===
Obama's mind - open or closed?
As for me, I can only say I no longer care because I do not believe it matters. He is incapable of telling the truth and is a half measure president, at best. It is part of his Muslim make-up.
You decide! (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Can you ever win when it comes to being nice to Muslims?
You decide! (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
Palestinians, Arabs kill and destroy. Israelis save and create: (See and click on 3 below.)
====
This from a very dear, bright friend and also a fellow memo reader. (See 4 below.)
===
A perspective on Dec 7. (See 5 below.)
===
I could not, nor frankly did I care to, listen to Obama's address from The White House last night but everything I read suggests I did not miss much. The comments I have read or heard range from "pathetic" to "we need a new president fast" and everything in between.
Obviously Obama cannot conclude and admit publicly he is a failure because that would be beyond his narcissistic ability. (See 6 below.)
===
DUH! (See 7 below.)
===
Obama has stated Erdowan and Turkey are our closest allies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMnl0nO-oCk
===
Responses to my questions in previous memo:
Excellent questions. You know my answers.
And the AG is worried about anti Muslim sentiments.
This country is going banana and we will slip on its peel...
---
I think America has already spoken on the gun issue judging from recent reports of record firearm sales.
---
... And in reference to some of your questions regarding Islam ... I think after 1400 years nothing will change. After all, if the human species were smart enough and could change, we would be converting muslims to Christianity or killing them.
---
THE BEST TICKET vs THE DEMS/HILARIOUS IS JEB & CARLY; THEY COULD WIN AND WOULD BE BEST TO TAKE OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF OUR COUNTRY. BUT WHO CAN PREDICT THE OUTCOME AT THIS STAGE?---
---
========================================================================I think America has already spoken on the gun issue judging from recent reports of record firearm sales.
---
... And in reference to some of your questions regarding Islam ... I think after 1400 years nothing will change. After all, if the human species were smart enough and could change, we would be converting muslims to Christianity or killing them.
---
view of recent events, these are legitimate random questions I believe I am justified in posing.
Am I a racist for raising them?
NO
Is Muslim Extremism an oxymoron?
NO
Does the Muslim tribal based harsh desert culture lend itself to extremism? (Have you read Leon Uris': "The Haj?")
YES, YES
Does Islam lend itself to being politicized?
YES
If you had Muslim neighbors and they gave every appearance of being Americanized and assimilated should you still be concerned they could be radicalized without you knowing?
YES
Can Muslims, who embrace Islam be assimilated or does an irrefutable conflict prevent same?
PREVENTS SAME
Do you agree with Obama that American arrogance and air pollution, economic decline and unemployment are the root cause of ISIS' appeal and the increase in Islamic Terrorism? If so, why are not those of Christian persuasion running around acting in the same manner?
NO
Or did ISIS come about because of Obama's premature withdrawal from Iraq?
NOT ENTIRELY
Does the fact that Muslims have generally failed to openly oppose and declare the reprehensible terrorist acts of their brethren, worldwide, concern you?
VERY MUCH SO
Does the fact that Tafsheen Malik lied on her Visa Application undercuts Obama's claim that we can adequately vet Syrian refugees without a credible database and flies in the face of challenges by The FBI Chief?
ABSOLUTELY
Would Americans be safer if we disarmed? Is Obama delusional to suggest same?
SAFER TO SOME DEGREE.......ESPECIALLY WITH NON ISLAMIC AMERICANS
Is Obama correct when he asserts mass killings demand more gun control laws when cities that already have strict gun laws experience out sized murder statistics?
THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS SOMETIMES IN THE MIDDLE.........I REPEAT MY "CANDY STORE" EXAMPLE
The New York Times Editorial Board has joined Obama's band wagon and now calls for Americans to disarm. Do you agree? Are they also delusional?
AGREE TO SOME EXTENT
AGREE TO SOME EXTENT
Because of recent events, would it be credible if one were to raise the issue of specific gaps in Obama's own background, thereby, resurrecting the previous claim, Obama was a Manchurian Candidate President?
THE BIGGEST FRAUD THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER EXPERIENCED
Should our Constitutional Rights be made subservient to the needs of refugees legal or otherwise? (See 1 below.)
NO
Can a nation that refuses to control its borders survive?
NO
Should English become our national language?
YES
If Obama believes women should be allowed to participate in combat why not let them also play in the NFL?
WHY NOT
Finally, is Obama purposely saying things that are un-explainable in order to cause Republicans to select a non-winning extreme candidate?
MAYBE
IN A MORE SERIOUS VAIN, I DETECT FINALLY, SOME PEACEFUL MUSLIMS MAY BE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST VIOLENCE, ISIS etc, ; i am hoping the clerics will start to do so as well.
---
Dick
1)
The Closing of Barack Obama’s Mind
By PETER WEHNER
If you want to witness an adamantine mind at work, you could do a whole lot worse that observe the 44th president of the United States. Barack Obama is the most rigidly ideological president of my lifetime, a man who has a nearly blind adherent to a particular ideology (progressivism). It’s a disturbing, if at times a psychologically fascinating, thing to witness.
We’re seeing it play out in multiple ways, but let me offer just one illustration — his approach to jihadism. It has been clear from the start of his presidency that Mr. Obama has decided that Islam is wholly separate from Islamic terrorism, which explains his refusal to use the words (or variations of the words) radical or militant Islam. It also explains why his administration has used absurd euphemisms like “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence” to describe Islam-inspired attacks. Why the 2009 Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was an “isolated extremist.” Why the shooting at a Kosher supermarket in Paris earlier this year was “random.” (The gunman had declaredhis allegiance to ISIS.) And why the president, in an effort to protect Islam, invokes the Crusades at a National Prayer Breakfast, despite the fact that the Crusades happened roughly a thousand years ago. On and on it goes.
We have a president who is eager to put a racial frame around incidents in which white cops kills blacks, even if, as in the case of Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, the shooting was justified and there was no evidence that it was racially motivated. No matter; the incidents fit into Mr. Obama’s worldview, and off to the races he went.
But in the case of jihadism, when the killers themselves are invoking the Koran and the Islamic faith to justify their malevolence — when the caliphate established in the heart of the Middle East is called the Islamic State — the president refuses to confront it. He goes into contortions to downplay or ignore the connection to Islam. He has a narrative to advance, and he will do it even if he has to run roughshod over reality to do it.
No one is asking Mr. Obama to indict all of Islam or have America or the West declare a war on it. He should do neither. But what we should expect is the president to understand the nature of the enemy we’re facing. It would also be refreshing if the president did not live in a world hermetically sealed off from facts that are inconvenient to his worldview. But that is precisely what Mr. Obama is doing.
Barack Obama has a self-conceit: He sees himself as pragmatic, empirical, a man driven by reason rather than emotion, truth rather than dogma. Which simply underscores how ideological he is. His self-conception is a self-delusion; he is blind to how closed his mind is and how much he distorts reality in the cause of his meta-narratives. This happens on issue after issue — Mr. Obama’s intellectual distortions are not, alas, contained to a single topic — but it may be most pronounced in his utter inability to see the struggle within Islam that is unfolding before his very eyes. He doesn’t want it to be true, and so he won’t allow it to be true.
Here’s the problem: There is an independent reality apart from what Mr. Obama thinks. He can ignore the truth, but he cannot wish it out of existence. And by ignoring the reality of things, he makes everything worse. (It turns out that calling ISIS a “jayvee team” last year and declaring it “contained” a day before the massacre in Paris doesn’t make it so. Who knew?)
Mr. Obama is lost and confused, inhabiting a world of his own making. That would be bad enough if he was a community organizer; it is disastrous for a man who is president. America and the world are paying a terrible price because of the closing of Barack Obama’s mind.
1a)DIARY OF A MAD VOTER
1a)DIARY OF A MAD VOTER
How the 'New York Times' and Loretta Lynch Made Me Join the NRA
I am not a complete stranger to guns. I got my merit badge in riflery when I was a kid and have dropped in on a firing range now and again, learning the basics on Glocks and Berettas. I even went shooting with former Governor Rick Perry of Texas.
But the NRA was always a bridge too far. I interviewed Wayne LaPierre, its CEO, once for PJTV, but I never joined. I'm still a Jewish boy from New York whose mother cringed at buying him a cap gun. It's not in my DNA.
The New York Times and Attorney General Loretta Lynch have finally put an end to all that. Hello again, Mr. LaPierre. Here's my twenty-five bucks. Send me thatrosewood knife. I'm in.
I don't know which is worse, Ms. Lynch or the NYT. Actually they're closely related, but let me start with the paper. They published an editorial Friday ("End the Gun Epidemic in America"), contra the 2nd Amendment and calling for the confiscation of arms:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
The amazing, and revealing, aspect of the editorial is that only days after the San Bernardino attack the words "Islam," "ISIS," "jihad" or anything resembling them are not mentioned in this editorial (as if they were complete anathema), only the amorphous "terrorism." To wit:
America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
They are? Well, yes, in the sense that people have been killed. But for radically different reasons. In the cases the NYT seems most to abhor, random crazy people have attacked abortion clinics and churches. This is horrible and more than extremely regrettable but far more infrequent and considerably less violent than the attacks in the name of Allah happening on an almost daily basis across the world from Mumbai to San Bernardino. These attacks, what the NYT blithely calls "sprees," are nearly always accompanied by overt declarations of war against Western civilization. You would have to be, in Andy McCarthy's words, willfully blindto find them in any way equivalent.
I wouldn't doubt the editorial board of the NYT is also aware that the policy of the Nazi party was pretty close to what they are recommending, the confiscation of guns -- for the National Socialists so that they could be sure they were only in the hands of those deemed acceptable (not Jews, etc.). To use Orwell's term this time, that would make the NYT "objectively pro-fascist."
But perhaps less harmful than our own government. Reacting to the San Bernardino Islamic ideology-based terror rampage... er, workplace violence... the first thing out of our attorney general's mouth was to warn James Comey, director of the FBI, that the real danger from this event was anti-Muslim backlash and to watch his language. In other words, don't call a duck a duck. According toDCWhispers, the order had come down from Obama and Jarrett to Lynch, in which order was unspecified, that Comey's statements should be bowdlerized. It was.
Okay, I've had it. Mr. LaPierre, as I told you, I'm in. You've got another one-time Jewish lefty in the NRA. That should make at least one of us.
(By the way, to demonstrate my new bona fides, I am writing this from the Bullets & Bourbon event at Rough Creek Lodge in Glen Rose, Texas. It's been great. Hope you can make it next time. Photo above features me with Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, PJM's Dr. Helen, and Nina Yablok, PJM's attorney, at Rough Creek Lodge's tactical shooting station.)
=========================================================================
2)
2b) THIS ARTICLE, WRITTEN BY A DANISH PSYCHOLOGIST, PRESENTS A POINT OF
4)From a friend:
2)
You Can Never Be “Nice” Enough to the Muslims
For years, Israel has been demonized, held responsible for every terrorist atrocity from blowing up Holocaust survivors at a Passover Seder to the mutilation and murder of her Olympic athletes. It was all Israel’s fault, because she had mistreated the poor Palestinians.
The French welcomed thousands of Muslims to France. They made them citizens, gave them access to everything the Western world has to offer. The French sided openly with the Palestinians, and had a hands-off policy towards Muslims, making their neighborhoods no-go zones for the police.
Their reward? Mass killings in supermarkets, magazine offices, restaurants, a sports arena, and a concert hall by Muslims. But why? After all, the French were so “nice?”
After the most recent French atrocity, ISIS, claiming responsibility, posted the following on its website: “Hundreds of apostates were attending an adulterous party.”
That’s right. That’s what France is to them. Immoral. According to their standards. And so, they deserve to die. So now, what is France planning to do? To pass a law recognizing a Palestinian State.
Huh! What?! To recognize the supporters and accomplices of the people who blew them up? Because that’s what the Palestinians are: radical Muslim terrorists. Our Prime Minister Mr. Netanyahu is flabbergasted, furious. But I’m not. The French want to be “nice,” to spare themselves further terror attacks.
They won’t succeed. Just the opposite. This is a fact. Israel tried that. We gave them the entire Gaza Strip. We uprooted thousands of Jews. Handed over their multi-million dollar hot-house businesses. Gave them our synagogues. We even dug Jewish corpses out of the graves of Gaza cemeteries, many of them put there by Muslim terrorists, and took them out of Gaza before handing it over. We also thought we could be “nice,” make them happy, make them not hate us so much.
And what happened? They thought we were idiots. Worse, they thought we were weak. If terror got us to do that, a lot of terror would get us to give them even more. From the site of Jewish settlements and destroyed synagogues, they set up their rocket launchers sending tens of thousands of rockets into Israel, making life unbearable for every Jew within shooting range. They dug hundreds of terror tunnels under the borders, planning a mass, murderous invasion, until the IDF had to finally go in there. And it’s still not over and won’t be until we kick every, single one of them out of Gaza, and re-take it.
That’s the truth for anyone willing to hear it.
Last week, Syed Rizwan Farook and his new Pakistani bride, parents of a six month-old baby, who were living the American dream, killed fourteen people, his co-workers, and injured dozens of others. And he was only just getting started on his “jihad.” Police found thousands of rounds of ammunition, pipe bombs, you name it.
Oh, he had big plans, little Syed and his blushing Pakistani jihadi bride. He did this, even though Americans had saved his immigrant parents from that disgusting shit-hole called Pakistan, and provided him with the means to obtain higher education and a high paying job. Even though his workmates had never had any arguments with him, and had indeed, even thrown him and his new wife a baby shower!
“They were radicalized,” the President of the United States, that ISIS-lover (that’s what the Egyptians are calling him now) has said. Not the same thing as saying they were terrorists. It means, they were good, peace-loving people but YOU made them terrorists, because … you weren’t nice enough to them.
Listen to Muslim Brotherhood mouthpiece CAIR: “When we support coup leaders in Egypt or other places, when we support dictatorship, oppressive regimes around the world that push people over on the edge, then they become extremists, then they become terrorists.”
Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General has addressed Muslim murderers killing Americans by saying she will prosecute anyone engaging in “hate speech” towards Muslims, while CNN’s Anderson Cooper tried to get the wife of a victim – a co-worker who was a Christian who loved Israel – to admit that her husband probably wasn’t “nice” enough to Syed and therefore he had it coming.
Yes, my friends, whatever you do, you can never be “nice” enough to today’s Muslims.
Listen to what I’m going to tell you now. And trust me, as an American-born Israeli who has lived with Muslim terror for fifty years, it’s the truth: They hate you not because of how you treat them, but because you exist and you don’t believe in their religion, or their wondrous prophet. Because you treat women and homosexuals as human beings. Because you won’t admit that they should take over your country and your lives, and submit to their rules.
So when you die, they will tell you it’s all your fault. Because you made them mad. You made them really, really mad, so whatever horrors they are at this very moment busily planning to inflict on you (because that’s the only thing they are good at; the only thing they believe in), you deserve them. It is inevitable and you should have seen it coming.
And so if you welcome them into your country, and give them good jobs and educations, and you throw them baby showers, and allow their foreign born fiancées K-1 visas to enter the country, they will add to their anger their contempt because you are weak and foolish and don’t understand that they are at war with you and want you dead.
And your politicians, who are still getting advice from CAIR, will outlaw guns to make it easier for them, because they don’t need licenses for guns, believe me. But you will.
And the states who had the guts to stand up to Obama’s flooding the U.S. with “refugees” will all back down, the way Texas has. After all, why would you want to fight against a nice Syrian family – two lovely parents, two lovely grandparents, two little kids? And why wouldn’t you give a visa for the lovely fiancée of the environmental health specialist from San Bernardino with their lovely, dimpled six month-old baby? Why?
So you will. And in return you are going to get San Bernardinos all over the U.S.A. Then you will need to live like we live in Israel, except maybe not as safely because the people in charge of your safety have to do what your President, who is such good friends with CAIR, tells them to do, while we are protected by fellow Jews, who have wised up over the years from our own Leftist crazies who got hundreds of us blown up in buses and coffee houses while they were “giving peace a chance,” and giving the Palestinians “good-will gestures” like not frisking them at check-points for weapons, or arming their “police.”
Now, we let our moron Leftists talk. But we don’t elect them or give them power, like you did, do, and are planning to do (Hillary is the last nail in your coffin.) Even Mr. Trump, who has said so much that is true, is a moron when it comes to Islam. He’s going to get Israel to “give concessions” to “make peace in six months.”
I feel sorry for you America, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain. So many more of you are going to die trying to be “nice” to the Muslims. Trying to make life good for them, until you realize they hate you and want you dead no matter what you do for them. You and your wife and your kids. Dead or sold into slavery, or raped or educated to be killers. Dead or willing to be part of their new world order, the great Caliphate.
And without a radical change in thinking by the West, they are going to succeed. There is a slim window of opportunity to defeat them. But it would take extreme guts, and extreme measures, which, frankly, I don’t know if you’re capable of.
But here it goes: Take back your country by taking away the power from your ISIS-loving presidents and prime ministers and the people and media who put them in power.
SEAL YOUR BORDERS.
Close down the mosques and Muslim Cultural Centers (Islamic Center of North America, CAIR etc. All THE ISLAMIC CENTERS AND MOSQUES ARE CONNECTED WITH TERRORISM, especially in America, according to John Guandolo, AN FBI EXPERT.
It’s not about gun control. Yes, America has a gun problem, and is filled with crazies. But terrorists are not crazy. They are warriors. They will obtain guns to make war, legal or not, and they will use them to kill people and further their agenda. Tightening gun control just at this moment when jihad has come to America isn’t a good idea, because it might mean the victims won’t be able to protect themselves.
Besides, guns in themselves are not the problem. Israel has guns all over the place! People use them to kill terrorists, and to keep guns out of their hands. There has never been a mass shooting of women and children in Israel that wasn’t connected to a radical Muslim terrorist. Never!
Deport illegal aliens. Get a means of self-protection.
WAKE UP! THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU AND YOURS!
2a)
Lighting Candles for Liberty
Today’s fights for political and religious freedom lend an added resonance to Hanukkah celebrations.
By Ruth R. Wisse
Modern human accomplishments seldom outstrip miracles of the past, but those who light the candles for Hanukkah beginning Sunday night are involved in an even greater struggle for political and religious freedom than the Maccabees in their time.
The festival commemorates the recapture and re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem almost 22 centuries ago, initiating eight decades of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel. Today’s defenders of Israel fight not only for their own restored political and religious freedom but for the right of all nations to freedom from increasingly violent and maddened enemies.
Jewish political history is well represented by the emblematic legend of the oil that was required to consecrate the Temple after its defilement at the hands of the Hellenistic Seleucid rulers. Thought to be enough to last only a single day, the oil burned for the eight days needed to obtain a new supply.I was amused recently to find this caution on a Jewish website: “Note that the holiday commemorates the miracle of the oil, not the military victory: Jews do not glorify war.” Yet obviously the miracle of the oil corresponds to the improbable victory of the Maccabees over insurmountable military odds. Hanukkah celebrates not war but the self-rule that was unattainable without it. Like Judaism itself, the festival fuses religious and national experience.
If Jews celebrate for eight days the war they won against the Greeks, they mourn for three weeks the war they subsequently lost against the Romans. The extended period of national grieving in the Hebrew summer month of Av commemorates the destruction of both the second Temple in the year 70 and the first Temple by the Babylonians six centuries before that. Taken together, the biblical Book of Lamentations and the Book of Maccabees show how important political autonomy was to the Jews and how harrowingly they felt its loss.
Nonetheless, unlike nations that disappear upon conquest, Jews proved uniquely able to live among other peoples both within the land of Israel and outside it. In the almost two millennia when the land was under foreign occupation, Jews pursued their way of life wherever they were allowed to do so. This ability of Jewish minorities to accommodate themselves to non-Jewish majorities tested the latter’s ability to tolerate and coexist with Jews—successfully doing so has everywhere been a sign of political maturity, just as failure has been a harbinger of repression.
All the spiritual-intellectual resources and creative powers of adaptation that Jews had cultivated in their centuries of dispersion were not enough to protect them from anti-Semitism, an ideology that held Jews themselves accountable for the aggression against them. Where Greek and Roman rulers had tried to crush the Jews by ravaging their way of life, modern European leaders, including those who had made the greatest claims for human progress, scapegoated Jews for their own societal failures and applied their ingenuity to new methods of persecution and, in the end, mass murder.
Here begins the modern miracle. On that same continent, European Jews mobilized a movement of Jewish self-emancipation that would replenish and repossess the land of Israel. Had Zionism organized earlier, or Nazism later, millions more Jews would have propelled the return to Zion. But just as oil that sufficed for a day lasted as long as it had to, Jews in numbers scarcely sufficient to win a battle held off the entire Arab League in the 1940s. Within three years of their mass destruction, the Jewish people had reclaimed sovereignty in their too-long-occupied land.
How good it would be if we could do without miracles. Instead of organizing their unity against their Semitic brethren, Arab leaders might have chosen coexistence, if not peace. In the years following the establishment of modern Israel in 1948, many new Arab states came into being—Bahrain (1971), Comoros (1975), Djibouti (1977), Kuwait (1961), Mauritania and Somalia (1960), Sudan and Tunisia (1956), United Arab Emirates (1971) and Yemen (1990). With Lebanon having been formed in 1941, Jordan in 1946, and Libya in 1947, and with Algeria gaining its independence in 1962, this means that most Arab League countries emerged at the same time as the Jewish state or afterward.
Had Arab leaders accepted the partition of Palestine in 1947 and negotiated the exchange of Jewish and Arab refugees, there would have been no need for history’s most lopsided war—their war against the Jews—and no need for spectacular proofs of Jewish grit.
The endurance of Jews as a self-accountable people is rendered all the more remarkable by the record of nations incapable of accepting their existence. Arab and Muslim leaders who fomented anger, grievance, blame and aggression against the state of Israel unleashed a violence they can no longer contain, one that has spread across the globe. Israel applies its ingenuity and resources to helping to stave off the resulting carnage and safeguard the civilized world. One could do without this miracle, but a miracle it is.
Ms. Wisse, a former professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, is the author of “Jews and Power” (Schocken, 2007) and “No Joke: Making Jewish Humor” (Princeton, 2013).
2b) THIS ARTICLE, WRITTEN BY A DANISH PSYCHOLOGIST, PRESENTS A POINT OF
VIEW THAT SHOULD BE READ.
If you are wondering why people would send their children out as
living bombs.. and why we should stop all Muslims from coming to our
country. for any reason. they are crazy.. and this explains why.This is
just so interesting and it explains an awful lot about what it happening
around the world today.
As the author (Dr. Nicolai Sennels) rightly points out, if Islam is
allowed to continue expanding and taking over western countries, as is
now happening in Europe, the whole gene pool will be seriously damaged
and mankind will degrade as a result.
It also explains why they have won so few Nobel Prizes and haven't
developed new inventions like western peoples do.
But most importantly of all, it explains their mad, murderous
fanaticism which we just cannot understand.
The 'promise' of 70 virgins for one's suicide holds no appeal at all
to normal people; but to near imbeciles, well...
Dr. Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who has done extensive
research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world: the disastrous
results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of
first-cousins.
This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian
tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has
been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world.
This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world,
since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters,
including marriage.
The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done
virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including
extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health.
According to Sennels, close to half of all Muslims in the world
areinbred.
In Pakistan , the numbers approach 70%.
Even in England , more than half of Pakistani immigrants are married
to their first cousins.
In Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.
The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim
countries:
67% in Saudi Arabia ;
64% in Jordan ;
And Kuwait ;
63% in Sudan ;
60% in Iraq ;
And 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar
According to the BBC, this Pakistani, Muslim-inspired inbreeding is
thought to explain the probability that a British Pakistani family is
more than 13 X's as likely to have children with recessive genetic
disorders.
While Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of the births in the UK ,
they account for 33% of children with genetic birth defects.
The risk of what are called autosomal recessive disorders such as
cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy is 18 times higher and the
risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher.
Other negative consequences of inbreeding include a 100% increase in
the risk of stillbirths and a 50% increase in the possibility that a
child will die during labour.
Lowered intellectual capacity is another devastating consequence of
Muslim marriage patterns.
According to Dr. Sennels, research shows that children
ofconsanguineous marriages lose 10-16 points off their IQ and that
social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies.
The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for
being classified as "retarded",increases by an astonishing 400% among
children of cousin marriages.
(Similar effects were seen in the Pharaonic dynasties in ancient
Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for
a significant period of time.)
In Denmark , non-Western immigrants are more than 300% more likely
to fail the intelligence test required for entrance into the Danish army
Dr. Sennels says that "the ability to enjoy and produce knowledge
and abstract thinking is simply lower in the Islamic world."
He points out that the Arab world translates just 330 books every
year, about 20% of what Greece alone does.
In the last 1,200 years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been
translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year.
Seven out of 10 Turks have never even read a book
Dr. Sennels points out the difficulties this creates for Muslims
seeking to succeed in the West. "A lower IQ, together with a religion
that denounces critical thinking, surely makes it harder for many
Muslims to have success in our high-tech knowledge societies."
Only nine Muslims have ever won the Nobel Prize, and five of those
were for the "Peace Prize." According to Nature magazine, Muslim
countries produce just 10% of the world average when it comes to
scientific research (measured by articles per million inhabitants).
In Denmark ,(Dr. Sennels' native country) Muslim children are grossly
over-represented among children with special needs.
One-third (33%) of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by
special education, and anywhere from 51% to 70% of retarded children
with physical handicaps in Copenhagen have an immigrant background.
Learning ability is severely affected as well. Studies indicated that
64% of school children with Arabic parents are still illiterate after 10
years in the Danish school system.
The immigrant drop-out rate in Danish high schools is twice that of
the native-born.
Mental illness is also a product. The closer the blood relative, the
higher the risk of schizophrenic illness. The increased risk of insanity
may explain why more than 40% of the patients in Denmark 's biggest ward
for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant background.
The U.S. is not immune. According to Sennels, "One study based on
300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a
lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population
as a whole."
Dr. Sennels concludes:
"There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin
marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims.
Because Muslims' religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and
thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their
population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their
prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely
massive. [This has produced] overwhelming direct and indirect human and
societal consequences."
Bottom line: Islam is not simply a benign and morally equivalent
alternative to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
As Dr. Sennels points out, the first and biggest victims of Islam are
Muslims.
Simple Christian compassion for Muslims and a common-sense desire to
protect Western civilization from the ravages of Islam dictate a
vigorous opposition to the spread of this dark and dangerous religion.
These stark realities must be taken into account when we establish
public polices dealing with immigration from Muslim countries.
==================================================================================
3)
============================================================================
4)From a friend:
I think Obama has gone full-on crazy. Or worse...
In the past month, we have experienced no less than 5 Islamic Terrorist attacks around the world. ISIS took down a Russian commercial flight, killing a couple hundred people. They attacked Paris (again), killing 130 and injuring countless others. Then al Qaeda, competing for new recruits with body counts, attacked in Mali, killing 21. Then ISIS attacked in San Bernardino, killing 14 and injuring dozens. And more recently, a man wielding a knife attacked an innocent person in east London shouting, "This is for Syria!"
This is just counting attacks in the last 30 days - not Charlie Hebdo, the Marine recruiting center shootings, the Boston Marathon bombings, Fort Hood, machete killings in London, etc. And not including the people being killed (beheaded, drowned, burned alive, crucified, shot) in Syria and Iraq.
The frightening thing is that we got off light in San Bernardino. The lunatic who attacked his co-workers must have taken offense during a Christmas party and prematurely started killing people. Perhaps he and his wife thought they would get away to use the bombs later. But they left behind a bomb factory, with at least 9 pipe bombs, complete with remote detonators. Not sure if you noticed the absence of the 900 pound gorilla, but every newspaper and media outlet are carrying pictures of the two AR-15s and two pistols used in the attack - none show pictures of pipe bombs. The ISIS couple could have killed hundreds if they had planned out a better attack plan. I think they went off script.
OK, Imagine if ISIS had dropped bombs on us or launched cruise missiles from war ships. Would our reaction be different? It shouldn't. A foreign enemy has repeatedly attacked us and our allies (and even Russia), killing hundreds of innocent civilians. It should not matter how they killed us. They are waging war against us. One American life lost is too many to suffer their existence.
So, my question is this: is Obama crazy? Or Worse? Here are his reactions to innocent US citizens and our allies being slaughtered.
He won't name the enemy.
He tells us it's really not that bad - not an "existential threat" (so we should just live with them killing a few of us at a time?).
His knee jerk reaction to being attacked by ISIS is to disarm American citizens.
He insists that we allow tens of thousands of "Syrians" into the US to prove that we are a compassionate nation.
He got defensive and petulant when a journalist asked why we can't "take these bast**ds out."
He declares that Global Warming is the biggest threat facing the US, not Islamic terrorism, and Global Warming is a cause of terrorism.
He declares that attending a Global Warming conference strikes a blow against ISIS.
He constantly warns us not to react against ISIS because it will only aid in their recruiting.
None of Obama's reactions appear to make sense. Applying Occam's razor, the two simplest solutions I can come up with are:
1. Obama is crazy, or
2. Obama is not on our side.
========================================================================
5)
5)
The World That Pearl Harbor Created is Coming to An End
In my youth, Dec. 7 was always a big deal, as we remembered Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Today, most of those alive on that fateful day in 1941 are no longer with us, and the collective memory of the event has faded. Subsequent generations have other powerful dates to remember. Nov. 22, the day President Kennedy was assassinated, loomed large in the lives of Baby Boomers. More recently, Sept. 11 has become the day we must never forget.
This is the natural course of history moving on. In a generation or two, even Sept. 11 will become just another day in America. But each of these events changes our nation in ways that last far beyond memories of the events themselves.
Pearl Harbor fundamentally changed America by shifting more power and authority to the federal government than had ever previously been imagined. The change happened almost immediately, as documented in a great book by Craig Shirley, "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World."
To give a sense of scale, Americans today can't imagine a world where any other nation has a bigger or more powerful military. But as World War II began, "The Army Air Corps had only 51,000 trained flyers," according to Shirley's research. But "The Royal Air Force had 500,000 pilots, and the German Luftwaffe had a million pilots." Not only that, "The U.S. planes were inferior."
By the end of that war, the U.S. stood alone as the premier military power in the world. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Something even bigger had happened to America during those years. By organizing the entire country to fight and defeat the evil of Hitler's Germany, the federal government earned trust and goodwill such as it had never enjoyed before or since.
Congress used those positive feelings to formally commit the federal government to managing the U.S. economy. At the time, most economists and most Americans assumed that the country would slip back into a Depression following the war. Instead, America enjoyed an enormous post-War economic boom to become the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.
The World War II generation had more faith in the federal government than any other Americans ever. Who could blame them? The federal government won the war and appeared to be guiding the nation's economy to smooth and never-ending growth. Later, it put a man on the moon and returned him safely to earth.
But the success did not last. The wars in Korea and Vietnam did not end well. The economy spiraled out of control in the late '60s and struggled for more than a decade. The bank bailouts of this century and other events eroded public confidence in the federal government. For those who grew up during World War II, this lack of trust was hard to understand. They still remembered the government that saved the world after Pearl Harbor.
In retrospect, that generation's extraordinary faith in the federal government was a temporary aberration brought about by unique circumstances. Their world no longer exists, and the political system it created is collapsing around us. Our challenge now is to rebuild a political system that recognizes the inability of the federal government to lead our nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) The President Plays Defense
Obama finally admits the California terror reality but offers no new strategy.
President Obama showed Sunday night that he realizes the growing threat from Islamist terror is a grave risk to his political standing in his last year in office. What he didn’t show is that he is willing to consider any changes to his failing strategy to defeat the threat from Islamic State.
The President’s 13-minute Oval Office speech, only the third of his tenure, at last acknowledged that last week’s attack in San Bernardino by a radicalized Islamist couple was an “act of terrorism.” It would have been hard for him to say otherwise after his own FBI director, James Comey, had admitted this reality on Friday. Mr. Obama was looking increasingly detached from reality, and the speech was an attempt to recover from his claims that the growing jihadist threat is “contained.”
Yet the President devoted most of his speech to defending the strategy he has pursued for 16 months against Islamic State without much success. He cited his bombing campaign, but he didn’t mention that the vast majority of sorties drop no bombs because of the limits he has placed on the military. He mentioned the recent allied bombing of Islamic State’s oil infrastructure, but then why has the U.S. waited so long to take this initiative?
Mr. Obama was, as usual, especially forceful in explaining why he is refusing to deploy more U.S. ground forces to take the battle to the Islamic State homeland in Iraq and Syria. But also, as usual, he offered up the false dilemma between his own policy and sending tens of thousands of troops to “occupy foreign lands.”
No one is proposing that U.S. ground troops should occupy either country. Even the most ambitious advocates of taking the war to Islamic State would deploy only some 10,000 or so troops, such as special forces or Apache helicopter teams, to assist local Sunni Arabs who would do the bulk of the fighting on the ground. An expanded U.S. ground force would provide tactical expertise and above all signal to our allies in the region that the U.S. is committed to defeating Islamic State as rapidly as possible. No one in the region believes that now.
Surely nearly all Americans also agree with Mr. Obama that the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims, and we should not lash out at Muslim-Americans. President Bush offered similar counsel after 9/11 and there has been no evidence that Americans are discriminating against Muslims. But the best way to deter such a backlash is for Mr. Obama to assure Americans that he is doing all he can to defeat Islamic State and stop its attempt to radicalize Americans.
On that score, we wish we had heard him address the recent reduction in the U.S. ability to collect telephone records. The Associated Press reported on the weekend that the law Mr. Obama signed this summer governing the collection of metadata means the FBI can’t collect the phone records of the San Bernardino killers beyond the last two years. Republicans should press to have this U.S. data collection ability restored as part of the current budget negotiations, and Mr. Obama should have to publicly defend his opposition.
Perhaps the oddest note in the President’s speech was toward the end when he claimed that the U.S. will defeat the jihadist threat because we are “on the right side of history.” History is made, not delivered as a birthright, and victory against killers has to be won. Islamic State has been gaining so much ground precisely because it has appeared to be winning. Mr. Obama has yet to show that he knows what it takes for the U.S. to win.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7) 72 DHS Employees on Terrorist Watch List
BY:
At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”
“Back in August, we did an investigation—the inspector general did—of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security,” Lynch told Boston Public Radio.
“The [former DHS] director had to resign because of that,” he said.
DHS continues to fail inspections aimed at determining the efficiency of its internal safety mechanisms, as well as its efforts to protect the nation.
Lynch referred to a recent report that found the Transportation Security Administration, which is overseen by DHS, failed to stop 95 percent of those who attempted to bring restricted items past airport security.
“We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95 percent failure rate,” Lynch said. “We had folks—this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate.”
Lynch said he has “very low confidence” in DHS based on its many failures over the years. For this reason, he voted in favor of recent legislation that will tighten the vetting process for any Syrian refugees applying for
asylum in the United States.
“I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we’ve got on the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process,” he said. “That’s vetting that’s being done at major airports where we have a stationary person coming through a facility, and we’re failing 95 percent of the time.”
“I have even lower confidence that they can conduct the vetting process in places like Jordan, or Belize or on the Syrian border, or in Cairo, or Beirut in any better fashion, especially given the huge volume of applicants we’ve had seeking refugee status,” Lynch said.
No comments:
Post a Comment