Monday, October 29, 2012
The reported killing of Osama bin Laden and the recent failure to take aggressive action to safeguard the lives of the American Ambassador to Libya and three of his minders, as well as to secure American assets at Benghazi that came under attack by Islamic terrorists or Mujhadeen, whichever you the reader prefers, may not seem to be related to the uninformed reader, however, given the facts of both incidents an astute person must then consider the questions; Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim? And if he is, what does that mean for America and the World in general if he is re-elected?
It has become common knowledge that Obama on at least three occasions when presented with the opportunity to eliminate bin Laden cancelled the operation. It has also been hinted at that the operation that finally took out bin Laden was not authorized by Obama who had to be dragged away from the golf course and be made to watch bin Laden's elimination as the operation was underway at the time.
So if Obama didn't authorize the operation, then who did?
It may surprise or it may not that Hillary Clinton's name as authority for the operation that took out bin Laden has been mentioned.
In any case, whoever the nod was received from, bin Laden's body, for what this author believes are obvious reasons was buried at sea, but not until a full Muslim burial ceremony was carried out. If bin Laden had been a Christian, would the same protocol and sensitivity have been observed?
Why did Obama on at least three occasions that the media are now aware of refuse to give the go ahead to kill bin Laden? Was it because bin Laden was a fellow Muslim?
The facts surrounding the 9/11 attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi are now just being put out by the MSM which has been loath to do so until now. Obviously the MSM, who have largely been in the tank with the current White House administration since the 2008 presidential campaign, have been suffering a little 'buyer's remorse' and until now were very keen to keep anything at all that was adverse about the 'chosen one' under the radar. Well the cat is out of the bag and the facts concerning the appalling response by the White House to an attack on American interests in Libya that also got four Americans murdered, are now out there in the public domain.
Did Obama order a 'stand down' for those operatives in the safe house that came under attack after fleeing there from the embassy compound? The buck stops at Obama's desk and if it wasn't him who gave the order to stand down because he refused to aid his own (countrymen?) then who was it? As with the bin Laden take down, was Obama's authority undermined again?
Was his decision not to assist those Americans he was charged by presidential authority to provide protection for, to limit the 'collateral damage' to fellow Muslims? Or if Ambassador Steven's had survived the attack would his survival have posed a serious problem for the administration? If that is the case, what is it that Stevens knew?
Here is a list of Obama's failure to recognize Islamic terrorism and his seemingly pro-Islamic leaning that should be of concern to every law abiding person if the MSM had been doing its job:
Obama stated in a speech that there were 57 states in the Union and not 50 states that everyone else is aware of. The Organization of Islamic Council has 57 members, maybe Obama was a little confused?
Obama refuses to call blatant acts of Islamic terrorism or Islamic Jihad, for what they really are.
His instructions that NASA include Muslims into the space program, as part of an inclusion program, for which Muslims in general have very little to offer.
Obama's refusal to acknowledge the Fort Hood killer, Major Nidal Hasan, as an Islamic terrorist.
His bowing to the Saudis and all other Islamic leaders while simply shaking the hands of Westerners.
His antipathy toward Israel.
His promotion of the Arab Spring, but his refusal to acknowledge the Students for Democracy demonstration in Iran.
His return to Britain of the Bust of Winston Churchill.
This author believes there are many more examples of why Barack Hussein Obama is really a Muslim. But the most telling aspect of this destructive president is that he was the son of a Muslim Kenyan father which Islam recognizes, in fact insists, that all children born to a Muslim father are to be considered as Muslim. Is that why young Barack spent some of his early years in an Indonesian Islamic school and why his later education records have been sealed?
Anyone having knowledge of Islam knows only too well that any civilization that is not Islamic cannot survive having Muslims as neighbors or having them in any great number within their borders. By his recorded actions as evidence, this author believes that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim whose aim is to bring the greatest nation since the Roman and British Empires to its knees through economic and military destabilization. If this destroyer of democratic nations is given another four years to wreak his vengeance on America, America as we can still visualize it will be no more, and terror and lawlessness will reign supreme in the world with the knowledge that no other nation will be prepared as America has been prepared, to take on those rogue nations which try to upset the balance of world peace. God help us all if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected!
Monday, October 8, 2012
Alan Jones has a conservative radio show which airs Monday to Friday from 5am to 9am at 2GB in Sydney. His program is high rating and is relayed around the country. Those who listen to him have been estimated to range in number from 150,000 to the millions at any one time, and this disparity in numbers would probably be dependent on the political leaning of the estimator, obviously his drawing power has also been the attraction in raising revenue from those businesses and corporations who choose to sponsor his show which has been a nice little money earner for the radio station. Mr Jones also commands respect from politicians and some very big names. He is also famous for his opinions on all topics and having a reputation for not being politically correct, preferring to say how it really is. One could say that in some political circles of Australian society Alan Jones is viewed as the enemy and is very much hated for his conservative messages.
Most Australians would be aware that Mr Jones recently attended a function as a speaker to around a thousand Young Liberals and that one attendee at that function secretly recorded Mr Jones speech in which Mr Jones uttered a slur against the Prime Minister and her recently dearly departed father. It is not the intention of this author to get into the appropriateness of what Mr Jones uttered, however it should be pointed out that what he stated was not meant for the personal ears of the Prime Minister and only for those in attendance at that function.
The person who recorded Mr Jones speech was obviously hoping to catch something that some would consider controversial. And record something controversial he did! And then like a true opportunist - without thought for the consequences of making something said in private available to the wider public and to the target of the comment, who would have been none the wiser if the comment was kept in house – his exposure began what can only be described as the most vicious, political and media driven hate fuelled campaign to unseat Mr Jones for something he said at a private function and when realizing it had been made public, he immediately and publicly apologized for, not once, not twice, but several times.
It may also interest the reader that the person whom the comment was made about, the Prime Minister, has consistently refused to take Alan Jones phone calls and accept his apology. This is a woman who holds the highest office of the land and is expected to lead by example. That is some example she has taken to set, and it has now become quite obvious that the Prime Minister is milking this controversy for all the political mileage she can get out of it in the hope that Alan Jones will lose his position, and the campaign that has been generated by that controversial remark can only lead to one conclusion. Alan Jones must be very effective at what he does!
It's no secret that the MSM is in the tank for the federal Labor government, particularly the ABC and its lesser sibling, SBS. The Canberra press gallery are all on board with this government and pay scant attention to anything other than what the government tells them. Witness the impromptu press interview that the Prime Minister called a few weeks ago to limit the damage being done from the exposure of her time when working for Slater and Gordon as a young, in her early thirties, lawyer.
If the Prime Minister really has nothing to hide from her past why did she not make a statement in parliament on Hansard as is expected of all Prime Ministers and sitting members?
According to the Daily Telegraph (Sydney), over 100,000 emails have now been sent to the various sponsors of Alan Jones radio show asking, pleading, begging and threatening them, to withdraw their sponsorship. That many of those emails have been found to have originated from the one IP address and displaying such colorful names as Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse and a host of other fun time favorites, speaks volumes to this author at least, as to how most of those 100,000 emails were generated by a fanatical band of partisan political hicks who in all probability are not in a position, nor ever likely to be in a position to actively carry out their threats to boycott those sponsors targeted. Yet, many sponsors have now withdrawn their support which has prompted 2GB management to cancel all sponsorship of Alan Jones who will now go to air ad free.
The Daily Telegraph reports (Tuesday, October 9, 2012) that two people have fronted up to take credit for the 'campaign against Jones' one being a Nic Lochner, university student and studier of political science, and the other, Jenna Price, self- styled feminist and academic. This author has a problem with 22 year old university students and older feminist academics who have probably never listened to an Alan Jones broadcast, but disagree out of hand with what he stands for without any experience of the conservative side of politics with which to base an honest opinion on. Students of political science and feminist academics may be able to obtain a piece of paper from a university that portrays their particular talent in nice pretty writing, but like possessing a driver's license, it does not prove you are a good driver!
But, it appears that the Daily Telegraph article proclaiming Lochner and Price the originators of the Jones campaign may be a misleading article, because other evidence has come to light that the origins of the Jones campaign started with Sally McManus, a branch secretary of the Australian Services Union (ASU) and Emily Mayo an ASU organizer. Their original site named 'destroy the joint' has been co-opted by Lochner and Price, with McManus's and Mayo's blessing, to destroy the reputation, if not the livelihood of one of Australia's most popular conservative broadcasters.
Make no mistake, this 'campaign against Jones' is not about his short unwelcome utterance at a private convention, it is political, and it is being orchestrated from the Prime Minister's office! Any other prime minister prior to Ms Gillard would have graciously accepted Alan Jones so very public apology as an expectation by the public from their leader. Ms Gillard has repeatedly shown that she is first and foremost a political player and conventions, protocols and personal integrity, come in at a very distant last place.
The actions of those who have been so very active in the campaign against Jones would not have been out of place in 1930s Germany with the rise of the Nazi Party. It is therefore an indictment on the state of our educational institutions which have largely become politicized into expressing Left wing thinking whose students go on to promote fascist reactions to organizations and persons who they feel stand in the way of their political goals. The current makeup of the Labor Party and unions in particular, must also take responsibility for taking us back to a time when personal freedom was restricted to the point that hostilities had to be undertaken to regain those freedoms.
Let the Labor Party, the unions and those houses of learning that are churning out students who are taught what to think rather than how to think, take note of where they are pushing us and beware of the consequences, because for every action there is a reaction!