Responder
¡Bienvenido! Para que puedas participar, intercambiar mensajes privados, subir fotos, dar kudos y ser parte de las conversaciones necesitas estar ingresado en los Foros. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

Obama's Moral Relativism is Immoral and Lethal

     What do the murders of four Israelis and the deaths of 22 U.S. servicemen have in common?  They are both the result of Obama's immoral pandering to terrorists and islamofascists.

    Last night Obama celebrated the victory in Iraq during a prime time televised address to the nation.  This was a victory that occured as a result of the new rules of engagement implemented by President Bush and General Petraeus during the "surge".  It was a policy that Obama vociferously opposed, yet has taken credit for its success. 
    Now, we are reaping the fruits of the "Obama surge" which sent our troops into a meat grinder, while tying their hands in a way that prevents them from killing terrorists.  This has resulted in a record number of deaths.  Whether we call them casualties of political correctness or fatalities of Islamic-pandering, they are a direct result of Obama's morally dyslexic priorities.

     Yesterday, on cue from Obama's push for a Arab terror state in Israel, Hamas terrorists gunned down four Israelis near the city of Hebron.  In response, Obama
said that both sides have "legitimate claims", and declared that the terror attack "is not going to stop us". 
 
Think for a moment of the implications of this remark.  Obama will not let the killings prevent him from granting the killers more territory, weapons, and concessions from Israel, so they can kill more people.  Sadly, the terrorists followed Hussein's implicit advice and shot two more Israelis a few hours ago.

       As bad as Obama's economic policies are, his foreign policy is even more nefarious and perverted.  If Republicans take back the House we need to implore them to hamstring Obama's Afghanistan and Mideast policies with the same vigor as they will apply to his economic policies.
Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

Ruling Class vs. the People


Unemployment is hovering around 9.6%, our national debt is over $13 trillion, one-in-six Americans are receiving some type of government help, and Barack Obama just wrapped his sixth vacation in less than two years as President.

It was a waterfront vacation in Martha’s Vineyard that cost around $50,000 for the rental property alone. (This doesn’t count the cost of staff, of Secret Service protection, or the transport and fuel for the 20-vehicle caravan that traveled with the President all over the island.)

If a sixth vacation of this magnitude seems a bit pretentious to you, you’re not alone. Even David Letterman, the decidedly liberal host of the “Late Night Show,” thought the trip so ostentatious at a time like this that he said: “[Obama will] have plenty of time for vacations after his one term is up."


Letterman is right on the mark here. With AP polls showing that 56% of voters disapprove of the way Obama has handled the economy, he’s courting political disaster by continuing his smug trek from beach house to golf course to beach house again, during a summer when many Americans didn’t even get one vacation. (Nor is Obama’s image helped by the fact that he has played more rounds of golf in less than two years than President George W. Bush did in two whole terms.)

But this is a teachable moment: For we have to understand that “hope and change” was every bit the façade that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin warned us it would be. Obama doesn’t care about the plight of the average Joe anymore than he cared about the plight of the now-famous “Joe the Plumber.”

This is because Obama is part of the ruling class. As such, he is literally against the people. And his wife is right there with him (she may actually be more smug than he).

Who, but the wife of a member of the ruling class, could take a $375,000 European vacation at time when the American people suffer as they now do? Moreover, who but the haughtiest of ruling class members could do so knowing that the American taxpayer was going to be stuck holding tab?

I’m aware that the Obama has tried to lessen the criticism hurled at Mrs. Obama by announcing that she would pay for all “personal expenses” out of pocket, but, as with Martha’s Vineyard, that doesn’t include the cost of staff, Secret Service, etc. In fact, estimates place the cost of simply flying Michelle and her entourage to Spain and back at $178,000, and that’s $178,000 which taxpayers are going to pay.

There’s always been a strong hint of entitlement swirling around Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Now that the media has crammed picture after picture of the first family’s sixth vacation down our throats, the hint is so strong as to become repugnant.

We the people have been duped. There is no hope and change. There is only the growing feeling of a Carter-like malaise that threatens to overtake the American people even as “Obama the most merciful” plans his seventh vacation.


Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

 

If Saddam Had Stayed Saddam would have joined the nuclear bad-boys club with Iran and North Korea.

By DANIEL HENNINGER..

 

        From the vantage point of history, Barack Obama's prime-time speech announcing the Iraq war's end is less important than the speech he gave eight years ago as a state senator in Illinois. This was the October 2002 "dumb war" speech to an anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago's Federal Plaza.

Back then, Mr. Obama had a more complex view of the stakes in Iraq than he does now. Today, the Iraq war has been reduced to not much more than a long, bloody and honorable gunfight between U.S. troops and various homicidal jihadists and insurgents inside Iraq, a war sustained by George Bush, ******* Cheney and some neocon advisers mainly to "impose" democracy on the Iraqis.

      I think it is a profound mistake to confine the war's significance to the borders of Iraq. Mr. Obama himself raised the central question about Iraq in that 2002 speech: Did Saddam Hussein pose a danger beyond his borders, or not? "Let me be clear," State Senator Obama told the Federal Plaza crowd, "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. . . . He has repeatedly thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear capacity. . . . But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . [H]e can be contained."

      Daniel Henninger asks what the world look like today if Saddam Hussein had remained in power in Iraq. .Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. .This is a widely held view. The Economist's editors this week said Mr. Obama was largely right that Iraq was a dumb war. What the war did, they say, was "rid the Middle East of a bloodstained dictator."

    It did a lot more than that. Let us assume that Mr. Obama's "smarter" view had prevailed, that we had left Saddam in power in Iraq. What would the world look like today?

  

     Mr. Obama and others believe that Saddam and his nuclear ambitions could have been contained. I think exactly the opposite was likely. At the time of Mr. Obama's 2002 antiwar speech, three other significant, non-Iraqi events were occurring: Iran and North Korea were commencing toward a nuclear break-out, and A.Q. Khan was on the move. In March 2002, Mr. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear materials dealer, moved his production facilities from Pakistan to Malaysia. In August, an Iranian exile group revealed the existence of a centrifuge factory in Natanz, Iran. A month later, U.S. intelligence concluded that North Korea had almost completed a "production-scale" centrifuge facility.

      It was also believed in 2002 that al Qaeda was shopping for nuclear materials. In The Wall Street Journal this week, Jay Solomon described how two North Korean operatives through this period developed a network to acquire nuclear technologies.

   In short, the nuclear bad boys club was on the move in 2002. Can anyone seriously believe that amidst all this Saddam Hussein would have contented himself with administering his torture chambers? This is fanciful. Saddam was centrifugal. He moved outward, into war with Iran in 1980 and into Kuwait 10 years later. Saddam was a player, and from 2002 onward the biggest game in his orbit was acquiring nuclear capability.

        The definitive account of Saddam's WMD ambitions is the Duelfer Report, issued by the Iraq Survey Group in 2005. Yes, the Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam didn't have active WMD. But at numerous points in the 1,000-page document, it asserted (with quotes from Iraqi politicians and scientists) that Saddam's goal was to free himself of U.N. sanctions and restart his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD. The report: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability. . . . Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability."

     The Survey Group described Iraqi plans to develop three long-range ballistic missiles. Saddam was obsessed with Iran. Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi's thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West's efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation.

     That year Ahmadinejad broke the U.N. seals at the Isfahan uranium enrichment plant. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il was flouting the civilized world, conducting nuclear-weapon tests and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan.

      In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have "contained" him? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq simultaneously would have incentivized Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to enter the nuclear marketplace. Pakistan and India would be increasing their nuke-tinged tensions, not trying as now to ease them.

      We ought to be a lot prouder of our troops coming home from Iraq than we are showing this week. They deserve a monument. That war wasn't just about helping Iraq. It was about us. The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger. The sacrifice made by the United States in Iraq took one of these nuclear-obsessed madmen off the table and gave the world more margin to deal with the threat that remains, if the world's leadership is up to it. A big if.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.... Could Barack Obama be Insane? Plus, a Quiz!

Could Barack Obama be Insane? Plus, a Quiz!

by Jim Byrd

 

       If you are, as I am, a perusing cogitator of the Democratic Party’s purveying of balderdash, then you most certainly have been left scratching your head in a state of bewilderment as to how a brain, or collective brains, larger than a walnut, could produce such poppycock outside an asylum for the maniacal. It’s as if the entire collective Democratic Party and our dear President Obama have gnawed their way out of restraints, moved to Washington, DC, and set up shop. At last, relief appears to be cresting the horizon. All in possession of gumption, intelligence, and old fashioned horse-sense may soon be able to cease head scratching, enjoy respite from hazes of bafflement, and rejuvenate from the cessation of perpetual insomnia from attempting to break the invincible code of ignorance that shrouds Barack Obama and the Democratic Party like a titanium cocoon.

 

       Just as Einstein presented the theory of relativity, Barack Obama presents some other bizarre and deviant theory of relativity, and he will thus represent the Democratic Party in the ensuing manifestation of insanity, stupidity, or perhaps the genius that pervades 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

        Many Americans are enjoying Obama’s “Summer of Recovery” with exercises in futility of staving off foreclosures, searching for employment in a vaporizing job market, pondering the doubling of their health insurance premiums under ObamaCare™, or the fuzzy math ricocheting around their heads of the consequences of living in a country that owes more money than it can generate. This truly is a “Summer of Recovery,” even if it is limited to the docilely psychotic.

       Below readers will find 5 multiple choice questions that will ascertain their political, economic, psychological, and horse-sense acuity:

    1. From the www.whitehouse.gov website, “This summer is sure to be a Summer of Economic Recovery.” With an aggressively revised GDP downgraded to 1.6%, and a Barack Obama economy that has shed 283,000 jobs during the “Summer of Economic Recovery,” Barack Obama wants you to believe that the economy is in the joyous throes of a robust recovery. In light of the aforementioned lugubrious information, Obama’s statement, “I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction,” would make him…

A. Stu...pid

B. Genius

C. Insane

2. Raising the minimum wage to unparalleled heights, thus causing the unemployment rate of 16-24 year olds to reach the unparalleled height of 51% (the highest since 1948), this perpetual genius economic strategy by the Democrats would make them…

A. Stu...pid

B. Genius

C. Insane

3. By abducting $1 trillion from the economy, distilling it through the federal government’s rapacious structure– which uses the La Cosa Nostra’s processing fee of around 50% off the top– then redistributing what is left, about half, back into the same weakened economy to repair the damage created by taking out the $1 trillion in the first place, in addition to the pre-existing damage to the economy from previous governmental policies, the Barack Obama is clearly…

A. Stu...pid

B. Genius

C. Insane

4. Creating an economic stratagem to operate the U.S. government with an exponentially increasing $13.4 trillion deficit in concert with exponentially decreasing revenues (this strategy is obviously based on the same strategy that is used by millions in bankruptcy courts each year), would make Barack Obama…

A. Stu...pid

B. Genius

C. Insane

5. Sign into law a 2500-page health care reform bill that will put 1/3 of the U.S. economy in the hands of governmental bureaucrats that have been responsible for every single economic catastrophe this country has been forced to endure, and this without ever reading a single word in the bill, and being advised by those who have not read a single word of the bill. One of America’s most cerebral political thinkers, Nancy Pelosi, considered the illuminato of common sense by all who will answer B to these questions, made these sagacious remarks to facilitate the passing of the health care reform bill: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” This would make Barack Obama…

A. Stu...pid

B. Genius

C. Insane

The results of this five-question quiz are remarkably predicable. If one has the good fortune to be intimately familiar with Section 8, TANF, and Welfare, and enjoys living off the fruits of others’ labor, then B would be the predicable choice, and for good reason. If one has a solid foundation in ethics, economics, education, morals, and common sense, then A would be the predicable choice, and for good reason. But, if one is well schooled in the practice of psychology and the sciences of the mind, and can remember every failed economic policy implemented by the Democrats since the beginning of the 20th century, then C may be the predictable choice, and for good reason.

        Could Barack Obama be certifiably stark raving mad, crazy, cuckoo, insane, batty, etc.? Could a disorder of the psyche be the cause of his displaying the symptoms of stupidity? Could Obama and his unbalanced band of schizo luminaries be curable with intensive in-patient therapy combined with apothecary science?

       Who would be so bold as to make this accusation with such punctilious authority? Lyle Rossiter, that’s who. He makes these statements in his new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

      Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD, the highly regarded psychiatrist who received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago, has diagnosed liberal ideology as a mental disorder.

 Dr. Rossiter is a board-certified general and forensic psychiatrist with over 35 years of experience. He also is also a distinguished Diplomate in Psychiatry, member of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Diplomate in Forensic Psychiatry, member of the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry, and has a private practice of general adult and forensic psychiatry.

      So, what does that say about not only President Obama, but also Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, et al.? Dr. Rossiter declares, “the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic pseudo luminaries can only be understood as a psychological disorder.”

A comment by Dr. Rossiter concerning Barack Obama’s politics:

A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.

If you pay close attention to the maniacal policy schemes of Barack Obama, and subject yourself to the continual musings of the sycophantic media that grovel at the feet of all who are antithetical to the fundamentals of economics, common sense, and America, then the ensuing factualisms of Barack Obama’s ideology will ring true by Dr. Rossiter:

  • creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization
  • satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation
  • augmenting primitive feelings of envy
  • rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government

Dr. Rossiter has encapsulated and summarized the entire Democratic mindset in one sentence: “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

If you read the book, you will also be enlightened with the secret liberal agenda, as explained by Dr. Rossiter. A few tidbits:

  • The two major goals of the modern liberal agenda: the Modern Parental Society and the Modern Permissive Culture, and why they violate the basic principles of freedom
  • How the modern liberal agenda attacks the moral and legal foundations of individual liberty
  • How the modern liberal agenda violates the defining characteristics of human nature and ignores the essential realities of the human condition
  • How the modern liberal agenda corrupts the character of the people by appealing to their base instincts and undermining the constraints of conscience
  • How the modern liberal agenda’s ideas and goals are self-contradictory and logically inconsistent
  • Why the liberal mind believes in the irrational principles of the liberal agenda– and what it takes to affect a cure

According to Dr. Rossiter, if you support Obama and his party, you support a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation, and injustice.

      Even if you did not vote for Obama, and are opposed to his maniacal policies, these self-fulfilling prophecies Dr. Rossiter illuminates, which are rapidly becoming cemented as his legacy, are now your dystopian reality.

       If you support Barack Obama, and answered B to the above questions, you can expect to never move beyond the role of worker, minority, or the little guy, and have a higher probability of being unemployed than during FDR’s Great One.

    If you support Barack Obama, you can expect to be poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited, and victimized, but despair not, as you will not have to bear responsibility for the problems you have created for yourself– it’s not your fault. None of your agonies are attributable to your faults or failings, not poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration, mental illness, or defects in character.

     If you support Barack Obama, none of your plights are caused by your failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the root causes of all your pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization, and imperialism.

     In the evolving manifestation of the psychotic mind of Barack Obama, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: big business, big corporations, greedy capitalists, US imperialism, conservative oppressors, the conservative rich, the conservative wealthy, the conservative powerful, the selfish, the conservatives in general, and most certainly, George Bush.

      So there it is, the case for insanity. But what if there is more to it than crazy?

     What if the maniacal and psychotic symptoms do come from unadulterated stupidity? Is the situation grimmer than insanity? What if their psychotic behavior does indeed originate from bad wiring and chemicals spasmodically dashing asunder in the noggin? Is there a modicum of hope?  

     There are two plans of treatment that can absolutely cure the preposterous tomfoolery emitting from Washington, DC for either affliction: Treatment Plan A for plain stupidity and Treatment Plan B for mental disorders.

       Treatment Plan A. If the liberals are just plain du..mb, as the authentic intelligentsia have long believed, then that woeful affliction is treatable. The dire and daunting caveat is that dumbness can be cured with a very rigorous and long-term prescription of actual, fundamental, and useful education, especially history, composition, literature, economics, mathematics, and the sciences, and an intensive dose of the Constitution.

     Ivy League schools would, of course, based on the trend analysis of their governmental employment record, become the incarnate of political persona non grata in this endeavor as the above courses seem to have been replaced with Gynecology in the Ancient World, the Science of Superheroes, and whatnot.

       Treatment Plan B. With a mental disorder, sometimes eradicating the mind of its infirmed status is as simple as an apothecary approach. Perhaps the untangling of our political imbroglio, and halting the assault on the American way of life, along with preserving the Constitution, could someday be as simple as the dissolving of a lozenge under one’s tongue, and perhaps an hour or two of mandated therapy semi-weekly.

     But this is American politics, and all bets must be hedged, as in American politics there is no mutually exclusive agreement between stu..pid and insane. Prudence dictates that perhaps the entirety of the Democratic Party from Obama on down should be treated both for stupidity and insanity, as they produce strong characteristics of both afflictions, and hopefully at some juncture, they can become the fully functioning public servants their campaigns promised they would be.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.... Could Barack Obama be Insane?

MINISTRO PAQUISTANI URGE A OBAMA QUE SE ERIJA CALIFA MUNDIAL DEL ISLAM

  

 Minister wants Obama to become Ameer-ul-Momineen

 

 

Source: OUR STAFF REPORTER September 2, 2010

ISLAMABAD – In a development that could be duly termed as one and only of its kind, an incumbent Government’s Minister has urged US President Barrack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero Mosque and become “Ameer-ul-Momineen” of Muslim Ummah.
      Minister of State for Industries and former member Pakistan Ideological Council Ayatullah Durrani called TheNation on Wednesday to register his demand made to President Obama.
       “The coming Eid would expectedly be observed on 9/11, this a golden opportunity for President Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero and become Amir-ul-Momineen or Caliph of Muslims. In this way, all the problems of Muslim World would be solved,” he thought.
     Durrani argued that Muslim World was in “dire need” of a Caliph and the distinguished slot of Caliphate would earn President Obama the exemplary titles of what he termed, “Mullah Barrack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama.” “The time is approaching fast. Barrack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it,” he added, saying that the elevation of President Obama to Muslim’s Caliphate would be the “key to success.”

Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO. Obama Will Need a Miracle to Avoid Jimmy Carter's Fate .

Bumbling Obama Will Need a Miracle to Avoid Jimmy Carter's Fate Now . . .
Reaganite Republican ^ | September 5, 2010 | Reaganite Republican

 

America's contemptuous hack of a President golfs and scarfs lobster while Rome burns...
small wonder most of us have had just about enough of this inept crackpot already

If the recent Gallup poll indicating an unprecedented 10-point Republican lead in generic congressional preference didn't administer a badly-needed dose of reality to Team Obama, his own rapidly-sinking approval numbers ought to finally bring-it-home... that is, if there's any chance of them ever accepting any culpability for anything...

    But in the wake of Barack Obama's astounding and very real waste of most of his political capital, reality is hitting the rest of the American Left, hard... he's likely on the verge of becoming a lame-duck president in less than 60 days from today...

   Another poll by Gallup this week shows Republicans leading the Democrats in Congress on the handling of nine key election issues, including terrorism (a 24 point lead), immigration (15 points), federal spending (15 points), and the economy (11 points)...

    On key economic issues, likely to dominate in November, the Republicans have a seemingly unassailable advantage– the four most important voter issues according to Gallup are the economy, jobs, corruption in government and federal spending. Add to that the fact that Obama himself -the one now-screwed Dem incumbents inexplicably bet-the-House on- is at an all-time Gallup approval low of 43% -and tanking hard... [graph]

    Theoretically, he's got two years to turn that around, but the trend suggests nothing of the sort... and the harsh caning his power-mad Democratic Party is about to receive at the hand of the American voter now spells doom for the entire Obama "progressive" legislative agenda... and right-now:

__________________________________________________ _______

Could the Republicans win the Senate, causing a major upset?

Judging by these polls that is now a distinct possibility, and would be nothing short of a political earthquake that may herald the defeat of President Obama himself in 2012.

  Only a miracle can reverse the fortunes of the Obama presidency in the lead-up to the mid-terms, and Barack Obama has been notably short of miracles since taking office, whether political or economic. The good fortune which he possessed when winning the presidency has all but evaporated, replaced by mounting opposition to both his policies and left-wing ideology.

    According to Rasmussen, just 29 percent of likely voters now believe the country is heading in the right direction, a damning indictment of President Obama’s leadership of the country. For a “transformational” president, this is devastating.

    Without the House of Representatives to rubber stamp his Big Government agenda, and the Senate in a likely stalemate, it will be impossible for Barack Obama to force legislation through in the final two years of his presidency. He will also be under immense pressure to cut the budget deficit and reduce government spending, as well as reverse his plans on health care reform, all of which go completely against his instincts.

    Bill Clinton, a far more skilful and pragmatic politician in many respects, survived the 1994 Democrat meltdown by moving to the center and working with the Right on some issues, a prospect that President Obama would find unpalatable.

   The Obama presidency is facing meltdown, and according to the polls is likely to be greatly weakened from November onwards, throwing a major spanner in the works of the ambitious Obama agenda to remake America.

   A conservative revolution is heading its way to Washington on a wave of anti-government sentiment, and looks unstoppable.

Like Jimmy Carter before him, President Obama has succeeded in revitalising conservatism in the United States, and reawakening a sleeping giant.

   When Barack Obama spoke in his election campaign of bringing “change” to America, I doubt this is quite what he had in mind...

More/humor/artwork at

 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

 

GEORGE SOROS, THE POWER BEHIND OBAMA VS. THE TEA PARTIES

 

Holocaust Denial: George Soros vs. the Tea Parties
Pajamas Media ^  | September 6, 2010 | Roger L. Simon

 

I’d like to think it was another case of that cliché about great minds, etc. … (I don’t believe I qualify, but I think my friend Roger Kimball does) … but when I woke up Sunday and saw Roger had written about George Soros on Roger’s Rules, I thought, sonofabeehiver, he stole my subject. I was about to write about Soros.

George Soros is one of Barack Obama’s primary financial backers and agenda puppeter.

 

The Man Behind the Curtain and his Drones.

       So I censored myself for a few hours, but I am going forward because there is more than enough to say about George Soros, especially now, more than enough for one person, even one as wise as Kimball. In fact, were I a biographer — an occupation for which I have nowhere near the patience or perspicacity — Soros would be my first choice for a subject. He is a paradigmatic figure for our times, a kind of a monster created in the twentieth century, inexorably metastasizing into the twenty-first.

     Now I realize monster is a big word to call someone and I don’t use it lightly. It’s just the one that comes to mind — there is something almost inhuman about Soros.

        Most of us know him as the multi-billionaire financier of ultra-liberal causes (love them or leave them) whose fortune, ironically, comes from currency speculation — the “man who broke the Bank of England” during the 1992 British pound currency crisis. Never mind that thousands lost their pensions in the process. It’s the breaks of the game — capitalism as practiced by a quondam anti-captialist.

     But that’s far from the most troubling thing about Soros. What disturbs most is something you will not read about in his Wikipedia entry, except in the most veiled manner. Soros — who appears in the right-hand column of that entry as a “Hungarian American” and an “atheist” — is a Hungarian Jew who, when 14 at the height of the Holocaust, was, well… no Anne Frank.

The Ottawa Sun’s Ezra Levant, quoted by Kimball, puts it succinctly:  

    To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis.

First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.

    Theodore [his father] hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.  

    Well, okay, you’re thinking — he was fourteen. Give the guy a break. And I must admit that I — a secular Jew like Soros — have occasionally speculated about how I would have behaved in similar circumstances. And, although in my fantasy I might be a noble resistance fighter, laying my life on the line against fascism the way Primo Levi and others have described it, I certainly have no way of knowing. I might have been a sleazy collaborator myself. But I do know this: if I had done something like that just to survive, it would have haunted me the rest of my days.

     And here’s the really creepy part: not so George Soros. In a sutprisingly overlooked interview with 60 Minutes‘ Steve Kroft, Soros denied guilt or second thoughts about his World War II activities.

   From Levant again:  

How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?

Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.

    “No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”

 

     Somebody else would have done it. Sound familiar? It’s just the kind of excuse you might use when devaluing the British pound. A psychoanalyst might call it “splitting,” taking a part of your personality and splitting it off, as if there were two disconnected parts of you — the monster and the good citizen. The good citizen provides a mask, a disguise for the monster to do his work.

    Am I calling Soros a disturbed person? In probability, yes. A man with two sides who is all the more dangerous for having both.

    Starting in the 1980s, the good side went to work using his immense funds to help Eastern European countries transition out of the Soviet Union. This culminated in the 1990s with the establishment of the Open Society Institute.

   But here in the United States, the same young man who collaborated with the Nazis has trouble as a grown man making moral distinctions or choosing sensible allies. He funded MoveOn.org, whose astonishing conflation of Bush and Hitler was both morally shameful and psychologically sick. (What an insult that was to the memory of the Holocaust.)

    Now — and this is the proximate cause of my wanting to write about him in the first place — Soros is going after the tea party movement. From supporting freedom in Eastern Europe he has turned to attacking it in Eastern Tennessee. According to infowars.com:

    Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.

      Teapartytracker.org will be sponsored by the NAACP, Think Progress, New Left Media and Media Matters for America. Think Progress is a George Soros operation connected to John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Podesta is Clinton’s former chief of staff. Media Matters for America is the brainchild of a MoveOn consultant and Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Soros is a major supporter of MoveOn.

    So now we have a former (allegedly guilt-free) collaborator with Hitler helping fund an attack on the tea parties. An ex-Ku Kluxer in the Senate was bad enough, but this is crazy, if you take even three baby steps backward to think about it.

     What does Soros really think about the tea parties? Does he actually believe they are racists, even after all this time when there has been no evidence whatsoever? Could he be that stu...pid (or that cynical)? It seems in one part imbecilic and another black comic — with a script by Jonathan Swift and illustrations by Hieronymus Bosch.

    Or is this all just pro-forma? A man sitting in his Manhattan office gazing out over Central Park South or by the fire at his chalet in Gstaad watching the skiers wind their way down the mountain? It’s like a novel by Daniel Silva. Whatever it is, the joke is on us.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

FIRE OBAMA!!!

 

 

 

By Peter Ferrara on 9.8.10

     House GOP Leader John Boehner created a stir last month when he called on President Obama to fire his top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Larry Summers, because of the Administration's disastrous economic performance. But while Summers is, indeed, a clueless Keynesian, and Geithner is a career bureaucrat, they are not the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the Godfather of the Administration's economic policies, President Obama himself.

    Consequently, what is needed is not to fire Geithner or Summers, but to fire Obama.

     While President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, the American people will nevertheless have the opportunity in November to do precisely that, by effectively removing him from power, as explained further below. Reality will continue to punish the American people harder and harder until they do.

      President Obama's Malaise

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) officially scored the recession as starting in December, 2007. NBER also reports that since World War II, 65 years ago, the average duration of recessions has been 10 months, with the longest previously being 16 months. In April of this year, NBER issued a statement saying it could not yet determine an end to the recession, 28 months after it began.

     What we do know is that in August, 2010, 32 months after the recession started, double the previous longest recession in the 65 year postwar era, the economy was still losing jobs, and unemployment was still rising. The Labor Department reported another 54,000 jobs lost in August, with unemployment rising to 9.6%. Major Obama voting blocks are being punished by Obamanomics, with African Americans suffering a sustained depression reflected by 16.3% unemployment, even worse for teenagers with unemployment at 26.3%, and Hispanics not far behind at 12% unemployment.

        The total army of the unemployed remains stuck at nearly 15 million, with 42% of those classified as long-term unemployed, jobless for over 6 months, the highest since the Great Depression.

     The number of additional workers employed part-time for economic reasons was still rising in August, up by another 331,000 to nearly 9 million. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines these workers as those who "were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full time job."

       Another 2.4 million were defined as marginally attached to the labor force, stuck at that total for a year. The BLS explains that these individual "wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job in the prior 12 months," but were not counted among the unemployed because they had not looked for work in the prior 4 weeks. These included 1.1 million discouraged workers, up 352,000 over the past year, who were not currently searching for work, and therefore not counted as unemployed, because they believe that in the economy of hope and change no jobs are available for them.

     The army of the unemployed and underemployed consequently stands at 26.2 million Americans. That would add up to an unemployed and underemployed rate of 16.7%, almost 3 years after the recession started.

     The full picture of hopelessness is measured by the precipitous drop in the civilian-employment population ratio from 63% in 2007 to 58% today, fully reflecting the millions who have simply given up even trying to look for work.

      Moreover, the economic growth we have experienced recently has been less than half the growth we experienced after similarly severe downturns. The economy grew by almost 7% in real terms in Reagan's recovery in 1983 and 1984. Even under President Ford, real GDP grew by 6.2% in the year after the 1974-75 recession. But under President Obama, economic growth is again in a tailspin already, falling from 5% in the fourth quarter of 2009, to 3.7% in the first quarter this year, to 1.6% in the second quarter. Moreover, the stock market is stalled, mired 30% below its record highs over 14000 in the Dow.

      This deteriorating economy couldn't be a worse time to raise top federal tax rates across the board for every major federal tax, as will begin on Jan. 1 under President Obama's economic policies. If those tax increases go through, the probability will be over 100% for a double dip recession, if not Art Laffer's Coming Crash of 2011.

      President Obama's Fallacies

In his Labor Day speech before a cheering AFL-CIO crowd excited about their prospects of taking over the economy, President Obama revealed the root of the problem. He has no clue as to how the economy works, or what policies would produce economic growth. Indeed, while he may have physically been in America over the last 30 years, his mind may as well still have been in the Indonesia of his youth, for all he understands about what has happened in this country over that time.

         After last year's "stimulus" costing nearly a trillion dollars that was supposed to be focused on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, President Obama on Monday announced his "new" economic recovery plan: another $50 billion in increased federal spending for infrastructure. He said, "I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America's roads and rails and runways for the long term."

       But even this simple statement of his own plan is false. For there is nothing new about it. That is what his stimulus of over a year ago was supposed to be about. But the American people are learning from hard experience that President Obama does not learn from experience. He is all theory and ideology, neo-Marxist ideology.

      President Obama has made it clear over and over, including in Monday's speech, that what he thinks drives economic growth is increased government spending, deficits, and debt. That is the sum and substance of his entire Keynesian economic theory. And he persists in that even though experience under his own Administration has proven once again that Keynesian economics doesn't work. Indeed, that was proven so thoroughly in America in the 1970s, and again in Japan since the 1990s, that Keynesian economics today is frankly silly, and advocating still more of it now can only be accurately characterized as braindead.

         Japan suffered its own financial crisis at the start of the 1990s. It responded with Keynesian government spending, deficits and debt, focused on infrastructure spending. The result has been what has been accurately called two lost decades of economic stagnation, very similar to what America is experiencing now.

       Economic growth is not driven by soaring government spending, deficits and debt. It is driven by incentives to work, save, invest, start businesses, expand businesses, create jobs, and take on the risks of entrepreneurship. Keynesian economics does not work because borrowing or taxing another $50 billion out of the private economy to spend another $50 billion into the economy does not add anything to the economy on net. Nor does it do anything to change the fundamental incentives that do drive the economy, except maybe make them worse.

      As to those who focus on these fundamental incentives, Obama said on Monday, "These guys, they just don't want to give up on that economic philosophy that they have been peddling for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy -- you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires…and then you just cut working folks loose -- you cut them loose to fend for themselves."

     Those poor working folks. Without the wise and all powerful government to take care of them, they are hopeless, like little lambs lost in the wood. President Obama has now accused Republicans of failing to control runaway federal spending and deficits, and of "cutting working folks loose to fend for themselves."

      In regard to those millionaires and billionaires, even before President Obama was elected, official IRS data showed that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of adjusted gross income. The top 5% paid 60.6% of all federal income taxes, while earning 37.7% of adjusted gross income. The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes, while earning 48% of adjusted gross income.

     Yet, for the working folks, the IRS reports that in 2007 the bottom 50% of income earners paid only 2.9% of all federal income taxes. Indeed, the bottom 95% of income earners paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of income earners paid more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%!

     That was under the "economic philosophy of the last decade." It is all fully and accurately explained in a study on the website of the Tax Foundation.

      IRS data also shows that those on whom President Obama wants to increase taxes, earning more than $200,000 a year, constitute just 3% of taxpayers. Yet, that 3% already pays more in income taxes than the bottom 97% combined.

      Moreover, in regard to the working folks, in 2007, again before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes. Instead, they received net payments from the income tax system equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes. In other words, they paid negative 3.8% of federal income taxes. The middle 20% of income earners, the actual middle class, paid 4.7% of all federal income taxes.

     This is the result of Reagan Republican supply side economics that began with Reagan and Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 1980s, continued through Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, and further played out with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Reagan and his Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the poor and working class. Moreover, they almost abolished federal income taxes on the actual middle class (the middle 20%).

    It was, in fact, Ronald Reagan who first proposed in the 1970s the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), his alternative to welfare, which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people. As President, he cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets.

    In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he reduced the federal income tax rate for "folks who make less" all the way down to 15%. That Act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding more income from taxation for everybody, exempting from taxation a bigger percentage of the income of lower income workers.

      Newt Gingrich's Contract With America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%. Again, he cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%.

    Many conservatives do not think it was a good idea to exempt so many from paying any income taxes at all. Nevertheless, the charge that the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich is factually groundless. Under Reagan Republican tax policies, the share of income taxes paid by the rich has soared to arguably excessive, even abusive, levels, while income taxes were, again, abolished for the poor and working class, and almost abolished for the middle class.

    In other words, in regard to the economy and taxes, President Obama has no idea what he is talking about. All he is doing is peddling that neo-Marxism he learned in that limousine liberal prep school he went to, still after all these years. But as Churchill said, if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart, and if you are not a capitalist when you are 40, you have no brains.

      Carpet Bombing Jobs and the Economy

The result today of President Obama's prep school Marxist fallacies are comprehensive, across the board policies that are effectively carpet bombing jobs and the economy.

       That includes job killing policies such as the top tax rate increases for every major federal tax starting next year, runaway federal spending, deficits, and debt, Obamacare, EPA global warming regulation, the cap and trade tax, financial regulatory reform squelching credit, the Gulf drilling moratorium and other energy production shutdowns, the Card Check specter, the minimum wage increase, the California San Joaquin Valley agriculture shutdown, and others.

      The only way to stop the killing is through regime change. And even though President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, that can be accomplished by administering a brutal enough spanking to the Democrats this fall that the Washington Establishment will be shaken to its knees. That will require a gain of 60 to 80 seats in the House, and 10-12 in the Senate.

     With that beat down, enough surviving Democrats will join with the new Republican majorities to effectively remove Obama from power, and implement alternative policies. I am not saying they will remove him from office, though with a double dip recession and a major foreign policy reversal, it is quite possible that the Democrats will demand that he step down. I am saying that enough Democrats will then turn to pass legislation Obama opposes, and even overturn key Obama vetoes.

     What the polls are showing is that and more is possible. But that requires not accepting any phony baloney Blue Dog Democrat excuses, including from such supposed conservatives as Gene Taylor from Mississippi, Walt Minnick from Idaho, and Bobby Bright from Alabama. If they are running as Democrats, then voting for them is a vote for San Francisco uberliberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. If they really are good conservatives, they can run for something else next time, or they can run as Republicans next time, or as Independents who will not vote Democrat for Speaker.

       Meanwhile, those who really want to make a difference will go into their Rolodex, or Facebook friends, or email contact list now and begin organizing to get out volunteers, fundraising, and the vote in November.

 

Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, a senior fellow at the Social Security Institute, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO. - INHERITED FROM WHOM?

INHERITED FROM WHOM?

Thomas Sowell

September 7, 2010


     Setting the record straight on “the policies that created this mess in the first place.”

     Pres. Barack Obama boldly proclaims, “The buck stops here!” But whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

   The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama “inherited” the big federal budget deficits and that he has to “clean up the mess” left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

      No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

     Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

      The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called “the Clinton surplus.” But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

     The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

    Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger fraction of the annual national output than it has been in more than half a century. And that fraction is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

      Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, “Don’t give in to fear. Let’s reach for hope.” The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office.

     “The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place,” he said recently. “In November, you’re going to have that choice.”

    Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

   These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

     Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage-lending standards were Democrats — notably Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd — though too many Republicans went along.

     At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers that were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

      When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Charles Rangel.

    If we are going to talk about “the policies that created this mess in the first place,” let’s at least get the facts straight and the names right.

    The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems — all in the name of “change.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

   Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO. - INHERITED FROM WHOM?

Es vergonzosa la hipocresía conque la prensa ha manejado el caso del pastor que intenta quemar unos Coránes.
      El pastor cristiano de la Florida tiene tanto derecho a quemar el Corán como tiene el imán musulmán a profanar el lugar sagrado donde todavía descansan los restos de más de mil de las víctimas del vil ataque del 9/11 erigiendo un monumento para honrar  a los terroristas islámicos que cometieron tan horrendo crimen.  Ambos legalmente pueden hacerlo respaldados por nuestra constitución.

    La diferencia es que el pastor está cometiendo un error de juicio idiótico sin ulteriores motivos aviesos, sólo para ventilar el enorme enojo que comparte el 80% de los americanos ante la provocación de construir una mezquita aledaña a donde estuvieron las torres gemelas de New York.       

     Este  imán recibe dinero del gobierno americano mientras trabaja para minar los valores de este país e imponer de manera ladina la ley sharia  llegando al extremo de chantajear a los Estados Unidos amenazando a todo el país públicamente y ante las cámara de la televisión que si no se pliegan a sus pretensiones tendremos que atenernos a ataques contra embajadas e intereses americanos a través del mundo, lo que constituye una reiteración de la declaración de guerra hecha por terroristas islámicos contra los Estados Unidos el 9 de Septiembre del 2001 .

     Choca la duplicidad del presidente Obama y sus corifeos de la prensa izquierdista ante la incineración de algunos Coranes cuando el propio gobierno de Obama ordenó quemar las sagradas Biblias que habían sido llevadas a Afganistán traducidas en lenguas locales, ni nadie se rasga las vestiduras cuando los musulmanes, o cualquier otro cretino ya sea nacional o de otro país, queman la bandera americana.

     Tampoco amenazaron de muerte los católicos a quienes han profanado nuestra fe como un tal Serrano que presentó como ejemplo de su  arte en un museo, y pagado por los taxpayers, a un crucifijo dentro de un balde de orine; o el cuadro por otro artista subvencionado por el gobierno de una Virgen María entre los excrementos de elefantes.

    Quemar el Corán no es lo apropiado ya que desvía la atención a lo que es más importante, que es evitar que ese reto del radicalismo islámico pueda consumar la provocación de profanar el suelo sagrado donde  en nombre del Islám fueron asesinados más de 3,000 seres inocentes.

       La arrogancia de los envueltos en el proyecto del centro de proselitismo islámico a unos pasos del sitio del 9/11 como símbolo de supremacía e ínfulas de dominación mundial de los islámicos, hace aún más marcada su insolencia cuando en la Arabia Saudita no se permite la construcción de iglesias o sinagogas y el llevar allí, una sagrada Biblia o tratar de proclamar las palabras el evangelio conlleva la pena de muerte.  Hace menos de un mes un grupo de médicos cristianos en labor humanitaria en Afganistán fueron asesinados brutalmente por los terroristas musulmanes por el sólo hecho de ser cristianos, algo que ordena el Corán donde los cristianos son calificados como puercos y los judíos como monos.

      Tampoco recuerdo haber visto a esa prensa tan protectora de la sensibilidad de los musulmanes alzar su voz de repulsa cuando a principios de este año en Nigeria,  los musulmanes  asesinaron más de 500 cristianos a machetazos incluyendo mujeres y niños para luego, aún moribundos quemarlos, siguiendo al pie de la letra el mandato de Mahoma de matarlos y quemarlos.  No creo que los infelices nigerianos fueran  agentes de Estados Unidos, ni que su labor fuera otra que la de proclamar el evangelio de paz y de amor a fieles e infieles.

    Si de algo ha servido este nuevo reto de los musulmanes a los Estados Unidos aprovechando nuestras libertades para minarnos, es que el pueblo empieza a informarse y a conocer la verdad sobre el Islam, no la politicamente correcta falacia que proclama el presidente Obama y una prensa servil e ignorante.

 

The Prophet Muhammad orders the burning of Christians and their Children
Facebook ^ | September 10, 2010 | Dr. Thomas Ahmed

WHICH IS MORE EVIL TO BURN A RELIGIOUS BOOK OR TO COMMAND THE BURNING AND SLAUGHTER OF THE FOLLOWERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS?

     The prophet Muhammad is known for his hatred towards Christians and Jews. He called them apes and pigs and ordered their slaughter and in one case he commaded his Mujahideen fighters to burn them with fire.

       While Osama bin Zayd, preparing his troops to invade the Christian lands, the prophet Muhammad commanded him saying, "attack them in the darkness of the dawn and fall on them killing and burn them with fire and invade them and return with the booty."  

     Those words of the prophet Muhammad could be found in the most authentic Islamic books which are known as the Mothers of the Islamic Books and approved by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University. Just to mention few of them (Ibn Habib in al-Mahabir p 117, Ibn Kathir in al-Bedaiah wa al-Nihaiah p 139, 143, Ibn Said al-Nas in 'Auion al-Atharig p 145, al-Suhili in Rawd Alanif p 24, Ibn Hisham p 245, and al-Tabari in Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Milook p 156).

Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.”

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”

Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jiziyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low” [Another translation says] “pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection.”

Bukhari: V5 hadith no. 727 “When Allah’s Apostle became seriously sick, he started covering his face with a woolen sheet. When he felt short of breath, he removed it, and said, ‘that is so! Allah’s curse be on Jews and Christians.’”

The Slaughter of the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurizah,

Muhammad: Oh brothers of monkeys and pigs

The trembling Jews replied: Oh Abu al-Qasim, you have not been a bad man!! (Ibid; 392, quoting from Ibn Kathir, al-Bedayia p. 120).

The prophet called out to them: Oh brothers of monkeys. Does Allah disappointed you and send on you his curse?

The Qurizah understood the message and replied in fear: Oh Abi al-Qasim, you have not been an ignorant man (Ibid, quoting from al-Bihaqi, al-Tarikh p. 582).

The Jews of Qurizah continued to plead with Muhammad `and beg him to send to them one of their allies, a man by the name of Abi Libabah bin Abd al-Nuziar al-Awasi.

When Abi Libabah entered their garrison, the men rose, the women wept, and the children cried to him. When he saw them he had pity on them.

They said to him: oh Abi Libabah, do you think we should go out for the judgment of Muhammad?

He said, yes, and then he passed his finger across his neck, which means, the slaughter.

Then their leader, Ka'ab bin Asaad said to his people: Let us follow Muhammad and believe in him.

They replied: We will not leave the judgment of the Torah forever.

He said to them: Then let us kill our children and women and go out to Muhammad.

They said: Shall we kill these harmless children and women? What is the good of life after them? (Al-Qimni 2004: 393-394, quoting from al-Tabari p. 583).

Finally the men of Bani Qurizah decided to go out and meet Muhammad hoping that the other Medinian tribes would intercede with the Prophet and request him to send them with their women and children out of Yathrib as he did before with the other two Jewish tribes. As soon as the Jewish men emerged out of their garrison, the prophet ordered his men to bind them with ropes and march them in a long queue (Ibid: 394, quoting from al-Tabari, al-Tarikh p. 583).  Then the prophet asked his men to dig many ditches inside the city (Ibid). After so many pleadings from the leaders of the Medinian tribes of al-Khaziriq and al-Awas, Muhammad agreed that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz should decide the fate of the Jews (Ibid, quoting from al-Tabari p. 586).

Al-Tabari narrated that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz was dying. During the siege of the city, an arrow hit his hand and caused a cut on one of his nerves.  The prophet tried to heal him by heating a nail and burning the nerve. In doing that Muhammad thought the bleeding would stop. However, the burning nail worsened the cut and caused the nerve to swell. When the Prophet repeated the same treatment the nerve exploded (Ibid: 395). In his dying state Sa'ad was carried to the Prophet. When Muhammad saw him he ordered the Jews to stand to their Master. "When Sa'ad was put down by his carriers the prophet asked him to judge on them. He said, I judge on them that the men should be put to death, their wealth divided, and their women distributed as jawari among the Muslims.  The prophet said to him, you have judged on them with the judgment of Allah that has been given to you from seven heavens" (Ibid: 395, quoting al-Tabari, al-Tarikh p. 586).

The horrifying slaughter was described by al-Tabari as follows:

They brought first the enemy of Allah, Huaya bin Akhatab, while his hands were bound to his neck by a rope. (Huaya was the father of Safiya bint Huaya whom the Prophet killed her husband and brother and took her as his wife). When Huaya saw the Messenger of Allah, he said to him, I swear by God, I have never blamed myself for your enmity. Then, Huaya turned to the people and said, oh people there is no fear from the judgment and the Book of God, it is an honor written by God to the children of Israel to die as martyrs. Then, he sat down and his neck was beheaded… Ali bin Talib and al-Zibiar continued to strike their necks… It is assumed that their blood reached the oilstones that are at the market (Ibid: 396, quoting from al-Tabari, al-Tarikh pp. 588-589).

   The narrators of the sira differed in the number of the Jewish men who were killed on that fateful day. Some said six hundred, some seven hundred, some eight hundred, and some nine hundred (Ibid: 396). Al-Qimni states, “And we learn from our heritage a new thing happened in that slaughter. The slaughter was not restricted to men only, but included little boys too” (Ibid: 398 referring to al-Tabari p. 591). Then the victims were buried in those big holes or ditches that the Muslims dug.

      A quotation from my book, "Ibtihal and Muslims' Liberation Movement". Click on this link to view the book.  http://www.publishamerica.net/product56703.html