Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Which GOP Leader Has the Courage and Common Sense to Challenge Obama to Debates on Radical Islam and Energy?
BANGLADESH COURT QUESTIONS ISLAM AS STATE RELIGION
TYPEFACE EXPERT BRANDS OBAMA BIRTH DOC FORGERY
NEW REFORM JEWISH LEADER VICIOUS CRITIC OF ISRAEL
PFLP FIGHTERS FIRE ON PALESTINIANS IN SYRIA
Female Political Activist in Kuwait Calls for Legalizing Sex Slavery to Protect Rich Muslim Men Against Temptation and Corruption
Ahmadinejad: Arabs Must Rule 'All Palestine'
Inconvenient Truth: Libyan Leader Liberated Nation's Women; NATO-Backed, Islamist-Linked Rebels Likely to Enslave Them
NEW ACT OF DEFIANCE BY IRAN
What They Don't Want You To Know About The Turkish Flotilla
Some Consolation in So-Called Arab Spring: Media Covering Mideast Finds Something Else to Do Besides Bashing Israel
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Did Germany Deliberately Bungle E. Coli Investigation?
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Which Republican leader--more specifically, which of the party's declared or possible Presidential candidates--has the courage, common sense, and wisdom to challenge President Obama to two separate, nationally televised debates--on the threat of radical Islam and the need for energy independence--and the knowledge and skill to win the arguments?
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich seem most qualified for the mission, the purpose of which would be to expose Obama's pro-Islamist policies and views and his slavish devotion to uneconomical, inefficient and non-existent alternative energy solutions.
American voters need to know this: their President is pro-Islamist, and his anti-real energy policies--i.e. his hostility to domestic oil and gas and coal--will increase rather than reduce dependence on foreign oil.
About Obama and Islamism: in sharp contrast with Republican leaders, Obama, who is the first Muslim-born-and-reared and most leftwing-ever President of the United States, does not regard rightwing political Islam, ironically, as a monolithic enemy. On the contrary; except for Al Qaeda and its affiliates and so-called irreconcilable Taliban, Obama sees the clerical fascist creed that has practically become synonymous with organized Islam around the world as essentially progressive, certainly unstoppable--in sync, in other words, with "the moral arc of history." The killing of Osama Bin Laden--Obama's one achievement since taking office--has provided him with political cover to pursue his pro-Islamist policies.
In fact, and the proposed debate on this subject should reveal this, Obama seems to have seen himself as Bin Laden's rival for leadership of "the Muslim world." Hence, Obama's odious and wholly unprecedented outreach to a religion in a way that validates Islamist ideology--meaning, the notion that there is a global Islamic nation that is bound by belief in "the Holy Koran" to a degree that transcends all political and national boundaries, all ethnic differences, and all civil rights and laws.
The proposed debate should reveal this--and more.
The end of the media's fixation on Israel's alleged sins? Maybe. At the very least, the news agenda now includes other topics. Click here for the analysis.
Foreign Confidential™ analysts wonder if Germany's mishandling of the case isn't deliberate. There is reason to believe that the E. coli superbug may have been bioengineered; and a terrorist-sponsoring nation such as Iran--which has acquired formidable dual-use biotech technologies from Communist Cuba--could have created the killer and handed it off to a proxy, such as Hezbollah, say, or Al Qaeda. [Foreign Confidential™ --click here--seems to have been the first media outlet to suggest that the E. coli outbreak could be a case of bioterrorism.]
And what if that turned out to be true? What if Iran is responsible for the outbreak? What would Germany, the EU, NATO, and the United States, for that matter, do about it? Europe is incapable of fighting and winning a war against Iran without U.S. assistance--Iran and Islamist-run Turkey could probably conquer the Continent if they really wanted to--and the Obama administration has zero interest in engaging in a conflict with the nuclear-arming, Islamist nation. Obama ascended to the White House preaching a radically different kind of engagement--a policy of appeasement and attempted alignment--with Tehran's turbaned tyranny.
Posts
