaign that is for change, but a fear of change. It hounds its target groups warning them of Romney and Ryan’s depredations because it is afraid of them and it wants its voting blocks, its caged captive voters to be just as afraid of change and of the future as it is.

Its slogan, with or without an exclamation point, isn’t sincere. It doesn’t really want to move forward, instead it wants us to stay where we are, it wants to replay the last four years, but this time with even greater dysfunction. The only plans on the table all involve tax hikes, health care cuts and partisan battles. And that means that Forward is really Backward, suggesting that the backward forward campaign might want to swap out the exclamation point for a question point instead.

After 2010, Obama had a chance to reinvent himself and his administration. Like Clinton, he could have found a way to synergize his agenda with that of the Republican resurgence in Congress and even claim credit for the popular portion of it. But Obama was too insecure to play the legislative game; instead he picked fights, called names and unilaterally began making his own laws. Now his pitch to voters is that if they reelect him, the Republicans will give up and come to heel. And if they don’t, then Obama has no fallback position except another four years of partisan gridlock or an imperial White House that now acts as two of the three branches of government.

This isn’t a scenario that appeals to any voter in his right mind. And it’s one reason why the momentum has been shifting away from Obama and toward Romney.

Obama’s mistake lay in his misreading of the Republican ascendance in the midterm election. Like his fellow progressives, he treated it as an attack by an empire of covert conservative interests that had to be beaten and humiliated at any cost. That thin-skinned response showed him to be a very poor player and missed the entire point of the exercise.

It wasn’t the Koch Brothers who decided in 2010 that his administration needed a check; it was the voters who cast those ballots coast to coast. They did not yet want Obama gone; but they did want his power to be balanced out by an opposing party. The 2010 elections were a sign that the American people were putting their new leader on probation. They didn’t want him to beat the Republicans, they wanted the Republicans to take the edge of his policies, like ObamaCare.

Instead of listening to the people, Obama put on his exclamation point and rammed ObamaCare through anyway. It was a Pyrrhic victory, the victory of the exclamation point over the American people. Determined to go Forward when the people wanted them to slow down, the Democrats persisted and are paying the price.

The last thing that the independent voters who rejected the exclamation point in 2010 want to see is its return. They are not interested in exclamation point agendas, but in mature leaders who listen to them and then act, instead of treating a setback as an opportunity to settle the question by yelling twice as loudly.
Maturity is a concept that the Exclamation-Point-in-Chief has not been able to grasp. That failure led him to a disastrous performance in three debates, going from absent to obnoxiously combative, without ever understanding why the voters that he needed were slipping through his fingers like handfuls of sugar in the rain.

Voters are not looking for a reenergized campaign, but a responsible campaign. They are not scoring the candidates on points, but on a willingness to work hard and make responsible decisions. They were swept away once by style, but now, four years later and four years poorer, they want substance and that has been the one thing that the Forwarder has never been able to deliver.

Like most men who have occupied his chair, Obama has aged, but he hasn’t gained any gravitas or grown into the job. Politics is still a game to him and he’s playing to win, but he doesn’t understand that to tens of millions of Americans, it isn’t a game, it’s survival. The exclamation point is the B-Ballers' sneer, it’s the gold plated 9MM in the hand of a hip hop star, it’s the thing that says he is in it for real and he means to win. But voters are coming around to the view that if he wins, they lose.

Obama has put an exclamation point at the end of his campaign, but what is there in front of it, except a goulash of green jobs that never materialized, Muslim democracy with disastrous results and class warfare with no class. The only accomplishment that Obama can run on is accidentally killing Bin Laden, instead of taking him alive and giving him a civilian trial as he originally meant to. And if killing Bin Laden qualifies a man to be president, then there is a Navy SEAL who actually did kill Bin Laden who deserves some consideration for the job.

Forward’s exclamation point says that we must go forward. But why? On the street, a child tugs his mother forward to a candy store, and when she refuses, he pulls harder. “No,” she says. “Yes,” he insists, adding his own invisible exclamation point to the cry. That is the Obama campaign in a nutshell. The American people have refused to go forward and the man who wants them to go forward is trying to convince them by putting an exclamation point at the end of his slogan, his plan, his campaign and his term.

Homeland Security/TSA: Jewish Grandmother not a Member of al-Qaeda


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs a course on "discretion".  We have all read reports of the horror stories at the airports - stories that could be entered in a "Believe it or Not' journal.  Some, so outrageous, that the TSA denies the process that took place by a passenger who dared complain of the treatment they received at an airport.  Read here and watch the video here.

It is not possible that all of the public needs to be humiliated because of Islamic terrorists .Tons of money has been poured into Homeland Security's Department of the TSA to pay employees, instruments for testing, security - millions of dollars.  Why? Because of a potential threat from Islamic terrorism.  Does everyone need to suffer for the threat of Muslims throughout the world?   Islam is bad for everyone. This is what Islam contributed to the world's society - terrorism.

Iin the U.S, has anyone cried Allah Akbar - the cry of Islam before murdering a non-Muslim, or their latest victim, at a local airport?  I do not hear Muslims doing something like that in the U.S.. Who says that?  Jews?  Buddhists?  Christians?  Who exactly are we protecting ourselves from, when boarding or un-boarding a plane?  The only ones crying Allah Akbar were the 19 Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2011.  Oh, the Ft. Hood shooter cried "Allah Akbar", but our president Obama claims that was a "workplace" incident - not the act of a Muslim terrorist!  This makes one think that while ignoring the signs of real terrorists, our TSA members perhaps out of boredom, have decided to humiliate elderly women at airports and then, deny their disrespectful, humiliating actions.  

Story of Israeli Jewish Grandmother arriving at a U.S. airport yesterday:

Americans, you can feel safer today!  Our TSA discovered that a 70 + year old Israeli  Jewish grandmother is not a member of the Taliban, or al-Qaeda.  I received the following story yesterday, from an Israeli friend. I would like to entitle this "Welcome to the U.S., dear Israel".  My friend was concerned about the treatment of his mother at one of our finest airports:  (translation from Hebrew):
To my friends - U.S. peace.I have a brother and a sister in the U.S. (my brother returned to Israel - Meanwhile) .. This is my story:My mother wanted to visit them in the United States - an alliance of Israel. My mom has more than 70 years.
My mother flew from Israel to the U.S. directly (without the stop in the middle), and reached airport in the United States. In the U.S.airport, the security told her to come to a room, where they forced my mother to remove all her clothes and probe, as part of their  security check.
Now, friends, if you try to talk to my mother, you discover quickly, she speaks only Hebrew.  My point ... They took her to the examination room, and told her to drop the clothes. To security checks. My mother, that believe in every word that someone will say it in the United States, from love to the United States, immediately responded in agreement for removing doubt from anyone American. My mother did not know how a bomb looks like, and does not know how it works.
After the security checks, surprise, they discover my mother is not bin Laden or some other Islam terrorist!  So thank you .. I just want to say, my mom Israeli Jew from seed - Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham of the tribe of Judah in Israel. I do not know whether to be angry or not .. But Israel loyal to the U.S. and do not get to kill anyone American, I am convinced that my mother is not, and we are loyal to the United States. Check out the Arabs, not us, please. My mother is like a saint, she do not know how it looked - keyboard, just pray all the time for the world and Israel.
My mother, after she finished a test that she is not Bin Laden, or someone else, I do not know, the Security then say to my mother,  "We are sorry."
My mother tells them "It's okay, it your job, I bless you," I know my mother, a very fine woman, but I felt hurt, that I heard it from her.
My story,, that I share with my American friends. And I'm also loyal and love the USA.  But, If you publish the story of my mother, I thank you.
From all my heart - Ron.
If any of the Media wish to interview the Israeli grandmother, please contact me.

Israel has the best airport security in the world.  Why?  Because they are constantly attacked by Islamic terrorists - daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly.  They know what to look for and should train our own TSA security members, to avoid future humiliating incidents like the one that happened yesterday.

Since 9/11, has there been any Islamic terrorists disguising themselves as 70+ year old grandmothers?  The TSA says they do not profile, but I beg to differ, since they seem to be profiling grandmothers and our Israeli allies.  Have we lost our minds in the process of preventing terrorist attacks?  Is there no common sense left in and among our federal agents?  Strip searches ...??!  We have billions into modern technology, like the airport scanners - and we have resorted to strip searching elderly women?!  My friend's mother had gone through Israel's security in order to fly to the USA.  What's the message we're sending our ally Israel?

As my friend said, how about searching for real terrorists - Arab/Muslim terrorists - who have all been in their mid-20's, 30's, 40's .... that is, if you gain some wisdom and understand the proper way to profile potential terrorists.

Does anyone in Congress wish to investigate the rules of the TSA and their outrageous practices at the airports?  Anyone wish to put aside the 1930's mind-set of strip-searching elderly Jewish women at the local airports?!  Mark my friend's story down as another "Believe it or Not" story.  

In closing, let me remind everyone who the Muslims (this video, of Palestinian celebration after 9/11) hate and where the Islamic terrorist from the Middle East come from, who cry "Allah Akbar":

"Palestinians" Celebrating 9/11 (CNN - Fox) September 11

Why this video?  Because Americans lost their innocence on
9/11 ... we lost the freedom to be free 
Now, we are subject to airport strip searches,
for the sake of "safety"?
We just celebrated our 11th Anniversary of 9/11 Day of Remembrance.
that same day, our diplomats were murdered in Libya.

America - be watchful, but gain the wisdom to know what, who, and where to watch!

Bee Sting

PS - To put an end to foolishness in Washington, DC - please vote on November 6th - just 4 more days!  Thank you!

UPDATE - November 3, 2012:
Email response:

Hi Bee,
That is unbelievable and outrageous. I feel bad for Rony’s mother. That shouldn’t happen to any one, let alone someone of her age. I don’t know why more people aren’t outraged by incidents like this committed by the TSA. What Rony probably doesn’t know is Obama has actually put Muslims in authoritative positions in the TSA in charge of screening for terrorists at our airports! Talk about the fox guarding the hen house! It is totally unbelievable that we have such a Muslim sympathizer in the White House that the rest of the population has to be treated like potential terrorists when everyone knows who the problem group of people is. If Obama gets re-elected, America will deserve everything it gets. But Rony’s mother and others who are abused at our airports don’t deserve such treatment.

Dear Tony,
Thank you for the "link" and for taking time to comment.  I agree with you: "this shouldn't happen to anyone!"

Benghazi Reveals Obama-Islamist Alliance

November 1, 2012

american thinker

By James Lewis

The nature of the Benghazi disaster is now clear.  Ambassador Stevens was engaged in smuggling sizable quantities of Libyan arms from the destroyed Gaddafi regime to the Syrian rebels, to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.  Smuggling arms to the so-called "Free Syrian Army" is itself a huge gamble, but Obama has been a gambler with human lives over the last four years, as shown by the tens of thousands of Arabs who have died in the so-called Arab Spring -- which has brought nothing but disaster to the Arab world.
For the last four years, the Obama policy has been to offer aid and comfort violent Islamic radicals in the delusional belief that their loyalty can be bought.  We therefore betrayed Hosni Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, so that the Muslim Brotherhood led by Muhammed Morsi could take over.  Obama indeed demanded publicly that Mubarak resign, for reasons that never made any sense at all.  Egypt went into a political and economic tailspin, and the Muslim Brotherhood were elected.  The Muslim radicals have now purged the only other viable political force, the army and police, to protect their monopoly on power.  We have colluded in that betrayal.
In Libya, we betrayed Moammar Gaddafi, who had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush administration.  In Afghanistan, we betrayed the central government set up by the Bush administration and negotiated with the fanatical war sect of the Taliban to take over.  The Taliban entered our history when they gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the years before 9/11/01 to plan, train, equip, and implement the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  The Taliban are our fanatical theological enemy, as shown by their sadistic attempt to assassinate 14-year-old women's rights advocate Malala Yousuf.
Afghanistan has many thousands of Malalas we will never hear about.
Our consistent policy of betrayal of moderate Muslims in favor of radical Islamofascists goes hand-in-hand with our appeasement of the Iranian Khomeinist regime, which is the most America-hating Shiite regime, now facing competition from America-hating Sunni regimes in Egypt and elsewhere.  It also fits our cooperation with Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" regime, which has also purged the Turkish army and police to remove modern-minded Turks from power.  Egypt and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.
We have therefore followed a single "community disorganizing" policy toward the Muslim world, consisting of betraying moderates to bring theocratic fascists to power.  Obama "explained" that policy in a publicized argument with Hillary Clinton at the White House when Mubarak was overthrown.  His explanation?  Fascist revolutions are "organic," and therefore more stable than moderate revolutions.  Obama's fantasy policy runs contrary to U.S. foreign policy since World War I.
The biggest loser in this mad administration has been hundreds of millions women of the Muslim world, who were on a path to modernity and freedom until Obama and Hillary Clinton betrayed them.  Today they are shut inside the prisons of sharia law.
The second-biggest loser has been relative stability in a great geographical swath of the Muslim world, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across the Middle East, all the way to Tunisia and Morocco.
The third-biggest loser has been our anti-proliferation policy against the spread of weapons of mass destruction among developing nations.  From fighting proliferation, we have turned to aiding it.
Those three Horsemen of the Apocalypse are now out of the barn and riding free.
In Benghazi, al-Qaeda showed that they could not be bought even by our back-stabbing policy.  Our Benghazi arms-smuggling base was attacked by elements of AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Maghreb) in an act of betrayal against our fantasy-driven way of doing things.  The American betrayer was itself betrayed, and Obama-Hillary could do nothing to defend the Americans under attack at the Benghazi arms-smuggling base, because any public revelation of the truth would rip the cover off our mad actions and focus the hatred of Muslim nations on the United States.
The evidence now shows that Obama was aware of the attack within 55 minutes of the start.  It lasted for six or seven hours, and Obama consistently countermanded standing orders to protect Americans under attack in the Africom command area.  General Ham may have been fired for following standard U.S. policy to defend American personnel.
In Syria, the Assad regime now has a legitimate basis to convict us of deadly dabbling in the Syrian civil war.  Russia and China are likely to take up Assad's cause at the United Nations.  They would be right on the facts.
Because the Benghazi attack coincided exactly with the AQ attack on our Cairo Embassy, both on September 11 of this year, this was apparently a central command decision by AQ, presumably ordered by Osama bin Laden's successor, Al Zawahiri, in Pakistan using a video released on the web shortly before those attacks.  The message was "al-Qaeda lives!"  Everybody who saw the news photos that day got that message.  Only Obama is in public denial.
Because the Egyptian regime chose not to defend our embassy, we know that Muhammad Morsi was in cahoots with the AQ attack.  Host governments always have the first responsibility to defend accredited embassies.  Egypt "forgot" to defend us, and that was the message.
The purpose of the AQ attacks was to embarrass the United States, and to show us to be a paper tiger, precisely the way Ayatollah Khomeini did to Jimmy Carter.  AQ also wanted to tear off the cover of the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation, to make us look like a treasonous ally, which, as it turns out, we are.  All of our allies around the world, from South Korea and Japan to Israel, Australia, and Norway, must now be reassessing our reliability.  One major betrayal of our allies is enough to shatter sixty years of faith in American leadership.
Here is the evidence as published in the Jerusalem Post, in an interview with retired  counterintelligence professional Clare Lopez.  The credit for the exposing the U.S. arms-smuggling conspiracy that just capsized goes to Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy ( and other alert conservative columnists around the web.

Read more:

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Barak and Barack


Ehud Barak, shown with Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, last year
Ehud Barak, shown with Chief of Staff Benny Gantz at the site of a terrorist attack last year
An interview with Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak — thinly disguised as “the decision-maker” created a sensation in early August, when he suggested that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was imminent:
As the Iranians continue to fortify their nuclear sites and disperse them and accumulate uranium, the moment is approaching when Israel will not be able to do anything … For the Americans, the Iranians are not yet approaching the immunity zone − because the Americans have much larger bombers and bombs, and the ability to repeat the operation a whole number of times. But for us, Iran could soon enter the immunity zone. And when that happens, it means putting a matter that is vital to our survival in the hands of the United States. Israel cannot allow this to happen. It cannot place the responsibility for its security and future in the hands of even its best and most loyal friend.

Barak explained that Israel could not depend on an American commitment to destroy the program in the future, even if it were made today:
Ostensibly the Americans could easily bridge this gap,” he believes. “They could say clearly that if by next spring the Iranians still have a nuclear program, they will destroy it. But the Americans are not making this simple statement because countries don’t make these kinds of statements to each other. In statesmanship there are no future contracts. The American president cannot commit now to a decision that he will or will not make six months from now.
So the expectation of such a binding American assurance now is not serious. There is no such thing. Not to mention that President Obama doesn’t even know if he’ll still be sitting in the Oval Office come spring. And if Mitt Romney is elected, history shows that presidents do not undertake dramatic operations in their first year in office unless forced to. [my emphasis]

Suddenly this week, Barak began to sing a different tune. In an interview with the UK Daily Telegraph’s David Blair, he backed off:
His gnawing concern is that Tehran will fortify its nuclear plants, particularly the enrichment facility dug into a mountainside at Fordow, to the point where they become invulnerable to the striking power of Israel’s air force. If Iran reaches this “zone of immunity”, Israel would lose its ability to deal independently with a crucial threat, forcing the country to trust the rest of the world and break the principle of self-reliance that underlies its very foundation.
Earlier this year, however, Iran delayed the arrival of that moment. Tehran has amassed 189kg of uranium enriched to 20 per cent purity, a vital step towards weapons-grade material. In August, the country’s experts took 38 per cent of this stockpile and converted it into fuel rods for a civilian research reactor, thus putting off the moment when they would be able to make uranium of sufficient purity for a nuclear bomb.
Mr Barak said this decision “allows contemplating delaying the moment of truth by eight to 10 months”.

We can relax for a while, right?

I don’t think so. The problem is that the conversion of some relatively highly-enriched uranium into fuel rods does not stop Iran’s progress toward the “immunity zone,” even if it may delay the arrival of the day that a bomb can be assembled. The regime can still “fortify and disperse” its facilities so as to reduce the effectiveness of an Israeli attack. And they are doing so, continuing work on the deeply-buried Fordow plant.
Barak’s logic in August was that what was driving Israel’s decision wasn’t Iran’s progress towards a bomb per se, but rather its progress towards the “immunity zone.” And this progress hasn’t stopped. The argument is no less sound today than it was then.
We also need to keep in mind that fuel rods can be reprocessed, and that there are certainly things that we don’t know about the Iranian program (what Rumsfeld called “unknown unknowns”).

Now Barak is saying that the critical point — which was originally estimated to be right around now — will not be reached until “next spring or early summer.”
One way of looking at it is that nothing has changed — Israel has simply refined its estimate when all factors are taken into consideration.

But the immunity zone is not only a technical concept. It has political components also, the most important being the possible reaction of the US to an Israeli strike on Iran. I argued some months ago that the attack would likely come before the election, when the Obama administration would be concerned not to appear hostile toward Israel.

Unless something happens in the next few days, I was wrong about that. My guess is that the administration managed to persuade Barak that a re-elected Obama would provide backing for an attack, or at least non-interference.

The question that comes to mind is “where is Bibi Netanyahu on this?” We know that Barak met with Obama’s confidant Rahm Emanuel on a visit to the US in October, causing Netanyahu to reprimand him for an “uncoordinated” meeting.

Ehud Barak is a very ambitious man, and one supremely convinced of his abilities. It’s well-known that he thinks he would be a better Prime Minister than Bibi (or anyone else). Obama doesn’t like or trust Bibi, and in fact tried to replace him with Tzipi Livni, who strongly supported Obama policy toward the Palestinians. Given these facts, it’s easy to speculate that the administration promised to help Barak (who is also closer to Obama on the Palestinian issue) replace Netanyahu, in return for his pliability on Iran.

I am not saying that Barak has put his personal interests ahead of those of the state. But these issues are complicated and given to interpretation; perhaps there was a whole constellation of promises about what a new Obama Administration would do in regard to Iran and Barak himself. It’s hard to exaggerate the pressure that an American administration can put on Israel, so we can assume that there were sticks as well as carrots employed.

If this isn’t enough, let’s ask why Iran decided now to slow down its dash for the bomb, thus making it possible for Barak to back down in return. Perhaps it was a result of the secret meeting between administration representatives and the Iranians in Doha, Qatar on October 1 (see also here)? This meeting was said to include yet another close Obama confidant, Valerie Jarrett.

What a tangled web they weave!