Thursday, March 31, 2016

“Germany Will Never Recover” Trump Rips Merkel’s Muslim Policy, Clinton “Close To Incompetent”

Freedom Outpost ^ | Walid Shoebat 

During an interview with Piers Morgan, Donald Trump opened up about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, where he ripped her for being irresponsible and destroying Germany “in a matter of 2 years” so badly that the country may never be the same again.
In the same interview, he fired shot at Hillary Clinton, calling her “close to incompetent,” weak, and leaving a trail of scandal wherever she goes.
This is the kind of not tough talk, but real talk that America needs to hear because it’s the truth.
From the UK Express:
On Merkel
“What Merkel did to Germany is a shame, it’s a sad, sad shame what’s happened to Germany.
“I have friends in Germany, they want to leave Germany. These are people that two years ago were telling me that it’s the greatest place on Earth and now they want to leave.
“I don’t know what happened to her, I don’t know what her thinking was, but I don’t think they are going to recover from it very easily if at all.”

On Hillary
“Well she’s close to incompetent. Look, every decision she’s made, she’s made such bad decisions, including the emails and including Whitewater [real estate scandal] and including everything.
“So I think she’s close to incompetent as far as decision making is concerned. She’s not a leader and I don’t think she has the strength or the energy to be President, you need tremendous strength and tremendous energy and I don’t see it with Hillary.”

The FBI stalks Hillary while Bill Clinton trolls Obama

The Washington Times ^ | March 31, 2016 | Monica Crowley - 

Do Bill and Hillary Clinton sense a breakdown in whatever deal they may have struck with President Obama to protect her presidential ambitions?

Is whatever negotiation they may have been conducting over her email server problem and any inside information she may have on him now imploding? Or have the Clintons “won” the negotiation with Mr. Obama, freeing them to hit him publicly to get her elected?

Something has happened, which has led Mr. Clinton to openly slam Mr. Obama: ” If you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us ” he said recently.

A few days later, Chelsea Clinton launched a broadside on Obamacare’s costs. A classic Clintonian one-two punch, coming just days before a report that the FBI is seeking interviews with Mrs. Clinton’s top aides, and likely Mrs. Clinton herself. Most investigations interview the target last.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

The State Dept. Has Still Not Answered This Crucial Question About Those 22 ‘Top Secret’ eMails!

The Daily Caller ^ | 3/31/16 | Chucjk Ross 

It has been two months since the State Department announced that it was withholding in full 22 Hillary Clinton emails that contained “Top Secret” information, but one crucial question remains: was the information in those emails classified when they were originally written?
A State Department official tells The Daily Caller that the agency is still not prepared to provide an answer to that question. It’s unclear if the State Department has made the determination and is waiting to announce it or if the mater is still being reviewed.
On Jan. 29, State Department spokesman John Kirby announced the State Department was concurring with the intelligence community’s inspector general that the 22 emails — which spanned 37 pages — contained “Top Secret” information. Some of the information involved extremely sensitive “special access programs.”
The announcement came as a surprise because it was the first time that the State Department had acknowledged that “Top Secret” information was contained on Clinton’s private email server, which is currently at the center of an FBI investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Our Embassy in Israel Belongs in Israel's Capitol

Townhall.com ^ | March 30, 2016 | Jeff Jacoby 


Venerable political norms have been upended during this crazy election season, but at least one presidential-campaign tradition remains intact. Every four years, candidates for the White House firmly pledge that, if elected, they will relocate the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 2016 has been no exception.

At the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee gathering in Washington last week, Republican front-runner Donald Trump was cheered when he declared that as president he would "move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem." A few hours later, Texas Senator Ted Cruz not only made the same promise, but said the process would begin on his "very first day in office." Ohio Governor John Kasich, asked about the embassy issue on CNN, confirmed that he too wants the US embassy moved to Israel's capital.

Jerusalem didn't come up in Hillary Clinton's AIPAC speech; then again, she had come out for moving the embassy long before anyone was even thinking of 2016. In 1999, while still first lady and planning a US Senate race, Clinton vowed to be an "active, committed advocate" for relocating the embassy from Tel Aviv. That was seven years after her husband, campaigning for president in New York, had affirmed his support for Jerusalem "as an undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel, and [for] moving our embassy to Jerusalem."

George W. Bush in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, John McCain in 2008 — though the nominees change, the quadrennial promise to shift the American embassy in Israel to the country's capital has been as consistent as Old Faithful.

But even more consistent is the failure of any president to keep that promise once in office.

Candidates routinely give assurances that they have no intention of keeping. But moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem ought to be a no-brainer. The United States maintains nearly 190 embassies, one in virtually every country on earth. In every one the embassy is located in the capital of the host country. Israel is the lone exception.

Washington has never formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. When asked what the country's capital is, administration spokesmen tie themselves in knots to avoid giving an answer. This isn't just an absurdity, it's an insult to an ally. It's also a continuing act of appeasement to rejectionists who oppose Jewish sovereignty over any part of the Jewish homeland. Such discriminatory treatment is obnoxious; that is why presidential hopefuls keep pledging to fix it, and why the House and Senate more than a decade ago, by overwhelming majorities, passed a law — the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 — requiring that the embassy be moved.

Yet nothing changes. A waiver provision in the 1995 law empowers the president to suspend the relocation for six months if necessary "to protect the national security interests of the United States." Every six months, with perfect regularity, each president since Bill Clinton has issued a waiver.

When pressed, the White House or State Department says that relocating the embassy would amount to prejudging an issue that should be settled through negotiation. That might be plausible if the US embassy were to be established in eastern Jerusalem — which was occupied by Jordan from 1948 until Israel liberated it in the Six Day War. But no one has ever suggested that the embassy go anywhere but West Jerusalem, the undisputed seat of Israel's government since 1948.

Israel's enemies don't object to siting foreign embassies in Jerusalem because it would undermine diplomatic negotiations. They object because they deny Israel's claim to any part of Jerusalem, even parts that have always been sovereign Israeli territory. They deny, in other words, that Israel's very existence is a settled issue. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would send one message, simple but significant: Americans do not regard the survival of the Jewish state as negotiable.

World’s Biggest Green Energy Company Collapses

.breitbart. ^ | 30 Mar 2016 | by James Delingpole 

Did you short-sell your solar energy shares as I advised last week in my Breitbart piece “The Solar Industry is Dying: Good Riddance?
If you’d picked SunEdison – the world’s largest green energy company – you would have made a killing as its shares plunged further this week, amid rumours that it now faces imminent bankruptcy.
SunEdison, valued at $10 billion in July 2015 is now worth just $400 million today. This represents a catastrophic loss for the investors gulled into this sector in the mistaken belief that “clean” energy is the future and that it’s possible to make lots and lots of money and polish your environmental conscience at the same time.
Well maybe once you could but not any more. And it won’t be the last green venture to turn to ashes either for one very simple reason: renewable energy is almost entirely dependent on taxpayer subsidy. When the money runs out the business dies.
I’m kicking myself that I didn’t follow my own advice and short those SunEdison shares. But I’m guessing there’ll be plenty of similar opportunities in the years to come.
It’s one reason I can’t wait for the anti-green hedge fund – Cool Futures – I wrote about a few months ago to get going. Though it’s not going to make me much money (I bought a share in its management company via Gofundme), there are few things that give me greater pleasure that watching people profit from the collapse of the Green Ponzi Scheme.
These troughers are lower than pond life; they’ve been leeching off us for years and now they’re getting the comeuppance that they deserve.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Obama: Islam Inherently Violent? Absurd!


Frontpagemagazine ^ | 3-31-16 | Robert Spencer 


That’s something only the “Republican base” believes. Along with all too many Muslims.






Barack Obama is amused.
“I’m amused,” he said in remarks published Tuesday, “when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are. And if you’ve been hearing that a lot, and then somebody shows up on the scene and says, well, the logical conclusion to civilizational conflict is we try to make sure that we’re not destroyed internally by this foreign civilization, that’s what you get.”
Where would anyone get the crazy idea that Islam was inherently violent? Well, the day’s headlines might give us that very strong impression, but Obama would tell us (and has told us) that those Muslims who are screaming “Allahu akbar” as they murder non-Muslims are, despite appearances, not really Muslims at all, but just people who have twisted, hijacked, misunderstood the Religion of Peace.
It is, true, however, that there are plenty of Muslims who tell us that Islam is inherently violent. Here are a few of them:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari.
Obama would dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 bookThe Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.
One might also get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from these Qur’an verses:


2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women, for Allah has made one superior to the another, and because they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history.
According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as inherently violent. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as being inherently violent acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the true, peaceful Islam that Obama assumes to exist come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence, instead of just issuing pro-forma condemnations. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death by Muslim clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.
We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.

Hope and Change

eULthou.jpg

Recipe

177253_600.jpg

Hello Bernie

Ni81Pdn.jpg