Black definition of “Peaceful PROTESTS”??????…….LOOTERS – YES! RIOTS – YES! Peaceful Protests—-NO WAY!
Are we being Betrayed from Within by an Islamist in the White House…..Of Course We Are! Only the Ignorant would doubt it!
Are we Being Betrayed from Within by an Islamist in the White House
By Paul Dowling / /
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” —Mark Twain
The Islamist Cometh
Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamo-fascist, akin to a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Let us pretend he is and see if it helps to explain his mystique.
During the 2008 primary season, Hamas was phone-banking for Obama. Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Upholding the Oath of Office would be distasteful to an actual Islamist president. Supporting the Constitution would mean going against the totalitarian, Islamo-fascist principles of the Koran. Muslim’s are, however, allowed to lie to non-Muslims—this is called taqiyya.
Obama is a profoundly anti-Constitution president, telling Americans he does not respect their views, as represented in Congress. “I have a pen, and I have a phone,” he says, threatening to make law by executive action. In the style of a totalitarian caliph, Obama rejects representative government, exhorting Americans to submit to his will. Islam means “submission.”
Harming the Military & Military Families
Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 soldiers. Obama denied it was Muslim terror, categorizing it as “workplace violence.” The re-designation deprived military families of the “terrorism benefits” they should have accrued. This demoralization has punished military families who have fought against Islamism for a decade.
Obama punishes Christians in the military for making religious remarks. Even a military chaplain did not escape censure for stating in a personal blog that “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Christians risk discharge, if fellow soldiers report religious statements on- or, in some cases, off-duty.
Muslims are more easily promoted in the armed forces. Submission to Obama, above the Constitution, is desired. Those who have no problem firing on their fellow, non-Islamist, Americans are put on the fast track.
The US military is forced to fast during Ramadan. Religious remarks that show Islamic preferences are not punished and sometimes are rewarded.
Obama’s Military Fecklessness
Obama is training 70,000 Taliban in American military methods, in Afghanistan. Obama released the five most dangerous Taliban from Gitmo in exchange for an away-without-leave, Islamist traitor. He helped only Muslims in this deal, and harmed America to boot.
Obama has fostered an environment in the Mid-East that has nurtured the birth of the Islamic State. Obama released their Caliph Ibrahim from US custody in Camp Bucca, Iraq, back in the spring of 2009, when he went by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Obama continues only to stalemate IS. He will not kill the cancer while it is still easily done. An Islamist president would not wish to harm or restrain IS more than politically necessary.
Obama has sent Secretary of State Chuck Hagel to Qatar with an $11 billion-dollar weapons deal. Qatar provides arms to Hamas.
Obama has held up arms shipments to Israel during their war with Hamas. He has made statements condemning Israel. He sympathizes with Hamas.
Betraying the Infidels
Obama is cutting the US army to pre-WWII levels and the navy to pre-WWI levels. He has taken our nuclear missile defense from 5,500 to 1,550 without getting concessions from the Chinese or Russians.
Obama is helping our enemy, Iran, to get nuclear weapons by way of a sham treaty. Iran, as an Islamist state, lies in its treaties. Obama has declared Iran off-limits to attack, during the protracted negotiations. An Islamist president would prefer to help an Islamist regime, rather than aid America—the Great Satan!
In a dangerous world of terror, Obama has canceled the Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. He has also opened the US border to terrorists, who are streaming across it. An Islamist president would gladly jeopardize America.
Harms Against Israel
On April 2, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaked a report concerning Israel’s plan for a possible attack on Iran “in April, May, or June” of that year. This leak—a first in the history of US-Israel relations—removed any element of surprise Israel might have had, and effectively canceled any potential Israeli strike, while allowing Iran additional time to prepare by further developing its nuclear weapons program.
In June, 2010, Obama leaked information that Israel might use Saudi airspace to fly a more direct route to Iran. The Saudi-Israeli cooperation was revealed to the London Times, citing “US defense sources.” An Islamist president would revel in helping a potentially nuclear Islamist state in this way.
The US Defense Department, on June 4, 2013, leaked more than 1,000 pages of details of an Israeli system whose success rests on being totally invisible to enemy eyes. It was a great blow to the defense of Israel, because the Arrow 3 is designed to seek out and blow up Iranian Shihab 3 and other long-range missiles. An Islamist president would leak this information, without qualms.
Also, Foreign Policy Magazine has reported—citing an anonymous American source in the Defense Department—that Israel had arranged to use an air base in Azerbaijan as a way to launch an air strike against Iran. The Christian Science Monitor asked, “Did the U.S. just torpedo an Israeli deal for a base in Azerbaijan?” and began to wonder whether the U.S. was Israel’s “best friend” anymore—at least under this president.
Targeting Threats to Islam
Not only conservative and libertarian groups were targeted by the Obama IRS, Pro-Israel Jewish groups were also targeted. Obama has said he considers the greatest enemies of the US to be conservatives!
Ultra-liberals have not compared conservatives to terrorists, before Obama. Why would Obama say this? Constitutional conservatives believe in an ideal that is an anathema to Islamists— individual liberty, as enshrined in the Constitution! Pro-Israel Jews believe in the legitimacy of a safe haven for Jews—a Jewish state—something an Islamist president cannot countenance.
I have been predicting Obama’s actions for quite some time. Some marvel at my accuracy. My secret? Plain and simple: I imagine Obama to be an Islamist.
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/8089/betrayed-within-islamist-white-house/#6AOemT38KUCwOTMh.99
ISIS beheads captured journalist to send “message to America”
By: John Hayward
8/19/2014 04:40 PM
Freelance journalist James Foley, kidnapped by ISIS in Syria in 2012, has reportedly been beheaded by the Islamic State, an event recorded on a snuff video circulated by the savages which includes a demand for the end of American action in Iraq. International Business Times describes the video, and has a link to it, although I find myself agreeing with the sentiments of many on the Internet this afternoon: don’t watch it. As always, it is necessary to validate the video, but confidence that it is genuine seems high.
The video shows Foley kneeling beside a man dressed in all black. It begins with a speech by President Obama when he announced that the U.S. military would begin targeted airstrikes against ISIS convoys in Iraq to stop its advance on Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The video switches to a black screen with white writing that reads: “A Message to America.” Foley then begins to recite a message, presumably written for him by ISIS, about his “real killer” — America. At the end of the video, the ISIS militant begins sawing off Foley’s head with a knife. The last clip shows Foley’s head, detached, lying on top of his body.
Foley was a freelance journalist, originally from New Hampshire, who wrote for media outlets including Global Post.
Another captive American journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, appears at the end of the video. ISIS reportedly threatens that he will be executed next if their demands are not met: “The life of this American citizen, Obama, depends on your next decision.” I think the vacation finally needs to end, Mr. President
New Army Manual Calls for the Use of Lethal Force Against Peaceful Protesters
The new Army manual, known as ATP 3-39.33, provides discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
This document, just published this past Friday, August 15, 2014, promises to change the way the “authorities” deal with protesters, even peaceful ones. The consequences of ATP 39.33 could prove deadly for protesters. Further, the provisions of this Army manual could prove to be the end of the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably.
In section 1-2., the manual states that ”Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.” This section of the manual clearly states that protesting is a right protected by the Constitution. However, the authorities leave themselves an out to “legally” engage in lethal force toward protesters when the manual states that “peaceful protests can turn into full-scale riots” and field commanders have the right to make that determination. Subsequently, all protests, peaceful or not, need to be managed by the potential for violence. In other words, all protests are to be considered to be violent and handled accordingly. This certainly explains the violent manhandling of the media by the DHS controlled and militarized police in Ferguson, MO.
Posse Comitatus Is Violated
On the surface, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) act should prevent the Army from deploying the troops in the midst of a protest that is not on the scale of something like the 1992 LA Riots. However, the Army claims exemption from Posse Comitatus in the four following areas.
- 10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
With regard to 10 USC 331, if the local authorities have lost control in the midst of a profound display of domestic violence (e.g. LA Riots), most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military. However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.
In 10 USC 332, the phrase “unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized,” permits the federal government from being demonstrated against. An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate (see the two charts displayed below).
In 10 USC 333, any disruption of federal law can be decisively dealt with by the federal government. The phrase “…conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized” is a telling passage of this Army document. If 10 USC 333 is applied to the letter of the written Army policy, the protesters who recently objected to illegal aliens being deposited in Murietta, California, could be subject to deadly force. Further, the protesters in Ferguson could be subject to the use of lethal force as well (Again, see the charts below).
The next time a community decides that it does not want to accept illegal immigrants, or protest the shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old, they could be met by the following:
The fourth exception claimed by the Army, with regard to the Army’s right to violate Posse Comitatus, is presented to the American people under the veil of the need to protect politicians.
House Resolution 1292 claims any protest which makes a public official feel “threatened” would be illegal and subject to intervention by the U.S. Army. Hypothetically, if 100 protesters were to gather outside of Senator John McCain‘s office in Phoenix, would that be enough to trigger a violent response by the Army? If McCain says he feels threatened, regardless if his claims are legitimate or not, it most certainly would justify the strongest response possible from the Army. Therefore, all a politician has to do is to say they feel threatened by any gathering to have the gathering dispersed and the protesters dealt with in any manner seen fit by the field commander. Make no mistake about it, this is the end of the First Amendment’s right peaceably assemble.
Army Depictions On How Best to Kill An American Citizen Who Expresses Disagreement with the Government
Do you remember the uproar when DHS was caught distributing target practicing sheets of pregnant women to be used for DHS agents when they were engaged in target practicing?