Congressman: Women Will Get Raped Unless We Pass “Immigration Reform”

Congressman: Women Will Get Raped Unless We Pass “Immigration Reform”  thats because obama will tell them to rape us come rape me get your head blowed off

August 31, 2013 by NewsEditor 8 Comments

inShare1

Yet another Chicago leftist has gone off the deep end as he claims women will be raped if amnesty legislation is not passed. Then again, they might only lose a finger. Congressman Luis Gutierrez does a minute and a half of pure stand-up in this video:
 Gutiérrez: Women Will Get Raped Unless We Pass Immigration Reform: http://youtu.be/v6Nwk8Y7CRY via @youtube

Obama to Speak on Syria Following Departure of UN Team

By Margaret Talev, Terry Atlas & Eddie Buckle - Aug 31, 2013 12:32 PM ET

President Barack Obama plans to make a statement on Syria today, hours after the departure of a United Nations team from that country removed an obstacle to a U.S. military strike.
Obama will make a statement on Syria at 1:15 p.m. Washington time from the White House Rose Garden, according to a White House statement. Members of Obama’s national security team, who were meeting today at the White House, planned to brief senators on Syria on a conference call this afternoon and give House members a classified, in-person briefing tomorrow at the Capitol.

Enlarge image

UN inspectors arrive in Eastern Ghouta area under the protection of the Free Syrian Army to inspect a site suspected of being hit by a deadly chemical weapons attack last week by Al Assad Forces, on Aug. 28, 2013. Photographer: Majid Almustafa/Demotix/Corbis

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry indicated yesterday that the administration wouldn’t wait for congressional approval, international backing or a definitive report from the inspectors to respond to Syria’s Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack, in which Kerry said 1,429 people, including at least 426 children, were killed.
History “would judge us all extraordinarily harshly” if the U.S. doesn’t respond to the use of chemical weapons, Kerry said in a televised address.
An attack could come this weekend, said administration officials who are taking part in planning and asked not to be identified discussing non-public information.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad’s main ally, urged Obama to “think carefully” before ordering any strikes.
The UN weapons inspectors arrived in The Hague today after probing the attack outside Damascus, the world body said in an e-mailed statement. Assad denies using chemical arms.
In Damascus, residents braced for a U.S. missile attack, stocking up on food, including staples such as bread, rice and water. Traffic on the streets, usually crowded in the summer evenings, has become sparse after dark. “We’re expecting it any minute now,” said Mahmoud Merei, a lawyer.

Putin Warning

“Rushing in such cases can lead to results completely contrary to expectations,” Putin told reporters today in Vladivostok, eastern Russia. He demanded that the U.S. submit evidence the Syrian government forces carried out the attack to the UN Security Council, on which it has a veto.
With the British Parliament rejecting military action this week, Russia preventing any UN resolution supporting an attack, Congress out of session and polls showing public opinion against the use of force, Obama is poised for one of the boldest moves of his presidency. Of major U.S. allies in Europe, only French President Francois Hollande has signaled willingness to join in.
Obama and his secretary of state made a moral case for a punitive strike to deter the use of what Kerry called the “world’s most heinous weapons.”
Kerry cited Internet posts showing victims of a chemical attack, many struggling to breathe. “We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood,” he said.

Market Impact

The threat of a military strike has weighed on markets. U.S. stocks fell yesterday, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index capping its worst monthly drop since May 2012. Even so, West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell for a second day after the U.K. Parliament voted not to participate.
Obama and Kerry said that while the president hasn’t made a final decision, the U.S. is considering only action that doesn’t involve ground troops and avoids embroiling American forces in Syria’s civil war, in which the UN estimates more than 100,000 people have died.
Attacking Syria, even with satellite targeting and accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles, risks harming civilians and provoking Assad to unleash more chemical arms on his people. An attack muscular enough to help unseat Assad’s government might bolster rebels affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Assad’s Arsenal

Prime Minister Wael al-Halaqi said this week Syria would be a “graveyard for invaders,” according to the state news agency, SANA, while Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said the military would “surprise” the world with its might.
Assad’s arsenal includes Scud and Iranian-made Fateh missiles, according to Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Sapped by more than two years of civil war, battered by defections and deprived of spare parts, Assad’s forces would still struggle to mount a serious response.
Syria’s military forces fell to about half their notional strength of 220,000 by autumn 2012 as a “result of a combination of defections, desertions and casualties,” according to a report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Halaqi said the government is working hard to guarantee food and medical supplies and has strategic reserves of all products. Bakeries will work round the clock to meet demand, he said.

Security Council

Russia may call for an emergency meeting of all 15 members of the Security Council over the weekend to urge delaying any decision on a strike until after the UN probe is completed, according to a western diplomat who asked not to be identified citing the sensitivity of the situation.
The inspection team is determining whether a chemical attack occurred, though not who ordered it and carried it out. Once back in The Hague, the inspectors will deliver samples to laboratories in Europe, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters yesterday in New York. The report may take weeks to prepare because of the lab work required, said a UN official who wasn’t authorized to comment and asked not to be identified.
A four-page intelligence assessment released by the Obama administration yesterday didn’t tie the attack directly to orders from Assad, though it said he’s Syria’s ultimate decision maker. Administration officials have previously said the Syrian president bears responsibility for his military’s actions.

‘Highly Credible’

The report concluded with “high confidence” that the Assad government carried out last week’s attack. Syria has a stockpile of chemical agents -- including mustard, sarin and VX -- and “thousands” of munitions to deliver them, it said.
The assessment attributed its findings to communications intercepts, satellite data and accounts from medical personnel, journalists and witnesses, videos and thousands of social-media reports, as well as “highly credible non-governmental organizations.”
The U.S. has warships on standby in the region that could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles. An amphibious ship, the USS San Antonio, arrived in the eastern Mediterranean yesterday, joining five destroyers. The San Antonio, which typically carries about 300 Marines, could evacuate U.S. personnel from embassies in the Middle East.
France has the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Mediterranean, which is capable of carrying Rafale M strike fighters with Scalp EG cruise missiles, according to the IISS.

‘Diplomatic Reasons’

“The French will play a respectable military role, but their presence is mostly nice for diplomatic reasons,” Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based consulting firm, said by phone. “In terms of missiles fired, their contribution will be a small percent of the total.”
Obama faces domestic hurdles in waging a strike on Syria. More than 100 of the 435 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, including 18 of his fellow Democrats, signed a letter this week saying Syria doesn’t pose a direct threat to the U.S. and calling on him to seek congressional approval before any military action.

U.S. Opinion

Almost 80 percent of Americans say Obama should seek congressional approval before taking any military action, according to a poll conducted Aug. 28-29 for NBC News. Only 42 percent said they would support a U.S. military response, rising to 50 percent when the action specified is limited cruise-missile strikes targeted on Syrian infrastructure used to carry out chemical-weapons attacks. The poll of 700 adults has an error margin of 3.7 percentage points.
In France, a poll by BVA for Le Parisien newspaper showed 64 percent of respondents opposed to military action, with 34 percent in favor. BVA interviewed 1,010 people on the same dates for the poll, which has a margin of error of 2.5 points.
Obama is scheduled to leave the U.S. on Sept. 3 for a trip to Sweden followed by attendance at the Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, hosted by Putin, which Hollande will also attend.
To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Talev in Washington at mtalev@bloomberg.net; Terry Atlas in Washington at tatlas@bloomberg.net; Eddie Buckle in London at ebuckle@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

OBAMA GOVERNMENT = WAR CRIMES

Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:50

Susan Rice, Samantha Power, And Syria

 

With the President making the formal announcement this afternoon that he has selected U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to be his new National Security Adviser and longtime adviser Samantha Power to be replace Rice at the United Nations, speculation has turned to what impact these moves are likely to have on the direction of foreign policy in President Obama’s final term. Specifically, given the fact that both Rice and Power have a reputation as advocating a foreign policy of intervention to prevent or stop human rights violations, and that they were both heavily involved in advocating for intervention in Libya in 2011, their selection raises the question of what influence Rice and Power might have on U.S. policy toward the civil war in Syria. To date, President Obama has displayed a decidedly cautious approach toward the idea of even indirect intervention in the form of arming the rebels, and it seems rather clear that there has been very little support inside the Administration for such intervention notwithstanding the fact that the President has at various times drawn “red lines” for the Assad regime. Now, with two advocates of what has been referred to as the “Responsibility To Protect” Doctrine, one wonders if there’s a possibility that a policy shift may be at hand.
Over at Commentary, Max Boot is certainly among those who hopes that there will be:

Considering that Power and to a lesser extent Rice have argued that the U.S. has a “responsibility to protect” populations subject to genocide or other war crimes, it would be disheartening indeed if the administration in which they serve at increasingly senior levels were to continue to do little as the list of atrocities in Syria pile up. Especially when there is growing support in the region for action. Just this week Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish academic and diplomat who is head of the 57-country Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), called for the imposition of a no-fly zone in Syria. However much Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other regional allies would support such a step, they are not going to impose a no-fly zone on their own. That depends on American leadership, which so far has been conspicuously missing.

Obviously, Boot is among those that favors greater American involvement in the Syrian civil war and he’s hoping that bringing Rice and Power closer in to the President’s inner circle will influence the President to take steps to seek that greater involvement notwithstanding the obvious risks of doing so and the fact that the American people clearly do not favor such a course of action. Based on what we know about the two of them, it’s perhaps not an unfounded hope on his part. After all, both have written and spoken extensively on the idea of using American power to prevent and put an end to glaring human rights abuses even in situations where American national interests are not directly at stake. However, as Mark Landler notes at The New York Times, Rice and Power have been far more circumspect when it comes to the Syrian situation than their previous rhetoric might have predicted:

[A]s Mr. Obama and his aides have long argued, Libya is no Syria. The first was a clear-cut case in which air power could prevent Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from killing thousands of rebels in their stronghold; the second, a sectarian struggle, pits a regime with sophisticated air defenses against rebels scattered throughout the country.
Neither Ms. Rice nor Ms. Power has spoken out publicly in favor of a more aggressive American response to the blood bath in Syria, which is perhaps not surprising, given Mr. Obama’s well-known views and their own roles as rising stars in his administration.
Administration officials said that in the debate last summer about whether to supply the rebels with arms – a proposal pushed by the then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus – Ms. Rice sided with those who opposed it. Over time, however, officials said, she has become more open to lethal aid, given the stalemate in the civil war.
Gary Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, said that in formulating its Syria policy, the administration would have to answer a basic question.
“Do you think of Syria as being a Rwanda or a Bosnia, where human rights concerns trumped everything?” he said. “Or do you see it as more like Iraq, where it’s not clear there’s a good side to get behind?”
There are other voices for stronger action, including Secretary of State John Kerry. He may find common cause with Ms. Rice on Syria even as he struggles to carve out an influential role in an administration where decision-making resides at the White House.

Jeffrey Goldberg, meanwhile, notes that Rice in particular has expressed considerable skepticism about direct U.S. involvement in Syria:

Rice is known as a liberal interventionist (as is the woman being named to replace her at the UN, the writer and former National Security Council staffer Samantha Power), but advocates of greater American involvement in the Syrian civil war, the most acute problem Rice will face in her new position, will be disappointed to learn that she isn’t particularly optimistic about the effect that any U.S. action — such as imposing a no-fly zone — will have on the war’s outcome.
Rice, like the president, seems focused on the possibility that the downfall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime could mean a victory for al-Qaeda-like groups that represent some of the strongest elements of the Syrian opposition. The Obama administration is desperately seeking to avoid the creation of terrorist havens in Syria, because they would represent a direct national-security threat to the U.S. and would require an armed American response.
The American experience in Libya — not the Benghazi attack, which was searing in its own way — has also chastened Obama’s national-security team: The intervention on behalf of rebels fighting the late, unlamented dictator Muammar Qaddafi, may very well have saved thousands of innocent lives, but the fallout from Qaddafi’s overthrow (the rise of al-Qaeda-like groups, the spread of Libyan weapons across Africa, the general misery and instability that now afflicts the country) has taught Obama’s advisers, Rice included, important lessons about the unpredictability of intervention. Politically, the administration has seen no upside to the Libyan intervention — it was criticized for recklessness by both Democrats and Republicans — and in a very political White House, these domestic considerations often take precedence.

It’s possible, of course, that Rice and Power have simply just been reflecting Administration policy in their previous comments, and that they will become more forceful advocates of greater American involvement in Syria once they are in positions where they have the ability to actually influence policy to a far greater degree than before. Furthermore, the fact that they both have a personal friendship with the President arguably makes their ability to have a voice at the table, as opposed to, say, John Kerry, that much greater. So perhaps Goldberg and Landler will end up being proven wrong and we’ll see significant changes in U.S. policy toward Syria once Rice and Power are in place, we really can’t know until we get there.
In the end, though, that seems unlikely based on what we do know. As noted, neither woman appears to have taken a strong pro-intervention position regarding Syria when given the opportunity. Perhaps it is the case that they share the view that seems to be prevalent in some quarters that sees Syria not as another Libya (although the past two years have shown that the Libyan intervention was far from a massive success), but as potentially another Iraq. It certainly does seem to have all the qualities of living up to that analogy. Like Iraq, Syria is torn by ethnic divisions that are likely to explode in the event the Assad regime falls, possibly bringing allies and enemies from neighboring states in to the conflict along with them. Putting American forces into the middle of that, or engaging in a policy that would effectively make the United States or the West responsible for the political future of Syria, a nation that was little more than the creation of the French to begin with, would be as big a mistake in the long run as the invasion of Iraq and our post-Saddam policy turned out to be. For all the faults you can ascribe to him for foolishly drawing “red lines” for Bashar Assad that clearly weren’t going to be enforced, it seems apparent that President Obama recognizes these risks and that he’s reluctant to get the nation  involved in another potentially long war after having gotten us out of Iraq and establishing the guide path for our withdrawal from Afghanistan. From their public comments, it would appear that Rice and Power share that view, as do other advisers on the President’s foreign policy team.
Power should most certainly be questioned about her previous comments about “Responsibility To Protect” and how it might apply to the Syrian situation. The American people deserve to know what kind of advice the President will be getting if she is confirmed. However, for the moment at least, it doesn’t appears as if the selection of Rice and Power is going to result in significant changes in the President’s policies in Syria. Hopefully, that turns out to be true.
Photo by White House Photographer Pete Souza via White House Flickr Feed

Allen West compares Eric Holder to Al Qaeda

 

West (left) accused Holder of abusing his position. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

By BREANNA EDWARDS | 6/5/13 5:30 PM EDT

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is scarier than Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al Qaeda — according to former Rep. Allen West.
In a fundraising email from Allen West Guardian Fund, West calls Holder the “bigger threat to our Republic.”

OBAMA GOVERNMENT = WAR CRIMES

Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:50

0

 

“Al Qaeda is a very serious and persistent threat, but I trust the U.S. military to protect us from future attacks. I cannot say the same about President Obama and his Justice Department,” West writes in the email, quoting ancient philosopher Cicero, who posited that a nation “cannot survive treason from within.”
(PHOTOS: Eric Holder’s career)
West accuses Holder of abusing his power position as attorney general and using it to “implement Obama’s radical transformation of America.” He said that the recent scandals involving the IRS and the AP and Fox News, as well as Benghazi, were proof of this.
“I can’t emphasize enough how critical your support is. I’ve been warning for a long time that there may be a day we wake up and America is no longer America. The more time Eric Holder spends as Barack Obama’s right hand man, the closer we are to this day. We must stop this dangerous duo today,” West ad
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2431258451001/
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the administration’s sweeping surveillance of journalists with the Associated Press. In the greatest attack on the free press in decades, the Justice Department seized phone records for reporters and editors in at least three AP offices as well as its office in the House of Representatives. Holder, however, proceeded to claim absolute and blissful ignorance of the investigation, even failing to recall when or how he recused himself.
Yet, this was only the latest attack on the news media under Holder’s leadership. Despite his record, he expressed surprise at the hearing that the head of the Republican National Committee had called for his resignation. After all, Holder pointed out, he did nothing. That is, of course, precisely the point. Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired.
The ‘sin eater’
Holder’s refusal to accept responsibility for the AP investigation was something of a change for the political insider. His value to President Obama has been his absolute loyalty. Holder is what we call a “sin eater” inside the Beltway — high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions. Richard Nixon had H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Ronald Reagan had Oliver North and Robert “Bud” McFarlane. George W. Bush had the ultimate sin eater: Dick Cheney, who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for sins to eat.
This role can be traced to 18th century Europe, when families would use a sin eater to clean the moral record of a dying person by eating bread from the person’s chest and drinking ale passed over his body. Back then, the ritual’s power was confined to removing minor sins.
For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the “kill list” policy.
Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen’s e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen’s parents’ telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.
Ignoble legacy
Yet, at this month’s hearing, the attorney general had had his fill. Accordingly, Holder adopted an embarrassing mantra of “I have no knowledge” and “I had no involvement” throughout the questioning. When he was not reciting the equivalent to his name, rank and serial number, he was implicating his aide, Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Cole, it appears, is Holder’s sin eater. Holder was so busy denying responsibility for today’s scandals, he began denying known facts about older scandals. For example, Holder was asked about an earlier scandal in his administration in the handling of the “Fast and Furious” program where guns were allowed to be sold to criminal gangs. Holder insisted that Ronald C. Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was not told to decline the prosecution of Holder for contempt of Congress after refusing to turn over key documents and that “[Machen] made the determination about what he was going to do on his own.” However, Holder’s deputy, Cole, wrote to Machen to inform him (before the contempt citation even reached his office) that Main Justice “has determined that the Attorney General’s response to the subpoena . . . does not constitute a crime.”
In the end, Holder was the best witness against his continuing in office. His insistence that he did nothing was a telling moment. The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press. Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process. This ignoble legacy was made possible by Democrats who would look at their shoes whenever the Obama administration was accused of constitutional abuses.
On Thursday, Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by … you guessed it … Eric Holder. He ordered Holder to meet with news media representatives to hear their “concerns” and report back to him. He sent his old sin eater for a confab with the very targets of the abusive surveillance. Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions.
The feeble response was the ultimate proof that these are Obama’s sins despite his effort to feign ignorance. It did not matter that Holder is the sin eater who has lost his stomach or that such mortal sins are not so easily digested. Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general.

Susan Rice to be new NSA, Samantha Power to replace her at U.N. – Glenn Thrush – POLITICO.com

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/susan-rice-tom-donilon-national-security-council-92259.html?hp=bn

 

Susan Rice to be new NSA, Samantha Power to replace her at U.N.

21

• Short URL
  URL
• Email
• Print

Play Slideshow

By GLENN THRUSH | 6/5/13 7:39 AM EDT Updated: 6/5/13 10:14 AM EDT

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon is stepping down after four years on the job and will be replaced by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice — the latest in a series of defiant appointments likely to rile the GOP and fire up the Democratic base.

Obama will nominate Samantha Power, an anti-genocide activist and author who won a Pulitzer Prize for “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,” as Rice’s replacement.

Continue Reading

Text SizePlay Slideshow

The appointments of Rice and Power not only represent the ascension of women to top roles on Obama’s national security team, but the rise of two officials who have made human rights a priority — at a time when the U.S. faces an agonizing decisions over Syria where President Bashar al-Assad has killed tens of thousands of civlilans.

Obama wiill make the announcement Wednesday during a Rose Garden announcement at which he will also name a replacement for Rice, 48. The U.N. ambassador had been a leading contender to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but withdrew herself from consideration in December after Republicans sharply criticized her public statements following the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.

(PHOTOS: Susan Rice’s career)

People close to Obama expect Republicans on the Hill to continue their anti-Rice drumbeat, but they have no authority to stop her nomination — the position is one of the few at the senior level that requires no Senate confirmation.

Power will have to be confirmed by the Senate, and her hearings are likely to become a forum for criticism of Rice and Clinton, officials predicted.

Obama is eager for that fight, and was embittered by the attacks against Rice to an extent unmatched by nearly any other episode in his fight-filled presidency.

Conservatives responded quickly — and negatively — to the Rice pick.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), one of the administration’s harshest critics on the Benghazi attacks, Tweeted: “Judgement is key to national security matters. That alone should disqualify Susan Rice from her appointment. #benghazi #BadChoice.”

And the Drudge Report quickly posted a link to Rice’s now-infamous appearances on Sunday talk shows last September, in which she erroneously read talking points claiming the the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens was a spontaneous assault linked to an anti-Islamic film produced in the U.S.

The picks were greeted with excitement among Democrats, who were heartened by Obama’s willingness to promote two of the highest profile women in the administration in the face of GOP opposition.

“Both are brilliant women with many years of foreign policy experience and the strong trust of the president, so they will likely have a lot of sway in their new positions,” said Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, an influential Washington think-tank with ties to the White House.

Donilon, 58, is a low-key veteran Washington insider known for his long work hours. A Foreign Policy report earlier this year cited tensions between Donilon, a former Fannie Mae executive with close ties to Vice President Joe Biden, and his one-time deputy Denis McDonough, now Obama’s chief of staff.

An administration official, speaking last week, downplayed the friction but conceded it was awkward for Donilon “to be working for a guy who once worked for him.”

Donilon, who came into the national security job with less experience than many of his predecessors in the job, will be largely be remembered for his commitment to centering foreign policy decisions in the West Wing and his quiet but forceful determination to keep U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts to a minimum.

Rice, a former Clinton administration official, is likely to retain Donilon’s policy of controlling decision-making — but has pushed for a more muscular U.S. posture during recent crises, especially in Libya.

Power, an Irish-born author on human rights and genocide, served as an aide at the National Security Council as the senior director for multilateral affairs and was named chair of the Atrocities Prevention Board that Obama created last year. She is married to Cass Sunstein, a Harvard professor who served in the administration as an adviser on innovation and government streamlining.

The announcements come as Obama prepares for his first face-to-face meeting with the new leader of China Xi Jinping to discuss a variety of sensitive national security issues, including the growing problem of cyber hacking — a sit-down that Donilon helped arrange.

Obama’s Blasphemy Law…to Protect Islam

Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:51

Obama’s Blasphemy Law…to Protect Islam

Posted by FactReal on September 27, 2012

SAY GOODBYE TO FREE SPEECH The Obama administration pushed for the global “Anti-Blasphemy” laws (UN Resolution 16/18) which seeks to limit free speech and to outlaw any scrutiny of Islam. The Obama administration cooperated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a confederacy of 56 Muslim states, whose real agenda is to criminalize criticisms of Islam and to impose Sharia law. “Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling,” CNSNews reported. Their ruse for now is that the resolution is against “religious intolerance,” but do you think that 56 Muslim states will work so hard to defend Jews and Christians?

At the White House, Obama and Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a confederacy of 56 Muslim states, pushing for global blasphemy laws. (April 2011)

Via CNSNews: For more than a decade, the OIC has been calling for the outlawing of “religious defamation,” pushing through resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly and human rights bodies each year. Western democracies opposed the move, until last year the Obama administration and OIC co-sponsored a compromise resolution condemning stigmatization based on religion but differing from the earlier “defamation” measures by not calling for legal restrictions – except in the specific case of religion-based “incitement to imminent violence.” Via Forbes: Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.” [...] What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” [...] …[T]he resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia… or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. [...] [B]y agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all. Via Human Events: This concept of global “blasphemy laws,” to which the Obama Administration is very obviously not hostile, is a long-cherished goal of Islamic supremacists. It is also Constitutional sacrilege. The version supported by this President and his people contains a few rhetorical flourishes toward freedom of speech… But once the principle of free speech is compromised in this way, everything that follows is merely haggling over the price of liberty…and angry mobs ready to murder and pillage over perceived offenses will always be more aggressive negotiators than thin-blooded bureaucrats, whose superiors worry primarily about getting through the next news cycle with their approval ratings intact. We are watching religion being used “as an excuse to stifle freedom of expression,” with the cooperation of the Obama Administration, right before our eyes. Via Heritage Foundation: As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing ‘U.N. Resolution 16/18’ against ‘religious intolerance,’ ‘condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.’ While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial ‘anti-blasphemy’ resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999.” Via NewsBusters: Patrick Goodenough of our sister organization CNS News wrote back in December of 2011, that “the resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring [of 2011]. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of ‘implementing’ it.”  After all, “U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Egypt, a prominent member of the Saudi-championed Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).” Via CNSNews: Several meetings have been held since then to discuss ways to “implement” resolution 16/18…[I]n Istanbul in July last year…Secretary of State Hillary Clinton..told the gathering effective ways to counter speech that upset religious adherents would include “interfaith education, antidiscrimination laws, and the use of “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

EFFECTS - Obama Administration Asks YouTube To Remove Mohammed Film - U.S. Military Chief Calls Pastor Terry Jones Asking Him To Disavow Mohammed Film - Obama Runs Apology TV Ad in Pakistan Apologizing for our Free Speech - Egypt Charges Pastor Terry Jones and 7 U.S. Coptic Christians for “Insulting” Mohammed - US Embassy in Egypt deletes tweets apologizing to Muslims - Cairo Embassy Statement in Tune with Obama U.N. Resolution - US Embassy in Pakistan Apologizes via Twitter; Islamic Mob Storms Diplomatic Enclave - Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N. - Islamic Bloc: We Told You This Would Happen If You ‘Hurt the Religious Sentiments of Muslims’ - Man behind Mohammed video is detained by LA County Sheriff’s officers (9/15/2012) - Iranian Regime Threatens to Sue Obama Using New UN Blasphemy Law He Signed RELATED - Obama Administration Pushes UN Resolution That Bans Criticism of Islamic Radicalism - LIST: Islamic Excuses for Riots…before 9/11/2012 - LIST: Islamic Terror Attacks against USA before 9/11/2001 - MUSLIM CRUSADES Started Four Centuries Before the Western Crusades

Free Application! Millions Available. Apply Now!

Grant money search results may include: Small Business Grants to Start or Expand Business Housing Grants to Buy or Repair a House Student and College Grants Healthcare Grants Cash Grants for Personal Needs Non-Profit Organization Grants Women's Grants Minority Grants Research Grants Federal Government Grants In 2013 Over 12.5 Billion Dollars In Grant Money Will Be Given Away! Grant Funds Available This Year Alone! Business Grants $135.5 Billion  Available Housing Grants $124.2 Billion  Available Students Grants $92.8 Billion  Available Minority Grants $65.5 Billion  Available Women's Grants $98.5 Billion  Available Personal Grants $192.3 Billion  Available Research Grants $91.7 Billion  Available Community Development $47.5 Billion  Available Nonprofit  Organizations $112 Billion  Available Official Source To Obtain Grant Money For Any Purpose Receive A $10,000 - $759,000 Grant! Get Cash Now! Regardless Of Your Past Credit! Never Repay! Exciting New Programs. Free Applications Available! Apply Today! Who Can Apply? All American citizens and residents can apply and are eligible to receive Federal Government, State Government and Private Foundation funded grants and loans.  Remember, these programs do not require credit checks, collateral, security deposits or co-signers.  Even if you have declared a bankruptcy or currently have bad credit, as a tax payer and U.S. citizen or resident, you are entitled to apply for this money! There are many thousands of types of grants and Government loans available with various qualifying requirements.  It would take months for an individual to research and compile the information needed to apply for funding.  However, our team of grant writers and researchers have helped tens of thousands of businesses and individual's receive funding in record time over the years.    Complete Form Below & Receive Your FREE Applications NOW!!    * Required fields Full Name: * Address: * City: * Zipcode: * State: * Home Phone: * Cell Phone: * E-Mail: * Type of Grant: * How much funding do you need? Select a Range: This Offer Expires! Saturday, August 31, 2013 Don't Miss This Fabulous Opportunity Consumer alert: The Federal Government and Private Grant Foundations issue billions of dollars in grant money to a variety of groups each year. Grants are awarded to individuals each and every day. Grant programs are not loans. You decide how much you need. As long as the amount is lawful and you meet the Foundations' and Government Agencies' requirements, the money is yours to keep and never needs to be repaid. Grant money is non-taxable and interest-free. Grant programs do not require a credit check, security deposits or co-signers, you can apply even if you have declared a bankruptcy or have bad credit. You as a taxpayer and U.S. citizen are entitled to apply for this money. FreeGovernmentGrantsApplication.Com, a recognized and trusted online grant money information provider, helps you search for grant money. Apply for grant money directly to the source. Simply use the form above to search for available grant money and see how much you qualify for.

Copyright © 1999-2013 FreeGovernmentGrantsApplication.Com. All rights reserved. :: Terms :: Us Government & Federal Grants Sources. Partners Today's Tags: federal grant , free grant money for building , for housing assistance grant program

"Unclaimed Money Could Be Waiting For You & Your Family"

"Unclaimed Money Could Be Waiting For You & Your Family" Looking for unclaimed money? Enter your name into the search box below. If funds do not show for you... be sure to try your family members too! After you've entered your name - Click on the "Find Money" button below: FREE Money Search       First Name: Last Name: Email:   We'll send you information via email about found money & related offers in an email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time. Privacy
When you perform a free trial search we display the total dollar amount in unclaimed funds that we show reported by the appropriate government agencies. This does not guarantee that this money is 100% absolutely yours. What it means is that there is that total dollar amount shown by government agencies under your name and common variations of your name. It means there are funds matching your name and they are eligible to be claimed. The dollar total we display is the actual total amount we have listed in our database. You will need to perform your own due-diligence & verify these funds listed are for you and not for someone else who shares a name with you. Our optional paid premium subscription goes FAR beyond a simple database search. We will help you with the entire claims process! We provide complete instructions, guides, sample claim forms & instructional ebooks to assist you with the claims process. We even provide a live session with an asset recovery specialist to help you through what can be a complicated & confusing process. For more information please read the page linked to below for a complete explanation of how our site works: Click here to learn more about our database and your free trial search . Enter your first and last name in the form above. We will search our entire lost money database and return the amount of unclaimed money we locate which may belong to you. CashUnclaimed.com contains one of the largest databases for unclaimed money in the world. Our current database lists billions of dollars in unclaimed money, property, accounts and assets from all 50 states and several Federal agencies that could belong to you.

Affiliate Program | How It Works | Privacy | Unclaimed Property Blog | Order Now | Media & Press Relations Unclaimed Property Definitions | Unclaimed Money | Useful Money Links | Link To Us | State Property List | Contact Customer Support Copyright © 2002-2012 CashUnclaimed.com. All Rights Reserved. CashUnclaimed's proprietary & Patent Pending "Name Match" search technology provides you the most comprehensive unclaimed property search available anywhere. By use of this site you are specifically agreeing to the terms of use and privacy policy posted on this site. You should review them now:Terms Of Use - Privacy Policy.

19881 Brookhurst Street. Suite C 285 | Huntington Beach, CA 92646 | (714)716-5051

Home
Lost Inheritances
Tax Credit Secrets
Government Loans
About Us
How it works?

Unclaimed Money Search In Pennsylvania

If you are a resident of Pennsylvania, then there may be a chance you’ve got unclaimed money waiting right now. Unclaimed bank accounts, lost inheritances, unclaimed tax refund checks, missing credit card refunds, unclaimed savings bonds, unclaimed pension benefits, unclaimed life insurance policies, undistributed stock dividends, forgotten safe deposit boxes, even valuable stock certificates; these are just a few sources of unclaimed funds in Pennsylvania. Some of this unclaimed loot has been in government hands for decades; but with no one to claim it, the unclaimed money simply sits there.

Finding unclaimed money isn’t always as easy as you think. Remember, unclaimed cash is lost for a very good reason—they can’t find the owner! Often times this is because the records are wrong; they’ve got a wrong address, a misspelled name or simply the name of a long-lost relative. And while most States provide free access to their databases, a thorough search for unclaimed assets is a long and tedious process. Unclaimed money can be sitting in any of the 50 States or with dozens of other federal and private agencies. This unclaimed money could be held under your name, a misspelling of your name or under the name of a spouse or long-lost relative. The great news is that our team of professional lost asset investigators performs these searches for Pennsylvania residents all day long, 365 days a year. They know where to look and how to find all the unclaimed property that might be out there waiting for you. They do all the work; looking through Pennsylvania State records, along with every State, federal and private database that might have an unclaimed account. They help construct a family tree listing all of the relatives that might have left something behind. They search under your names, the names of your family members and any likely misspellings of those names. Once they’ve located funds or property, they’ll complete all the necessary government paperwork for the State of Pennsylvania, along with the completed claim forms for all other applicable government agencies, and forward it to you for signature.

Starting your professional unclaimed money search is easy and your initial search is free. Simply click on the button below and then give us a call. Our experienced asset investigators will perform a professional search right on the spot and let you know the results. Don’t let the State of Pennsylvania or any other government agency keep your unclaimed cash for another day. Claim your unclaimed funds right now!

YOU MIGHT HAVE MONEY WAITING! CLICK TO FIND OUT NOW!

Results typically vary depending on available claims and extent of family history provided by the user and are not guaranteed. Unclaimed Money Discovery (UMD) is not a business opportunity or money-making opportunity. We are a genealogy-based asset research and recovery service that provides professional genealogy research on a fee basis, as well as providing complimentary assistance for individuals and businesses in identifying and retrieving unclaimed property. UMD is not affiliated with any state or federal government agency. The initial customized search is always free to both individuals and businesses. UMD's optional full-service research is available on a pre-set fee basis. For complete terms and conditions, please visit our terms and conditions page, here.

SELECT YOUR HOME STATE AND START YOUR FREE SEARCH NOW!

• Unclaimed money search in Alabama
• Unclaimed money search in Alaska
• Unclaimed money search in Arizona
• Unclaimed money search in Arkansas
• Unclaimed money search in California
• Unclaimed money search in Colorado
• Unclaimed money search in Connecticut
• Unclaimed money search in Delaware
• Unclaimed money search in Florida
• Unclaimed money search in Georgia
• Unclaimed money search in Hawaii
• Unclaimed money search in Idaho
• Unclaimed money search in Illinois
• Unclaimed money search in Indiana
• Unclaimed money search in Iowa
• Unclaimed money search in Kansas
• Unclaimed money search in Kentucky

• Unclaimed money search in Louisiana
• Unclaimed money search in Maine
• Unclaimed money search in Maryland
• Unclaimed money search in Massachusetts
• Unclaimed money search in Michigan
• Unclaimed money search in Minnesota
• Unclaimed money search in Mississippi
• Unclaimed money search in Missouri
• Unclaimed money search in Montana
• Unclaimed money search in Nebraska
• Unclaimed money search in Nevada
• Unclaimed money search in New Hampshire
• Unclaimed money search in New Jersey
• Unclaimed money search in New Mexico
• Unclaimed money search in New York
• Unclaimed money search in North Carolina
• Unclaimed money search in North Dakota

• Unclaimed money search in Ohio
• Unclaimed money search in Oklahoma
• Unclaimed money search in Oregon
• Unclaimed money search in Pennsylvania
• Unclaimed money search in Rhode Island
• Unclaimed money search in South Carolina
• Unclaimed money search in South Dakota
• Unclaimed money search in Tennessee
• Unclaimed money search in Texas
• Unclaimed money search in Utah
• Unclaimed money search in Vermont
• Unclaimed money search in Virginia
• Unclaimed money search in Washington
• Unclaimed money search in West Virginia
• Unclaimed money search in Wisconsin
• Unclaimed money search in Wyoming

About Us | Claim Unclaimed Money | Tax Credit Secrets | Government Stimulus Programs |
Unclaimed Money News | Unclaimed Money Links | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved 2011. @ unclaimedmoneydiscovery.com. Powered by Search 4 Lo