Category Archives: war

The Jihad Candidate

The Jihad Candidate
the truth is here….lol

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ and ‘Seven Days in May’ are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader’s imagination at best-seller level. ‘What if’ has always been the solid grist of fiction.
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and one from Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as ‘chaplains’?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya’s history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of ‘racism’.

Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as ‘bigoted racism’; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American ‘free press’ who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation’s reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush’s ‘Skull and Bones’ club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven’t ‘newsmen’ pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate’s cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven’t they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this ‘out of nowhere’ Democrat candidate or that his ‘church’ re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his ‘close pastor friend and mentor’ met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn’t the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world? As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from main stream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn’t our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on ‘those bad American soldiers’ while Islam slaughters non Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as ‘ethnic cleansing’ instead of what it really is; Muslims killing non Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. ‘The process of settlement’ of Muslims in America, Akram explained, ‘is a civilization jihad process.’ This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in ‘America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of ‘racist’ from the left-wing Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan – the ingredients for ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation’s White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?

Change for America? What change? To become another ‘nation of Islam’?

posted by joej-329229 on the newsvine.com

thank you Joel!!!! amen!!

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Analysis, Iraq, politic, Republicans, United States, USA, war

Obama and appeasement

My questions to Obama about appeasement

1.

All Bush was saying is that he is again appeasement. Does all the hysteria in dems camp shows that democrats are against “ anti- appeasement” remarks of Bush? If so why ? Are they are pro – appeasement?

2.

Obama:

“There is a strong bipartisan tradition of engaging in that kind of diplomacy,” Obama told reporters” source

If USA did everything so perfectly correct before, and all we need is go back to what we had before in foreign policy, why then after all successes of 60s ,70s , 80s and 90s which which Obama is referring us to, “ suddenly “ 9/11 happened? May be it was a price to pay previous for appeasement in Lebanon, Somali, U.S.S. Kole etc?

3.

“They’ve got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush’s policies,” source

Hitler was a natural counterbalance to Stalin. Defeat of Germany in WW2 made USSR a regional superpower. Does it mean that we should not fight Hitler in order to keep the balance on?

Leave a comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, 9/11, Analysis, Clinton, GOP, Iraq, McCain, Obama, politic, Republicans, United States, USA, war

Romney, McCain and timetable

according to CNN

“The sharpest exchange in the debate came when Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was asked about the McCain campaign’s charge that he once said he favored a strict timetable for removing troops from Iraq.

Romney has consistently denied ever having backed a timetable and said McCain was taking a small portion of a quote out of context.

“It’s simply wrong,” Romney said. “By the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, falls in the kind of dirty tricks that Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.” But McCain, the Arizona senator who has strongly backed President Bush’s Iraq policy, accused Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned.”

OK, if it is so why state talker McCain would not say in a few days before the Florida primary that “Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned” instead of lying about Romney embracing a timetable foe withdraw ?

 McCain may be right that Romney should support surge back then in more clear words. I would agree with McCain in that.

But I am troubled by the fact that instead of criticizing Romney for not clear enough supporting the surge  , McCain start making stories about Romney accepting a timetable. Why in order to make a legitimate point McCain has to lie?

Is it the high moral ground on which McCain is making gains?

Leave a comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Bush, CNN, debate, debates, Florida Republican primary, GOP, Iraq, Massachusetts, McCain, Mitt Romney, politic, President Bush, republican TV debates, Republicans, United States, USA, war, withdrawal

my vote goes to Mitt Romney!

I have no time to write for my blog: business is going very well and takes all my time. However few notes I have to post. As a Floridian republican I am going to vote in Florida Republican primary tomorrow and my vote goes to Mitt Romney!
Why not McCain?
Because , in addtion to everything I wrote previously( here and here):
1.
McCain’s attack on Romney with accusations that Romney has a timetable for withdrawal : it is a lie. And it is disgusting when a candidate such a McCain, who built a campaign on “higher than others moral ground” is lying. The fact that Romney is willing to discuss an end of Iraq war (not a timetable!!!) is a very good sign for me. It shows that Romney is a real pragmatist and as such he sees that we have a mission in Iraq and as long as soon as that mission is completed, we have no further business there. Romney is not for capitulation, Romney is not for withdrawal due to ideology. Romney is for victorious end of the war, is anything wrong with ending the war victoriously and going home? McCain wants us to stay in Iraq forever and wants our troops to serve and protect Iraqis (which is very silly in my view). I do not want our troops there in harms ways serving Iraqis. So Romney position is clear: get the job done, take care of results and then get out!
2. McCain is continuously mocking the fact that Romney is rich and therefore spending his wealth for elections. Since when it is a stigma to be rich in America?
I am for Romney because:

• Romney is smart, unlike McCain (who was  ranked fifth from the bottom in a class of about 800 graduates) Romney was a brilliant student

graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class. McCain, on other hand, graduated near the bottom of his class from Annapolis Naval Academy. (read more)

• Romney is successful, he is campaigning in depth and seriously (unlike Thompson and Giuliani).
• Romney is a man of moral convictions and does not play with his faith as McCain does: today McCain is “Episcopalian,” tomorrow Baptist, after tomorrow he might be a Mormon.
• He is a successful guy and a proven manager (which by definition make him an excellent leader) as I wrote previously. I see no contradiction between leader and manager.

If not Mitt Romney who can be a better president ?

1 Comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Baptism, Baptists, Episcopalian church, Florida, Florida Republican primary, GOP, McCain, Mitt Romney, mormon, mormonism, United States, USA, voter, war

Ron Paul versus OBAMA?

Watching republican debates on FOX

Ron Paul: republican party is threatening to Iran and Pakistan

Wait a second was it OBAMA who was going to attack Pakistan? Name me one republican who did advocate this idea

Leave a comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, anti-war, Barack Obama, debate, debates, fox, Iran, Islamic Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamo fascism, liberal, Obama, Pakistan, republican debates, republican TV debates, Ron Paul, United States, USA, war

thank you to all our vets in Iraq : “No question’ violence in Iraq down”

A U.S. commander in Baghdad said “there’s just no question” violence is down in the Iraqi capital, paving the way for U.S. redeployments to presurge levels.

thank you to all our vets, first of all , today  vets from the Iraq and Afghanistan .  Happy Veterans Day!

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq war, violence, war

Obama.Variations on topics of populism: part one ” undo the war”

Listening to Barack Obama’s recent speech in Manchester New Hampshire (CSPN-2) :

Incredibly populist speech. He can beat even Edwards with his blatant populism.

If I will have time I will go point by point: education, healthcare , global warming; all accessories of populism are in place. Nothing really new in this populist talk.

History knows only two forms of implementation of populism: communism and fascism. Those who like populism have to choose on those above because there are no other historical options available.

 

Let me focus only on his favorite aspect : anti war ( or to be precise pro-defeat) position. His anti-war vote is essentially only thing that separates him from Clinton who is essentially same populist position in terms of universal healthcare and feeding money to educational system.

So let us see what Obama is saying about the war:

1.

undo the war” slogan

He reminds us again and again that he was one who was against the war.

You were against war? OK! Let us for the sake of argument accept that you were right then. It does not mean that you are right now. Things changed between then and now. You cannot stay in the past .You have to adjust your political mind to new reality. You do not like this reality? So do I. But if you do not like a reality it does not mean that you can ignore a reality: there is no “UNDO” button on “ political computer”. You were against the war it does not mean that you can “undo“ that war. And this is what Obama essentially is saying: “I was against the war then , war was wrong then , and if you will elect me I will end the war ( read “ I will capitulate”)”.

He presumes, for some reason, that after he will surrender everything will be like it was before the war. He presumes that the war will be undone by electing him as a president. Very misleading and deceitful message.

2.

price of withdrawal: misleading out of the war versus misleading in the war

If Obama indeed is honest as he claims (the main message of Obama’s is that he is honest outsider unlike other candidates who are dishonest insiders ) he has to talk right now with his constituency about price of withdrawal which will be huge. But he is not talking about price of capitulation, he is talking only about how correct he was back then when he was against the war. ( his glorious moment as he thinks)

He either does not understand what he is talking about or he is disingenuous in order to just to be elected. Why he his not talking with constituency about the price of withdrawal ( capitulation)? He is saying that if he is a president he will talk honestly about problems. So talk to us about the price of capitulation! Repercussions of capitulation will be catastrophic or at least they serious enough to talk about if you are really honest, of course . Capitulation means broken commitments, slaughtered allies, forever brokent trust in USA as word worthy partner.

So my question to Obama is : OK we got your message , you were right then does it mean that you have an alibi for being wrong now?

3.

personal vanity of Bush versus personal vanity of Obama;

May be starting the war was caused by personal vanity of Bush. May be so . But it looks like that loosing the war is a goal dedicated to personal vanity of Obama. Just because he voted against war, war has to be lost . Otherwise … he was wrong! So hurry up Obama , obstruct American efforts to win the war! If the USA will win this war it iwill prove that you were wrong back then voting against the war! You cannot afford it personally , so you have to “ stop Bush” in his efforts to win the war.

We are paying price for mistakes of Bush . I agree with that .Many things were done wrong. But why anybody would think that “ ending the war “ ( read capitulation) just because Obama voted back then against the war, will solve any of our problems? Would capitulation be a monument to Obama’s vanity?

9 Comments

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Analysis, anti-war, Barack Obama, Bush, CSPN, CSPN-2, democrats, Edwards, Iraq, Iraq war, Manchester, Manchester New Hampshire, New Hampshire, Obama, politic, populism, propaganda, United States, USA, voter, war, withdrawal