As everybody knows, there is no such thing as a global war on terror anymore. Instead we live in a harmonious world of interfaith comity with only the occasional criminal act that is quickly and competently handled by law enforcement officials. As a result we can cut our defense budgets and get on with the real business of life, which is to say watching TV, going to the mall and voting to re-elect the strategic geniuses whose wise decisions and firm but thoughtful leadership gave us this tranquil world order.
As we celebrate this new age of peace, understanding and joy, here are a few stories that might matter if we didnt have such a wise and level-headed government in Washington that was bent on soothing and quieting what might otherwise be an aroused and worried public opinion.
#1
Ah yes, our sacred 1990's National Communism = 2012 sacred National Globalism. THUS OF COURSE OUR CONSTITUTION REMAINS A NATIONALISM-CENTRIC DOCUMENT, NOT A "GLOBALIST" ONE.
Move along people - clearly the US Mainstream has absolutely positively categorocally undeniably unequivocally .... no reason to engage in "Birther" controversies, Tea Party or "Occupy" Movements, Civil War, NAU, etc. just because our Politicos didn't ask Amers iff they wanted OWG-NWO = pro-US-vs-anti-US "Globalism".
[POTUS TEDDY "BULLY" ROOSEVELT + "BULL MOOSE" PARTY here].
Who said the following: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
Iran's Ahmadinejad? Egypt's Morsi? Some little-known, fatwa-flinging cleric increasing the bounty on Salman Rushdie's head?
None of the above. The words are President Obama's, and he spoke them this week to the U.N. General Assembly.
No Big Media outlet reported this stunning pronouncement. It's as if Ronald Reagan addressed the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983 and the media failed to report that he used the phrase "evil empire." To make the comparison more direct, imagine if a Republican president declared that "the future must not belong to those who slander the messiah of Christianity" -- or, for that matter, the prophet of Latter-day Saints. We would have heard all about it, and for the rest of our lives.
Of course, the Islam-Christianity comparison isn't a perfect match, given the peculiar definition of "slander" under Islamic law (Shariah). According to such authoritative sources as "Reliance of the Traveller," a standard Sunni law book approved by Cairo's Al-Azhar University, "slander" in Islam includes anything Muslims perceive to reflect badly on Islam and its prophet, including the truth. In other words, any negative fact about Islam and Muhammad is, under Islamic law, deemed "slander."
Does the president, son of a Muslim father and raised for four years as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia, understand this? Shouldn't someone in the White House press corps bother to ask?
#1
Hey Obama...He's "Islam's Prophet", not yours if you say you're not a Muslim.
Posted by: jack salami ||
09/30/2012 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
no big media company (not even Fox) has bothered to report on the many verses of the Koran that contain anti Jewish slander (e.g., the 3 'apes and pigs' verses) or the anti Christian slander
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/30/2012 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If the future belongs tho those who laud the 'prophet of Islam', it's a very bleak outlook for humanity. Islam's without a doubt the most backwards and inhuman cult going. Let's hope the future does belong to those who have neither time nor respect for the psycho Mohammed.
#6
DNC CRAPPING ON GOD TELEVISED ACROSS AFRICA 4 TO 5 DAYS BEFORE THE KIDS STARTED ASS RAPING DIPO'S! SEE THIS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CIA AND PSYOPS ON NETWORKS SAT CRAP ETC SINCE GOD KNOWS WHEN OBAMA IS THEIR LORD AND MASTER AND THESE PEOPLE ARE HIS-#1 They are younger so the crackers that go over and use all of them have tighter asses to stick their dicks in you know the ones with glasses and beards and trench coats! You know the ones that start crap four the four horseman of oil like they do in the united states with setting up listening posts in rural areas over the gas and shale use ex military and spooks and scare the natives off their land with crappy tech those fucking losers!
The presidential contest is a race to 270 electoral votes. The national vote is irrelevant. The solid blue and red states are irrelevant. If we look at Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney comfortably has 191 electoral votes on his side. He needs 79 more electoral votes to win outright, 78 to send it to the House. The RCP toss-up states are Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Florida (29), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13). Are there polls showing Romney ahead or within the margin of error in all these? Yes. Are Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan longer shots but still within reach? Yes. This is why this race remains highly competitive. But the polls, Jennifer...
A few days ago I posited that five factors could significantly impact the race: further economic deterioration; a lousy debate performance or two from President Obama; widespread doubts about the president's honesty on Libya; another foreign policy incident; and rising gas prices. Do some of these look quite possible? Even more so than when I first listed them. But, Jennifer, what about the POLLS?
In fact the Libya scandal is building as more and more facts come to light about what the Obama administration knew and what it was telling the American people. The Obama team's defense, namely that it was too dense to know that the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi was coordinated by al-Qaeda (weren't the black al-Qaeda flag and the shouts "We are Osama" a clue?), is not an attractive argument to make.
Meanwhile, word comes from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that we've "lost track" of Syria's chemical weapons. Too bad we lost so much intelligence in Benghazi. "Leading from behind" is proving to be a disaster for the country, our allies and the president.
And maybe most important, the economy is grinding to a dead halt. Obama alternately says that things are getting better or that no one could have done better. Neither is credible at this point. If you take into account combined high unemployment, low labor force participation, and slow GDP growth, 2012 might well be the worst non-recession, non-depression year in the history of the United States. The only other challenger is 2011. Or maybe next year.
When you are presiding over an economy that looks less horrible than it would otherwise be if not for all the people who've given up looking for work, that's a problem. ("The only reason the unemployment rate has declined to near 8% from 10% (and isn't over 11%) is that the labor force has collapsed and millions of unemployed are no longer being counted by the government.") But they're all part of the 47%, who are a lock for The One. Aren't they? Hope? Change?
For all these reasons you can readily see why the liberal narrative that the race is over is aspirational and not factual. Arguing that the "polls are real" or pointing to the latest gaffe is satisfying for the anxious liberal pundits, I suppose, but neither is an argument to vote for Obama. Neither phenomenon is any guarantee that Obama's "lead" is any more lasting than his "recovery" (which lasted less than the length of an NBA season).
Romney certainly could win this race; the open question is whether he will do what it takes to break through to the voters in the very close contests in the critical states. Therein, Dear Reader, lies the $64,000 question.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/30/2012 10:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
RCP categorizes the races according to an average of recent polls. If you think the polls are skewed toward the Dems and make the appropriate adjustments, then RCP is showing another R blowout year.
#2
How Romney could lose: the 47% who vote for their (government-provided) income vote Dem, regardless of anything else and 6% who can't stand a RINO like Romney stay home.
#4
Why doesn't someone tell the troops the truth they are being used as chess pieces so they can try and trick billions of people into thinking they care for the Muslims so they can commit more fraud on a global scale ! It's all crap they got in bed with the wrong people and can't get out of it!
It's embarrassing when President Obama's risk-averse refusal to engage on foreign policy issues becomes so obvious that it's a laugh line for the president of Iran.
"I do believe that some conversations and key issues must be talked about again once we come out of the other end of the political election atmosphere in the United States," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said cheekily in an interview last Sunday. I hate to say it, but on this matter the often-annoying Iranian leader is right. Then we can play rope-a-dope with the new guy, or continue with the old guy. In the mean time, I have six more weeks of excused delay.
Less than six weeks before the election, the Obama campaign's theme song might as well be the old country-music favorite "Make the World Go Away." This may be smart politics, but it's not good governing: The way this campaign is going, the president will have a foreign affairs mandate for . . . nothing. It's ALL about politics, David. Such is life in the Big City of Chicago.
To be blunt: The administration has a lot invested in the public impression that al-Qaeda was vanquished when Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011. Obama would lose some of that luster if the public examined whether al-Qaeda is adopting a new, Zawahiri-led strategy of interweaving its operations with the unrest sweeping the Arab world. But this discussion is needed, and a responsible president should lead it, even during a presidential campaign. This is David Ignatius, a guy who Frank previously expressed some distaste for, which I agreed with, at the time.
Perhaps the most disheartening example of a topic that has been deep-sixed during campaign season is the war in Afghanistan. This month marked the end of the surge that President Obama ordered in December 2009, and troops are back to the pre-surge level of about 68,000. How fast will that number decline over the next year? Here again, we probably won't know until after Election Day. Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. forces in Kabul, is preparing his recommendations, but officials say that this process of review will take . . . well, at least six weeks.
The president hasn't really made any bones about his wait-till-later approach. He put it frankly to Dmitry Medvedev, then president of Russia, back in March when he thought the microphone was off: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
This strategy of avoiding major foreign policy risks or decisions may help get Obama reelected. But he is robbing the country of a debate it needs to have -- and denying himself the public understanding and support he will need to be an effective foreign policy president in a second term, if the "rope-a-dope" campaign should prove successful.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/30/2012 10:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Who said the following: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
"Leading from behind" is proving to be a disaster for the country, our allies and the president.
