Long live Abdel Fattah al-Sisi!

Ozombies love their Jihad...


Against President Fattah al-Sisi In Egypt….

Posted on January 30, 2015 by sundance

Eyes Wide Open – This announcement follows with what we previously shared yesterday regarding the current Islamist alignment (President Obama, Hamas, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis) in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya. al-Sisi now viewed as the greatest threat to the fulfillment of the Islamic Jihad.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...pt/#more-95994




.

Egypt: U.S. Explanation of State Department Meeting With Muslim Brotherhood Terrorists “not understandable”…

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/


Posted on January 31, 2015 by sundance
There is a jaw-dropping level of hypocrisy inherent within the U.S. State Department hosting the Muslim Brotherhood when you contrast the anxiety expressed by the White House to a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu.

If the White House is upset over an open speech that Benjamin Netanyahu will deliver to congress, imagine how angry Egypt’s president al-Sisi feels knowing the Muslim Brotherhood is in closed meetings with U.S. officials.






.

Obama keeps trying to put the Egyptian leader under the bus but he won't go voluntarily.

Having had a conversation with a Muslim recently, I have somewhat of a new insight about their mindset.
It seems there are a lot of Muslims that are not happy with what the radical Islamist are doing to their religion.
What I did come to understand is that there are more Muslims that have no interest at all in this jihad crap but it is difficult to do much about it.
While the percentage of radicals is small the number is great. When you consider that say a small percentage like maybe 10 percent are radicalized; that is just a hair under the total population of the United States.
Then you toss in the in religion fighting between the different sects, and this is where it comes to a head. According to him, it is all about who gets to control the wealth.

I wish I had more time to continue the conversation and perhaps in the future I will again. I found him to b very similar to myself in what we believed about the direction of the US, as he has become a citizen. There are a few things we do not see eye to eye on but I firmly believe it is only because we see those things through different eyes and from a different point of origin.

We also discussed how in almost all religions there are those that bastardize it like the Westboro idiots. In addition the fighting of the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was another comparison while we both agreed that none is as bad as what these radicals are doing. One of his points was his anger over the killing and especially the killing of innocent children. He stated that is not Islam.

I would have liked to talk with him about Sharia but our time together came to an end and that will be a conversation for another day.

obama backed the muslim brotherhood against the military trying to retake egypt out of the hands of the terrorists

he was against al-sisi

that's all you need to know about obama's world view, mindset, direction and heart, or his acumen and brains, or maybe his lackadaisicalness and inattention to anything, you pick

SNICK!

So it's the Globalists against us Nationalists... now it makes a little more sense!

Washington Times: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war…

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...ar/#more-96057


Posted on February 1, 2015 by sundance


The Washington Times has a strong exclusive story outlining the Hillary Clinton drive for regime change in Libya 2011. The article is quite well presented with never before heard tapes between U.S. officials and Gaddaffi loyalists who were trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

power-rice-rodham-clinton-2The article outlines many of the issues our previous research also uncovered, and presents the contrast between the Pentagon position and the State Department during the crisis in Libya.

However, there is one substantive factual flaw when the Washington Times outlines Hillary’s motive for regime change.

The author writes about the motive from the position of the known visible narrative chosen by Hillary to remove Gaddaffi. Which was to avoid a “humanitarian crisis”, similar to the Rwanda massacre.

The R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine was indeed advanced by Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice; however, that visible motive was a cover for the real impetus which can be found by looking much further back into the Clinton ideology at the Rivkin Project.

The Washington Times article accepts R2P as the motive, it wasn’t.

Indeed, if you think about it in larger context, R2P could never factually form the basis for intervention and regime change because Team Hillary themselves admitted -at the time- they didn’t know the actual players within the opposition forces who would fall under such a protective doctrine.

How could you genuinely call for a protection doctrine without a substantive understanding of the people who you would assign a need of protection for? You cannot.

However, no-one in the Western media ever challenged this false premise. The R2P doctrine was the visible reason given for selling the interventionist path, but it was not the actual motive to explain why Hillary wanted to remove Gaddaffi against the recommendations of the Pentagon and national security apparatus.

The larger Rivkin Project, and the Clinton globalist initiative demand for advancement of multicultural open EU borders was the agenda behind the decision to intervene.




.

Why does this feel like an attempt to rejuvenate Hillary's image while she is away on sabbatical?

Having had a conversation with a Muslim recently, I have somewhat of a new insight about their mindset.
It seems there are a lot of Muslims that are not happy with what the radical Islamist are doing to their religion.
What I did come to understand is that there are more Muslims that have no interest at all in this jihad crap but it is difficult to do much about it.
While the percentage of radicals is small the number is great. When you consider that say a small percentage like maybe 10 percent are radicalized; that is just a hair under the total population of the United States.
Then you toss in the in religion fighting between the different sects, and this is where it comes to a head. According to him, it is all about who gets to control the wealth.

I wish I had more time to continue the conversation and perhaps in the future I will again. I found him to b very similar to myself in what we believed about the direction of the US, as he has become a citizen. There are a few things we do not see eye to eye on but I firmly believe it is only because we see those things through different eyes and from a different point of origin.

We also discussed how in almost all religions there are those that bastardize it like the Westboro idiots. In addition the fighting of the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was another comparison while we both agreed that none is as bad as what these radicals are doing. One of his points was his anger over the killing and especially the killing of innocent children. He stated that is not Islam.

I would have liked to talk with him about Sharia but our time together came to an end and that will be a conversation for another day. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

2Dog You brought out a often "left out point in the discussion concerning Islamic Terrorists. While it is true that the small percentage of radicalized is small, (in numbers it is large ), it is also true that the vast majority of Muslims do not support the radical ideology. Still, the problems and solution is still very complex. First, While most Muslims are uncomfortable with the evil done in their religions name, still, it is not a part of their teaching and culture to be critical of other Muslims. Herefor, to criticize some is too often seen as attacking Islam! Secondly, the major Basic belief of Islam is "submit" to Allah, how that submitting manifests itself is in unquestioning obedience to Quran, Hadith, and Sharia Law. That then is dependent on the Iman to explain it's meaning. Without the proper schooling and scholarship credentials, you are not considered knowledgeable enough to teach or even comment on truth.
Most Imans that come to the West get their authorized teaching through Saudi Arabia if they are Sunni, and Iran if they are Sheite. Neither group take their teaching and puts it into any kind of historical context nor do they understand it in the culture in which it was written. Therefor, it is always true as it was written for all people and all time. This is the will of Allah and true Muslims will submit to that! So, the bedrock belief teaching is to submit to these teachings, to modernize, or Chang anything, runs not only contrary to over a thousand years of teaching, but there is always the ever present danger of being accused of Aposticy. To deviate from this not only puts one under the threat of death for aposticy, but isolation from family, culture, including being seen as dead.
Because of these and other basic understandings, the ideology we see today is very difficult to combat. One generation or area might combat it and get it under control. But because of culture and teaching system, it can pop up all over. We are told it is political, but the ideology is very religious. Islam does not separate the two. True Islam controls all things because of all things are being subjected to Allah!
Finally, (and I know this is long), today we focus on the wrong things. We look to Iran, we blame them. But they might control maybe 5 percent if Islam. Saudi Arabia (the religious teaching center) controls over 90 percent. We call them our friends. We are dependent on their oil (how you liking your cost of gas today?). Little more complicated isn't it?

Why does this feel like an attempt to rejuvenate Hillary's image while she is away on sabbatical? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

"Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.

"The delay from the original April target would give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3QXc4aJp1

"Because the previous 14 years of running for president hasn’t given her enough time to nail it down…"

Why does this feel like an attempt to rejuvenate Hillary's image while she is away on sabbatical? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This Hillary?