Two random thoughts:
I believe the Vatican is a walled city. If this be the case, then, I find it ironic that Pope Francis has come to America to tell us to open our borders. In fact, the Pope says many things that are idealistic but impractical but then that is his job, I guess. In other words, point the way but in doing so his credibility can become challenged because one should look under their own skirt first before giving advice.
Secondly, after three days and more than fifteen speeches on the same basic theme Pope Francis, this sweet and decent man, runs the risk of losing his audience. Because of technology our ability to focus has been curtailed. What he has to say has been uplifting and it comes at a time when the world's inhabitants appear to be in despair.
Just a few thoughts.
===
On the home front my oldest granddaughter is looking for more challenging work that suits her artistic talents. She lives in New York and wishes to remain there. Her resume is attached (see 1 below.) and her personal website is:EmmaDarvick.com
If anyone has contacts, ideas or willing to help thanks in advance.
===
I have warned that Sharia Law is coming to your "local theater." You have been apprised and put on notice. (See 2 below.)
===
ISIS's goal is to make sure Obama's JV tag will make him look both foolish and incompetent. (See 3 below.)
====
When Republicans defend their conservative values and philosophy they are mocked and when they try to implement their conservative values and philosophy they are criticized for being obstinate.
However, when Demwits change the rules, as Reid did in the Senate, no one attacked him and when Demwits fail to compromise they are praised for standing tall and defending their principles. Why is this? Is there an inherent bias which favors liberalism while treating conservatism with disdain? I believe this is so and if it is why?
Since liberalism is more likely to dispense favors and goodies and does not hold itself accountable for deficit spending it is viewed more favorably because conservatism makes demands, it calls for restraint, theoretically and philosophically, it should stand against deficit spending. Abnegation is not favored over largess. People prefer to be let off the hook whereas, conservatism extracts and thus is seen as punishing. Ice cream tops homework!
Well, we are in a mess not because of conservatism but because Republicans chose to become "Demwit light," They have failed to stand against the rising tide of transfers and entitlements. What has their timidity earned them? NADA! They continue to be demeaned and blamed for everything under the sun. Consequently, they need to stick to their principles, perhaps pay a short term price but, in the long run, they will eventually win because conservatism brings far more eventual blessings and rewards than un-restrained actions which lead to mounting deficits.
Perhaps there is a legislative way to defund Planned Parenthood's use of public funds to deform fetuses and sell their parts for gain without shutting down government. However, the consequences of shutting down government, as I pointed out several memos ago, is not the disaster as portrayed by progressives and their lackeys in the press and media. In fact, there are benefits to shutting down government because we learn how overblown big government really is and we gain insights into how much can be accomplished even were we to shrink government.
Because current Republican leadership is timid, fears being blamed and does not know how to defend against the naysayers they buckle. Consequently, after years of being thwarted conservatives have rejected the 'insiders' and turned to other unattached candidates and this is how The Donald came to be in front.
Now that he has had his day in court he will be judged accordingly and I suspect, having employed a combative style and offered little by way of specificity, he will begin to drop in the polls and others will begin to ascend.
You can watch who is more feared by the Demwits because they will turn their guns on them and will besmirch them as DWS recently did against Rubio.
===
Has Obama bombed out? Time will tell. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) RESUME:
EMMA DARVICK / Graphic designer
P: 248.563.2797 / E: EMMA.DARVICK@GMAIL.COM / W: EMMADARVICK.COM / NY, NY
EXPERIENCE SHOOTDIGITAL - New York, NY April 2009 - September 2015
Visual Designer / Office Coordinator
Create brand identity, including business cards, letterhead, and blog.
Design print and web materials for marketing, promotion and client outreach.
Maintain an upbeat and positive atmosphere by providing excellent client support.
Direct phone calls, manage schedules and merchandise tracking system, and coordinate messengers. Provide administrative support to general, studio, and retouching managers.
Compile daily reports of current projects and client lists.
Manage inventory and vendor relations.
HAPPY HOUR & CO. - Brooklyn, NY August 2013 - Present
Co Founder / Head Graphic Designer / Illustrator
Responsible for designing and illustrating greeting card collection.
Create brand identity including logo, website, business cards, web and print materials.
Design illustrations for social media.
Direct marketing and social media to promote visibility.
Collaborate on concept and art direction for product photography.
Cultivate and maintain relationships with local and national vendors.
FREELANCE - New York, NY 2012-Present Graphic Designer / Illustrator
Chasing Paper - Rebrand logo, business cards, marketing web and print materials (July 2015)
Chasing Paper - Wallpaper design ( August 2015)
Mother Feather / Metal Blade Records - Designed band merchandise (September 2015)
Burman’s Pharmacy - Illustration for invitations (March 2015)
Walking for Pennies -Illustrated album cover (April 2014)
Web Illustration - Hello Giggles x Unbucket (February 2013)
Fine art commissions (2012-Present)
SKILLS
Fluent in Adobe Creative Suite
Proficient in Microsoft Office Suite, Mac and PC software, Filemaker software, Wordpress, Squarespace, and social media platforms
Logo / Branding / Iconography
Photo Retouching
EDUCATION
BA in Studio Arts: Painting - Trinity College, Hartford, CT 2005 - 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
Press Releases | June 23, 2015 | The Muslim Brotherhood in America, Understanding the Shariah Threat Doctrine
According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.
The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Centerestimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
After embedding with ISIS for 10 days, senior journalist reveals they are planning 'the largest religious cleansing in history.'
A veteran German journalist who became the first to gain access as an embedded reporter with Islamic State (ISIS) revealed the jihadist terror group plans to bring nuclear annihilation across the globe.
The journalist, Jurgen Todenhofer (75), released his findings in a book called “Inside IS – Ten Days in the Islamic State,” reports the UK's Daily Express on Friday.
Todenhofer, who previously was an MP in German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party before turning to journalism in 2000 as a war reporter, spent ten days with ISIS.
He was overseen during his visit by “Jihadi John,” the ISIS terrorist from the UK named Mohammed Emwazi who gained fame in gruesome beheading videos.
According to the journalist, the West is unprepared for ISIS. He writes that “the terrorists plan on killing several hundred million people. The west is drastically underestimating the power of ISIS.”
ISIS intends to get its hands on nuclear weapons, says Todenhofer, calling the group a “nuclear tsunami preparing the largest religious cleansing in history.”
Those warnings are made all the more stark by the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East sparked by the Iran nuclear deal, with rival states such as Saudi Arabia eyeing their own nuclear arsenal leading to a higher proliferation – and a higher chance that nuclear weapons could fall into ISIS hands.
Describing how he got the close-up expose with ISIS, Todenhofer detailed the intense negotiations with “the leadership of the Caliphate, via Skype, over several months, hammering out the security details.”
“Of course I'd seen the terrible, brutal beheading videos and it was of course after seeing this in the last few months that caused me the greatest concern in my negotiations to ensure how I can avoid this. Anyway, I made my will before I left.”
In speaking about the extent of ISIS's power, he noted, “they now control land greater in size than the United Kingdom and are supported by an almost ecstatic enthusiasm the like of which I've never encountered before in a war zone. Every day hundreds of willing fighters from all over the world come.”
“They are the most brutal and most dangerous enemy I have ever seen in my life. I don't see anyone who has a real chance to stop them. Only Arabs can stop IS. I came back very pessimistic.”
Those pessimistic warnings highlight criticism against the limited Western campaign against ISIS.
US President Barack Obama, after initially calling ISIS a “JV team” of Al Qaeda before they shot to power, admitted in June he has no strategy to fight the jihadist group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Iran Deal's Premise Is Wrong — They Likely Have a Bomb | Commentary
President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is not just a bad deal. It is the worst deal possible — because there is a good chance Iran already has a bomb.
The deal assumes Iran has no nuclear weapons, despite having a nuclear program for 65 years and crashing on a bomb for 25 years. Other states developed the bomb in three to 12 years, based on open source estimates:
The first atomic bombs — two different designs, took the U.S. three years (1942-45).
The USSR tested its first A-bomb in six years (1943-49).
The United Kingdom took 12 years (1940-52), slowed by politics and a bad economy.
France took four years (1956-60).
China took nine years (1955-64).
India took five years (1967-72).
South Africa took 10 to 12 years (1967-1977/79).
Pakistan tested for political reasons in 1998, but developed A-bombs much earlier (1972-1984) in 12 years.
North Korea tested in 2006, but developed an arsenal of bombs and missiles much earlier (1984-1992/94) in eight to 10 years.
That Iran should be so slow to develop the bomb strains credulity, especially since Russia and North Korea are helping them.
When Iranian dissidents exposed Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002, then-Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky declared: “Iran does have nuclear weapons. These are non- strategic nuclear weapons. ... As for the danger of Iran’s attack on the United States, the danger is zero.”
Baluyevsky’s knowledge about Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, when that program was newly revealed to the West, has never been explained.
Although the International Atomic Energy Agency did not say so, its 2011 report not only proves that Iran has a nuclear weapons program — it is a “smoking gun” that Iran already has the bomb. Prior to 2003, Iran had all the knowledge and components needed to build the bomb.
More than 12 years ago, Iran:
Cast uranium hemispheres for a nuclear implosion weapon and verified the design with non-fissile explosive testing in a containment chamber. (During its World War II Manhattan Project, the U.S. was 16 months from the bomb at this stage.)
Developed and tested exploding bridge wire detonators, necessary to an implosion nuclear weapon. (The Manhattan Project was six months from the bomb at this stage.)
Manufactured neutron initiators used to start a fission chain-reaction in a nuclear weapon.
Drafted 14 different workable designs for a nuclear weapon to fit inside the re-entry vehicle for the high-explosive (HE) warhead of Iran’s Shahab-III medium-range missile. (Designing a nuclear weapon is a lot harder than changing the shape of a re-entry vehicle. Obviously, Iran sought to disguise the warhead as the HE warhead of the Shahab-III.)
Developed fusing systems for a nuclear missile warhead to perform a ground-burst or high-altitude burst above 3,000 meters. (The Congressional EMP Commission found that in 2002 Iran performed five fusing tests of the Shahab-III at high-altitudes — explicable only as practicing nuclear EMP attacks.)
Doesn’t Iran need a full-yield explosive test to prove its nuclear weapon? No, component testing is sufficient. The U.S. never tested the Hiroshima uranium bomb — Hiroshima was the test. (The 1945 test at Alamogordo was of a plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki.) North Korea, Pakistan and South Africa clandestinely developed nuclear weapons without testing, or years prior to testing. The U.S. has not tested since 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment