Found on Craig’s List by Jerry Manderin
Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra,
seen a Muslim band march in a parade, witnessed a Muslim charity,
shaken hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, seen a Muslim Candy Striper,
or seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American
way of life ????
The answer is no, you did not. Just ask yourself WHY ???
during his Cairo speech, said:
“I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America’s history.”
Dear Mr. Obama:
Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed? Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.
Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.
show me one Muslim signature on the United
of Independence ?
Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from
England ? No.
Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ? No, they did
not. In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery.. Your own half-brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.” Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr.
Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country? Not present.
no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or
helping to advance the cause of Civil
Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage
era? Again, not present. In fact,
devout Muslims demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so,
that often they are beaten for not wearing the
‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights,
Muslims during World War II? They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim
grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,
reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi’s in killing Jews.
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001? If they weren’t flying planes into
the WorldTradeCenter , the Pentagon or a field
in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle
East . No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Muslim world
celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other
cable news networks that day. Strangely,
the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent
over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June
4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To
many Americans, their silence has meant approval
for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr.
Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here
in America ..
Oh, I’m sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.
They were Muslim.
And now we can
add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American
soldiers at FortHood by a Muslim major who is a
doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be
counseling soldiers returning from battle in
Iraq and Afghanistan ..
That, Mr. Obama
is the “Muslim heritage” in America
Muslim Heritage, my ass.
I found this HERE.
A U.S. ambassador is missing and his diplomatic team is desperately fighting off terrorist attacks. Our commander-in-chief and his national-security team in Washington are listening to the phone calls from the Americans under attack and watching real-time video from a drone circling overhead. Yet the U.S. military sends no aid. Why?
On September 11, at about 10 p.m. Libyan time (4 p.m. in Washington), Ambassador Chris Stevens and a small staff were inside our consulate in Benghazi when terrorists attacked. The consulate staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and numerous military headquarters monitored the entire battle in real time via the phone calls from Benghazi and video from a drone overhead.
Our diplomats fought for seven hours without any aid from outside the country. Four Americans died while the Obama national-security team and our military passively watched and listened. The administration is being criticized for ignoring security needs before the attack and for falsely attributing the assault to a mob. But the most severe failure has gone unnoticed: namely, a failure to aid the living.
By 4:30 p.m. Washington time, the main consulate building was on fire and Ambassador Stevens was missing. In response, the embassy in Tripoli launched an aircraft carrying 22 men. Benghazi was 400 miles away.
At 5 p.m., President Obama met with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the Oval Office. The U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, was 480 miles away from Benghazi. Stationed at Sigonella were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft — a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy.
In the past, presidents had taken immediate actions to protect Americans. In 1984, President Reagan had ordered U.S. pilots to force an airliner carrying terrorists to land at Sigonella. Reagan had acted inside a 90-minute window while the aircraft with the terrorists was in the air. The Obama national-security team had several hours in which to move forces from Sigonella to Benghazi.
Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours. If the attackers were a mob, as intelligence reported, then an F18 in afterburner, roaring like a lion, would unnerve them. This procedure was applied often in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Conversely, if the attackers were terrorists, then the U.S. commandos would eliminate them. But no forces were dispatched from Sigonella.
In the meantime, while untrained and poorly led by American standards, the terrorists at Benghazi were proving to be lethal. They forced the Americans to abandon the consulate, with the ambassador still missing, and fall back to an annex a mile away. When the terrorist gang followed the Americans, looters took the opportunity to ransack the empty consulate. But when they found Ambassador Stevens unconscious on the floor, they stopped looting and rushed him to a hospital. Unfortunately, the doctors could not save his life. Not knowing who he was, they took the cell phone from his pocket and called numbers. By about two in the morning, the American embassy received word that the ambassador was dead.
At about the same time, the 22 men from the embassy in Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport. They drove to the annex to assist in its defense against persistent terrorist attacks. Around 4 a.m. Libyan time — six hours into the fight — enemy mortar rounds killed two of the defenders on the roof of the annex.
The fight began at 10 p.m. and petered out at dawn when the Libyan militia came to the aid of the Americans.
It is bewildering that no U.S. aircraft ever came to the aid of the defenders. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites. For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve.
Sure was with obama in charge!
The attack on the Benghazi consulate began at 3:40 p.m. Eastern time.
It was known by 4:30 p.m. that the ambassador was missing.
Obama, Biden, and Panetta met in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. We know Charlene Lamb at the State Department was watching events in real time. It seems likely Panetta was, too — and perhaps even Obama.
When something bad happens at a consulate on the other side of the world, very few nations have the technological capability to watch it in real time.
Even fewer have fighter jets and special forces within less than 500 miles — or about the distance from Boston to Washington.
Yet the commander-in-chief chose to do nothing. He chose to let the enemy determine the course of events, how long the battle would last, how many Americans would die. The only choice he made was to hold a photo-op at their coffins.
That’s a metaphor for an enfeebled superpower: On 9/11/12, America had technological capability and military superiority, but no leadership. Instead, for eight hours, the most powerful men in Washington sat and watched but declined to act. And so in Benghazi as elsewhere in the Obama era, America is a spectator in its own fate.
The failure of leadership on 9/11 Round Two is pathetic, and the subsequent cover-up contemptible.
Mitt Romney in this last debate should be HAMMERING obama over Benghazi and the death of our men!
Osama bin Laden is dead and — no question about it — that’s a very good thing.
It also seems to be just about the only thing – or at least the main thing – that Barack Obama cites as a seemingly credible accomplishment of his presidency.
But what our hopelessly pro-Obama media never point out and Mitt Romney should sometime soon, preferably during tonight’s foreign policy debate, is that even while succeeding in killing bin Laden, Barack Obama once again botched things.
Obama’s pitch is that George W. Bush didn’t get bin Laden, but Obama did and therefore he deserves unqualified credit.
In responding to Obama’s over-the-top boasting about killing bin Laden, Republicans have failed to raise and strongly stress a truly significant fact about Obama’s decision-making and execution ineptitude that powerfully illustrates why Barack Obama should not be commander-in-chief.
Think about it:
We know – and the media even reported this – that when we killed bin Laden we also captured his computers and other valuable sources of information.
Yet President Obama was in such a rush to announce that bin Laden was dead, brag about it, and bask in the glory of that great event, that he called in the media for coverage well before US intelligence received the captured computers and had any time to decipher codes and study information and likely discover names and locations of other al-Qaeda operatives around the world.
Obama foolishly signaled a heads-up to every key al-Qaeda operative in the world to immediately change location before we came paying a visit.
A commander-in-chief as intent on protecting the security of our country as he is in promoting himself would have kept his mouth shut – and made certain everyone else in the know did the same – until he determined whether what we had captured when we got bin Laden gave us actionable intelligence that could enable us to take out still more of the al-Qaeda network.
Clearly it would have been much better for America’s security if Obama had waited to try to take out more of bin Laden’s network and then announced that we had not only gotten bin Laden but also a sizeable chunk of his back-up team.
Tonight, when Barack Obama boasts during the debate that he got bin Laden, Mitt Romney should explain the truth about how Obama so mismanaged even this, his supposedly singular accomplishment. The American people have the intelligence and common sense to understand this is so if only they hear it explained properly.
Romney may also want to explain that “Joe being Joe” the day after we killed bin Laden was worse than just yet another buffoonish gust of the windbag. Despite Vice President Biden’s having solemnly sworn along with all others in a select circle privy to the facts not to reveal any – any — details of the bin Laden take-down, Biden publicly announced that when Obama had the night before obliquely referred during his announcement to “a small group of Americans” as who killed bin Laden, the state secret the president was concealing was that it was US Navy Seal Team Six.
Barack Obama may well have blown an opportunity for America to inflict far greater damage on al-Qaeda than killing only the top member of their gang.
Obama has been telling the nation tales since his election. In fact, his entire life has been one long story with him as writer, director, producer, and star — you could call it “A Barack Obama Production.”
It’s not that he hasn’t told us stories; it’s that the ones he has told bear little resemblance to reality.
After all the suffering America has experienced while he was busy getting the “policy right,” there is no one left who still believes in Barack’s brilliance. After watching him in two debates sans teleprompter, his reputation as humanity’s greatest orator has evaporated along with his lead in the polls.
From the 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed and the 46 million people now on food stamps, to the decline in workforce participation and the explosion of people on disability, many now realize the fallacy of his reputedly deft decision-making skills. His claim in the last debate of having created 5 million jobs rings hollow to an electorate seeing fewer people working today than when Obama took office.
Yet, the story he insists on telling America is that he saved us.
He maintains that his near-trillion-dollar stimulus — ultimately a reward to political backers and crony capitalist buddies — avoided a great depression, despite the worst economic recovery since WWII and 42 months of 8%-plus unemployment. Remember “saved or created”?
We are now supposed to believe that 1.3% economic growth and 7.8% unemployment is the “new normal,” and it is only ungrateful bastards who refuse to see this as success.
He also saved the auto industry, claiming in the second debate a million jobs saved — a nice trick, since as of September 2012, there were only 778,400 people working in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts in the United States.
Why he didn’t claim 2 million or 10 million jobs “saved or created,” I will never know. He could have used any figure. He is after all, telling a story. Why not make it a good one — nay, a great one?
He killed bin Laden simply by staring at him and displaying his steely resolve and gutsiness. He destroyed al-Qaeda and freed Libya by leading from behind — and look how well that turned out.
Former U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and former information officer Sean Smith were all unavailable for comment.
To paraphrase Stalin, the death of four Americans is a statistic, whereas any embarrassment to the president is a tragedy.
His smart diplomacy has led to a “reset” with Russia, while he has the Iranian “situation” well in hand, vowing to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon. A promise he will continue to make and keep, right up until the moment a mushroom cloud forms over Tel Aviv or New York City.
Just as long as it doesn’t happen before November 6, he can live with it. A leader has to have his priorities straight — and his priority is winning a second term. Is this what he meant when he whispered to Putin’s stooge Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after his “last election”?
He has claimed to be post-racial and post-partisan, while surrogates paint anyone who dares to disagree with him on policy as racist. It’s funny, but the only people who seem to be interested in the color of Obama’s skin are Obama and his scary cadre of deluded minions, sycophantic surrogates, and the conspiring media claque.
His idea of bipartisanism was to offer the opposition the opportunity to do as they were told. And when they refused, he labeled them as obstructionists. His deeply unpopular ObamaCare passed without a single Republican vote, and the last two budgets he proposed didn’t get any votes at all. How’s that for reaching across the aisle?
He sold himself to America as a constitutional scholar. Yet when the minutiae of governing — proposing and crafting legislation and lobbying for its passage — got too difficult, he hit the links and ruled by executive order.
He couldn’t get Congress — even when he had super majorities in both houses — to agree to bankrupt the nation’s economy with his idiotic cap and trade legislation. Instead, he has had the EPA create regulations to implement the most disastrous parts anyway.
The most important outcome of the Obama administration’s actions abroad has been the deposing of America’s allies in Egypt and Tunisia. This will weigh more heavily on the historical scales than everything else in the last four years.
Egypt is the natural leader of the Arab world. Under Mubarak it led the region, painstakingly, toward peace and moderation. It is now leading it down a heady Islamist path, one that spells danger for the region and the world.
The Obama administration played a substantial role in this shift from the start, even a decisive one, although it does not seem to realize this. Its role began in the first moments of the protests in Tunisia and Egypt when it, alongside Al-Jazeera and the Western global media, treated the demonstrators as special, almost sacred. It called the regimes “intolerable” if they took any of the traditional measures through which they had always easily dispersed such demonstrations before they could get out of hand (and if they blocked Twitter). The U.S. government twisted the arms of the national militaries — utilizing its long-cultivated, well-paid influence over them — to get them to tolerate the demonstrations, depose Ben Ali and Mubarak, and fully legalize the Islamist parties (even while outlawing and expropriating the secular national parties of the old regimes, which were the main rallying points for moderates in the two countries). It denounced the militaries for trying to hold onto some of their traditional power as guarantors of national moderation. It pressed them to truly empower the elected Muslim Brotherhood leaders. It prepared to punish Egypt if the old-school moderate Ahmed Shafiq won the presidential election, but to send emergency aid to reward a victory by Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi won, by a thin 3 percent margin; the U.S. pressures added together made far more than this 3 percent difference. The U.S. continues, to this day, providing aid with the specified aim of making a success of the new Muslim Brotherhood government.
The Obama administration is in denial about the extent of the harm in this. It is too deeply invested in the policy. The U.S. government can be expected to continue to help with the consolidation of the new Islamist regimes as long as Barack Obama remains in office. More damage has to be expected.
Could this historic loss be half compensated for, people wondered early on, if we were to likewise help topple three of the more anti-Western leaders in the region: Qaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, and the Ayatollahs in Iran? They all had far less public support than Mubarak in Egypt (where, in the elections after his ouster, 48 percent voted for his prime minister, Shafiq, despite global demonization of both of them).
Qaddafi was subsequently toppled with a NATO intervention. The Obama administration was slower to call his regime “intolerable” than it was those of several other countries in the region that had similar protests; it waited for thousands of deaths in Libya, as opposed to dozens of deaths in Mubarak’s Egypt, or four in the Sunni-ruled Bahrain. The administration has been slower still with Assad, whose killings have run into the tens of thousands. If Assad is finally toppled, will there be a domino effect in Lebanon and Iran? Perhaps we will yet learn — if too much momentum has not been lost from the delay.
The administration re-destabilized Bahrain after the Al Khalifa regime had successfully cleared its main square; we backed off only when Saudi Arabia physically intervened — against us, going into open opposition to our policy of undermining allies.
The other achievements of the administration can be described only briefly here.
More crop artists have been at work in Iowa. This declaration of presidential preference is on Jim and Nancy Pellett’s land and is visible from Interstate 80 eastbound near Atlantic. Mitt Romney supporter Jim Kurtenbach of Nevada went up in a small plane with photographer Charlie Lloyd, another Romney backer, to snap photos. The word “Romney” in the top left corner of the photo can be seen from eastbound lanes on I-80.