VIDEO – America First: European CEOs Go One By One To Tell Trump They Are Investing Billions Back In The US
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);
Yes, in Islam jihad is a spiritual struggle. The Shafi’i legal manual (the Shafi’is are a school of Islamic jurisprudence) ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), which has been certified by al-Azhar, the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, as conforming to the “practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” devotes one paragraph to jihad as spiritual struggle. Then it spends seven pages on jihad as warfare. It makes it quite clear that jihad is warfare against non-Muslims:
My latest over at the Geller Report:
Linda Sarsour said it at the convention of the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) over the July 4 weekend. She denounced the Trump administration, saying: “Why, sisters and brothers, why are we so unprepared? Why are we so afraid of this administration and the potential chaos that they will ensue on our community?” Invoking Muhammad, she said: “A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad.” She added: “I hope that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”
She also went on to say: “Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our communities. It is not to assimilate and to please any other people in authority…Our top priority, even higher than all those priorities, is to please Allah, and only Allah.”
Here is what Americans this week were told counted as “news”: Jared Kushner’s past meetings. Russians. James Comey’s upcoming testimony. Russians. Hillary Clinton’s latest conspiracy theories. Russians. Bob Mueller’s as-yet-nonexistent investigation (into Russians). Kathy Griffin, Mr. Met and, of course, “covfefe.” Total words printed on these subjects? At least a duodecillion.
Here’s what actually happened this week, the “news” that holds real consequences for real Americans:
• Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed an order to begin reopening Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to oil and gas exploration, reversing the Obama administration’s ideologically driven 2013 shutdown. The order even aims at opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to production—a move that is decades overdue. This could not only buck up the listless Alaskan economy but cement the U.S. as an oil and gas powerhouse.
• In related news, the Dakota Access Pipeline finally went live.
• The Fish and Wildlife Service took steps that may stop the Obama administration’s last-minute endangered-species listing for the Texas Hornshell, a freshwater mussel. That listing, based on outdated science, threatens significant harm to the Texas economy and was done over the protest of state officials and local industry.
“Civilization has been aptly called a ‘thin crust over a volcano.’ (Liberals) are constantly picking at that crust.” — Thomas Sowell
After Hollywood jackass Jimmy Kimmel was criticized for exploiting his son’s illness to push his political agenda and incorrectly insinuating that surgeries for newborns weren’t covered before Obamacare, he did a follow-up on the subject where he said, “I would like to apologize for saying that children in America should have health care. It was insensitive, it was offensive, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.”
Drop dead, Jimmy Kimmel, you colossal ass.
This is a great example of what may be the most annoying, dishonest thing that liberals habitually do.
Jimmy Kimmel favors a certain political policy. It’s one that has been a disaster for tens of millions of Americans, including a lot of children.
Jimmy Kimmel could have said, “Obamacare may not be perfect and it may have been sold with a lot of lies, but I believe it’s worth it for everyone else to pay more so the small percentage of the population with pre-existing conditions and no insurance can be covered.” That pitch may not be a political winner, but at least it would be an honest argument.
Instead, Kimmel is essentially arguing that ONLY people who agree with him care about the healthcare of children and the rest of us want children to die.
This sort of rhetoric has become commonplace on the Left and it’s not just dishonest, it’s evil. It’s bad for the country. It could even potentially split the country apart one day because we won’t be able to continue to live with each other. In fact, we’ve already reached the point where California’s threats to secede are being met with cries of “faster please, what can we do to help?” from millions of conservatives.
July 2, 2015
TPP = Mass Immigration
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 21, 2015
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free-trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to control immigration policy. We could find ourselves back in the era before there were restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping President Obama achieve this goal.
The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.
The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation.In seeking approval of the TPP, the Obama administration has proposed giving it fast-track authority to conclude trade deals — a power that would restrict Congress’s ability to amend the deal, allowing only an up-or-down vote. Led by Republicans, the Senate is moving toward passage of the fast-track authority as a precursor to ratification of the TPP treaty, immigration provisions and all. (more…)
Published on The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com)
Don’t Give Him What He Wants
Beware Obama’s trade deals.
Irwin M. Stelzer
Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, director of -economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).
January 27, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 19Republicans are being urged to support President Obama’s request for TPA so that he can complete negotiations on TPP and TTIP while pursuing other deals at the WTO. For those who do not often feast on this alphabet soup: Obama wants what we used to call fast-track authority to make a trade deal.
In today’s lingo, the president seeks Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) so that he can put any deal he negotiates before Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, no amendments allowed. The two deals he wants to consummate are a 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brunei, and several other parties, and a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the 28-nation European Union. The administration also hopes to work out a freer trade agreement with the 159-member World Trade Organization (WTO), but the chances of doing that are somewhere between remote and nil, which is one reason the administration is pressing for regional trade deals.
The president has a problem. The same group of Democrats that shot down Larry Summers, his first choice to replace Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, are threatening to deny him TPA authority: His overseas negotiating partners are reluctant to offer any quid pro quo in return for some U.S. concession if Congress can later vote to pocket the other parties’ concessions while canceling the president’s. Gary Hufbauer, senior trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, reckons that at least half of congressional Democrats will vote against giving the president the authority he seeks, some because history teaches he won’t bother consulting with them, some because they fear he will make concessions that damage their constituents. Hufbauer concludes that Obama needs “three-quarters of the Republicans” to get a trade deal passed.
Republicans’ business backers are engaged in an all-out effort to round up those votes. Former U.S. trade representative and head of the World Bank Robert Zoellick, a victor in trade wars past, has returned to the fray to urge Republicans to “lead in opening markets . . . and make 2014 the year the U.S. reclaimed global leadership on trade.” With all due respect to the estimable Mr. Zoellick, and to House speaker John Boehner, a reflexive free-trader, congressional Republicans should just say no (more…)
