Arizona Personal Protection, LLC & FIREARMS http://www.arizonapersonalprotection.com

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:33:00 -0700

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn1W4BUHJd7kaiukbcvABXmU8jBmI4lmMCZsG3K4NbCUAY-YlWKkAU9h4cWagO1av9mjCsaiNaBuOZ7Y5Ya1oV0Lome1JwRhGs6Essa8Gw2JaILZqEhsWqUbxGO1iGeZ_W22AKjxeYh68A/s1600/animatfB.gif

Maricopa business aims to 'arm America' | InMaricopa.com

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:32:00 -0700

Maricopa business aims to 'arm America' | InMaricopa.com

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:35:00 -0700

NATIONAL LEVEL CHEERLEADING! MY GRANDDAUGHTER!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:18:00 -0700

Gaddafi's Private Plane, Reportedly Loaded With Gold, Ready To Leave For Zimbabwe As Early As Tomorrow

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:09:00 -0700

Gaddafi's Private Plane, Reportedly Loaded With Gold, Ready To Leave For Zimbabwe As Early As Tomorrow

The Perfect Storm Is Definitely Here This Time

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:08:00 -0700

The Perfect Storm Is Definitely Here This Time

סילוואן- כל מה שרציתם לדעת Silwan The Truth

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:38:00 -0700

DO YOU WANT THE **TRUTH** OR NOT??
SEE HOW >>PALESTINIANS<< SET A SITUATION UP TO
LOOK LIKE SOMETHING IT IS NOT!!!

START TREATY / NUCLEAR ARMS VOTE IN THE US SENATE

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:27:00 -0700

THIS is a complete list of how each Senator voted.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00292

If you go to the link, ALSO NOTICE 3 REPS and 3 DEMS WHO DID NOT CAST A VOTE!!!!!

(I DON'T WANT THEIR EXCUSES FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T VOTE,

I WANT THEM TO TAKE A STAND!)

HERE ARE THE NAMES OF THE 3 OTHER "SELL OUT" REPUBLICANS:

>>>> Not Voting - 5 <<<<

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Gregg (R-NH)

Wyden (D-OR)

Bayh (D-IN)

SO, applying logic;

If you DON'T CAST A DISSENTING VOTE,

isn't that the SAME THING AS TACITLY IMPLYING YOU ARE WITH THE WINNERS?

"I DO NOT WANT THEIR EXCUSES FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T VOTE, I WANT THEM TO TAKE A STAND!"

We need to keep up the pressure on these guys. THIS LITTLE NOTE HERE IS EXACTLY ONE OF THE THE REASONS THE GOVERNMENT WANTS CONTROL OF THE INTERNET AND MEDIA!

This Senate HAS PUSHED THROUGH more LAWS (which aren't Constitutional) than any other Senate has!! They took GREATER measures to make the greatest number of Americans dependent on the GOVERNMENT than AN OTHER CONGRESS!

THIS SENATE ADVANCED THE SOCIALIST AGENDA, FOLKS!
IS THAT THE "CHANGE" YOU VOTED FOR???

People MIGHT actually WAKE UP IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CONTROL THE INTERNET!

At the risk of sounding REALLY "looney tunes", I'm going to bring something up.

(THINK OUT SIDE OF THE BOX!!!)

I THINK THEY ARE SETTING UP FOR THE 2012 ELECTIONS,

Limit the peoples access to knowlege, make them despirate financially, jump start the animosity, anger and frustration of the people to cause riots (like in Greece, France and Great Brittain), then it

GIVES THEM THE EXCUSE TO INSTITUTE MARTIAL LAW!!!!

Think it's far fetched? Begin to think analytically, IT HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS IN 2005 AFTER KATRINA. THE AUTORITIES WENT DOOR TO DOOR COLLECTING THE FIREARMS. I have a friend FROM New Orleans who re-located here AFTER Katrina...

Have you noticed how the timing on all of this stuff

("CONTROL" BILLS IN THE SENATE) is SPEEDING UP?

NET NEUTRALITY- INTERNET & OPINION CONTROL

START TREATY-REMOVING OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OUR SELVES

CONTROL OF THE BANKS

CONTROL OF AUTO MANUFACTURERS

CONTROL OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM

CONTROL OF THE FOOD YOU EAT (ATTEMPTING ANYWAY)
NY CITY ( Bloomberg) already has control of SALT!!!

The Senate is paying off political debts now with OUR freedom, it is sameless.

They THEY go on recess... ITS ALL ABOUT THE SENATES PRORITIES, NOT THE PEOPLES.

BREAKING NEWS! - Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi / Muslim "Plant" in the ...

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:53:00 -0700

SHARE BEFORE YOUTUBE SCRUBS IT!

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:25:00 -0700

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
by Mike Masnick

Thu, Nov 18th 2010 11:10am

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota

Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin

Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware

This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.

Show birth certificate, or don't get on ballot!

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:50:00 -0700

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=229373

BORN IN THE USA?

Eligibility storm clouds on horizon for Obama

Posted: November 17, 2010

1:39 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A Texas state lawmaker has filed a bill that would require candidates for president or vice president to show their birth certificates to the secretary of state before being allowed on the ballot, and the measure could become effective as early as next year if adopted and signed into law.

The move by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, renews the threat to a second Oval Office term for Barack Obama that was posed last year when the state House in Arizona actually adopted the requirement, but the session ended before the Senate acted.

Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for the expected presidential campaigning for 2012.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama actually qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen," a requirement not imposed on most other federal officers.

"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said. He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the information plan, since voters would wonder why they wouldn't want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

"If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he'll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he's a natural-born citizen," he said. "This is going to be significant."

Berman said he's convinced there are problems with Obama's eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were even aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is, in fact, eligible under the Constitution's demands.

WND requests for comment to the office of the Texas House speaker, as well as Democratic leadership, did not generate responses.

The Texas House is expected to be dominated by the GOP, with a roughly 2-1 margin, but in the 31-member Senate, Democrats will have probably 12 seats and might be able to kill off legislation using the chamber's requirement that there is support from two-thirds of the membership before holding a floor vote.

WND reported during the last series of state legislatures that the issue was very near success in Arizona.

There, the state House of Representatives adopted a similar plan put forward by Rep. Judy Burges, but it died in the state Senate in the closing days of the session. Burgess has told WND she will work to bring the plan forward again.

A number of other states also have taken launched their own work on the subject:

Georgia has a plan by Rep. Mark Hatfield, House Bill 1516, introduced just as the last legislative session was closing. He told WND he expects to use it to create support for the plan when the legislature returns this winter.

New Hampshire had a proposal pending that would require candidates meet the "qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."

Oklahoma had a proposal that would be a referendum for voters on the issue.

South Carolina had discussions over a plan to prohibit the name of a candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."

Several other states have discussed requirements for candidates but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional compliance so it's unclear whether they would have addressed Obama's situation.

Then there's Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

Join tens of thousands of others who already have signed a petition to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii is a document that has made available to those not born in the state.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
A petition that has been launched by WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah asks that state lawmakers do their duty in making sure the next presidential election will feature candidates whose eligibility has been documented.

Tens of thousands already have signed on.

"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," he said.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted moreo than half a million names.

For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first two years in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

Double click on photos to view enlargement

Snopes got Snoped!

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:31:00 -0700

http://hubpages.com/hub/Snopes-got-Snoped

Snopes is run by a man and a woman, with no background or training in investigations, using Google.

Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once a negative article is posted by them, people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!"

But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But, over the past couple of years people started asking questions when Snopes was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inaccuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

So, if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means, do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an Internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.

WHAT ISLAM IS NOT...

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:28:00 -0700

http://www.nmatv.com/video/618/What-Islam-Is-Not

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:59:00 -0700

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume

April 3rd, 2010 7:15 pm ET

In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'

His claim turns out to be false.

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--

fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?

Further, consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.

(Click on pic to enlarge to read the title of book)

There is more from Ross, however:

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video.

You would THINK a former Constitutional attorney would NOT make up Constitutional quotes! ("We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal...")

Um, wrong founding document, Mr. President. It is in our Declaration of Independence that we read: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. " ~ John Adams

Queen must wear a burqa: UK Islamists

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:16:00 -0700

Monday, November 2, 2009,11:10 [IST]

http://news.oneindia.in/2009/11/02/queen-must-wear-a-burqa-uk-islamists.html#comments

Queen must wear a burqa:
UK Islamists

London, Nov 2: After the appeal to convert Buckingham Palace into Buckingham Masjid, UK Islamists leader now insists that Queen Elizabeth II must wear a burqa if she has to go out.

Anjem Choudhary, spokesman for pro-sharia campaigners Islam4UK was quoted in Daily Express as saying, "If the Queen decides to go outside then she must cover herself like every woman."

The radical Islamists had also demanded that the Mall approaching Buckingham Palace be renamed as Masjid road.

Seeking to introduce the Sharia law, Choudhary said that the a dome and tannoy to call followers to prayer will be fitted in Buckingham Palace once the Sharia law is implemented.

Choudhary also said that the Queen will be stripped of all power under the new Sharia law.

At the same time he said that the in the year 2009 he awaits the fall of Rome, the White House and of course the Buckingham Palace.

OneIndia News

Is Obama Planning A False Flag Event?

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:56:00 -0700

Suspicion and Secrecy Swirl Around India Trip

"Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: [this shall be] the portion of their cup." Psalm 11:6

Something here is not right.

Obama and his team are planning what could be the strangest state visit trip in United States history. Consider this just in from the Daily Paul website -

"Obama is leaving the country just after the election. He is taking his wife and kids as well as 3,000 other people for this India trip. They are taking 40 planes, armored cars, helicopters, security forces, and a blank check book. They are planning on spending $200 million per day. At least that is what they are admitting to." source - Daily Paul

What is a false flag event? False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time. source - Wikipedia

Obama's upcoming trip to India will involve the following:

• A fleet of 34 naval warships

• An Aircraft carrier

• His own personal limos imported from the US

• 800 hotel rooms booked at the Taj Mahal

• 500 US security personel

• Private luxury jets carrying hundreds of top American corporate CEO's

• Interception and obstruction devices

• US fighter jets

• The majority of his White House staff will travel with him

• They say the reason for all this security and cost is because of the extreme danger faced by the President...if that's true, then WHY is he taking his children with him??

• A fleet of over 40 high-tech cars for his convoy

• Cost for this 10-day trip is $200,000,000 million per day, making the 10 day event cost just over 2,000,000,000 (billion) dollars...are they visiting India or relocating?
source - NDTV

Now, all conspiracy theories aside, does this sound right to YOU? If you are honest you will have to say that no, it does not. But what it does sound like is that Obama and the entire guts that run this country are planning to leave the United States in a hurry.

Now consider this from the Daily Mail UK:
"The entourage will be the biggest ever in terms of logistics and manpower for any US president. The president himself will be ferried around in a black Cadillac - dubbed 'Barack Mobile' - which has its own built in communications centre - to enable Obama to be in touch with the White House, US vice president and the US strategic command The car also has the US nuke launch codes and the nuclear switch for the president. It can also withstand a chemical or germ warfare or even a bomb attack. Obama will be accompanied on the trip by US first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha, according to Indian newspaper Headlines Today. Earlier, Obama's daughters Sasha and Malia were not to be part of the trip. But Michelle's opinion prevailed and now the girls will accompany the first American couple to India, according to the paper." source - Daily Mail UK

Looks like to me that they are packing up and leaving...and then there's this from a few weeks ago:

We can absorb a terrorist attack. Really, Barack? A few weeks back Bob Woodward released a book, Obama's Wars, where Obama had something very unusual to say about 9/11 and the possibility of America being attacked again. The unbelievable, mind-numbing tragedy of 9/11, in Obama's mind, is something that could be easily absorbed should something of that magnitude happen on US soil again.

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever... we absorbed it and we are stronger." Sounds to me like he is mentally preparing us for another terrorist or nuclear attack.

So you decide, dear reader, what this all means. But it sure does not sound right. And be prepared for anything at anytime, because something is coming...remember to the words of Jesus about life in the end times - "Behold, I have told you before." Matthew 24:25

>> Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order << WASHINGTON - President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors Monday, 11 January 2010

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:40:00 -0700

Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 11, 2010

EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Council of Governors.

(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.

(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.

Sec. 2. Functions.

The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Such views, information, or advice shall concern:

(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;

(b) homeland defense;

(c) civil support; more (OVER) 2

(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and

(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 11, 2010.

source - WhiteHouse.gov

GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:33:00 -0700

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- We are happy to see that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives as the Grand Old Party as it is known tends to be friendlier to gun related issues.

The people have spoken and this wasn’t the result of some nefarious plot by the insidious gun lobby – which is how the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations are painted in the mainstream media – to take control of the country.

This was the will of the people, which includes hunters, shooters, gun collectors and just every day citizens that believe in the Second Amendment.

But the writing is on the wall, and we’re not out of the woods yet. Nor is it the time however to let down our guard.

The Senate will still include a rogue’s gallery of anti-gun zealots including two Republicans: Senator-Elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a co-sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation to close the so-called gun show loophole, and Senator-Elect Dan Coast in Indiana had previously served in the U.S. Senate, voting for the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Key anti-gun Democrats retained their seats in the U.S. Senate as well, and these include Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Barbara Boxer of California. New York was also a special case as Kirsten Gillibrand was finally “elected” to the Senate (she had been appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat, which she will now hold for two more years).

Both Schumer and Gillibrand have been foes to gun owners, while Boxer has also been a supporter of gun control. The NRA-endorsed Christine O’Donnell was also defeated by Democrat candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, while Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who was appointed to finish the term of former Senator Ken Salazar, was elected to a full term. He has co-sponsored gun show loophole legislation.

We happy that Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was defeated in his re-election bid, as Feingold has had at what best can be described as a mixed record on gun related issues, including voting in favor of background checks at gun shows.

But now is the time to think to the future, but to be on guard today. Only this year the EPA attempted to ban lead ammunition, while the State Department stopped efforts to allow the importation of American M1 made rifles from South Korea. These are both back door gun bans, and while the same mainstream media that sees the NRA as a cabal of evildoers bent on turning America into a Wild West, turn a blind eye to these efforts. Instead the media tries to say that the Democrats and President Obama have done nothing to impose new restrictions.

Except for the attempt to ban lead ammo, the blocked importation of those M1 rifles and the appointment of two fiercely anti-gun rights Supreme Court Justices.

So while this is a time to celebrate our wins with the House, we should be remain on guard.

Peter Suciu is executive editor of FirearmsTruth, a website that tracks and monitors media bias against guns and our Second Amendment rights.

The many faces of freedom of speech on Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:25:00 -0700

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-many-faces-of-freedom-of-speech-on-facebook/

Recently freedom of speech has been a victim of an extraordinarily well-organized attack by the left wing and islam. The latest example is the increasing islamisation of Facebook and the removal of the profile of ANYONE who expresses a dissenting opinion. This social media that attracts millions of people every day has lately developed itself into a platform for the spreading of left-wing propaganda and especially Islamic propaganda.

The recent deactivation of personal profiles which have not at all violated ANY of Facebook´s rules are clear cut examples of the total submission and Dhimmitude to islam, now undertaken by Facebook. While anti-semitic profiles are flourishing on Facebook, one islam-critical profile after the next is being closed down without a logical or truthfull reason for it. Facebook literally bulges with hate-groups that call for killings on Jews, Danes (and other citizens of western countries), groups that indeed call for discrimination (believers vs. non-believers). That, by the way, is actually racism, according to the new definition of the term "racism". Groups that hate Denmark and who urge to the destruction of democracy, and are literally boiling with threats to Danes, Americans and discriminate against women. All this is actually violating Facebook´s rules. By the way, Islam/Muslim is NOT A RACE!

But, in the name of political correctness, Facebook is not reacting to it! – or is it, perhaps in the name of freedom of speech? While all these hate groups are successfully flourishing on Facebook, and while all the hate group personal profiles threaten others and violate all sorts of Facebook rules on a daily basis, one after another the islamic critical groups are being shut down by Facebook, and the islamic critical personal profiles are being deactivated by Facebook – without any true violation.

Now, one might ask if criticizing islam is not violating Facebook rules. It depends on how islam is defined. It certainly depends on how this criticism is being conducted. Indeed it depends on whether or not we are speaking about hate-groups and racism or about factual well-documented, direct quotes from the Quran itself, from the Hadiths, and direct quotes from the Islamic leaders and Holy men. I shall account for how Facebook is becoming Islamized in a fully legal and democratic way.

With the definition of islam as a starting-point there is clearly a difference between how Facebook defines islam and how islam critics define it. If we assume that Facebook defines islam as a religion, we must establish that Facebook is complying with it´s own rules since criticizing religion is not allowed according to the UN, and accordingly on Facebook. There is every reason to be on guard towards critics on this religion. It seems only natural to ask if this applies to all religions. The answer must be a clear no. This only applies to islam. It is fully legal to call for the killing of Jews and other infidels, to discriminate against infidels and women, as well as to urge the destruction of democracy with all means at your disposal – all with the single aim to establish the khalifate and sharia law. At least if you consider Facebook´s handling of the situational trendsetting practice. So, islam critics are per Facebook definition racists and will accordingly be deactivated without further discussion. Recently, a well-known islam critical personal profiles were deactivated without notice, despite the fact that no Facebook rules were violated.

The profiles were Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut. It was simply reported by moslems and left-wing activists for being offending or not a real profile. Ok, so someone is offended by criticism of islam. According to the Danish Constitution, §77 (freedom of speech), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights such criticism is not illegal. These profiles have not violated any of the above referenced documents. On the contrary, freedom of speech has been used responsibly and with consideration. These profiles have, at any given time, openly declared themselves an opponent to any totalitarian regime and an eager opponent to racism. They have allowed themselves to consider islam a totalitarian regime, in which equality and freedom is non-existent. No law prohibits this consideration, and it is therefore outermost thought-provoking and alarming that Facebook obviously sees itself above the Danish and US Constitution and Bill of Rights!

With this as a starting-point, that the islamic criticism has been conducted by Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut, there has always been a sober tone, an anti-racist attitude and a factual approach to the discussion. Contrary to what the left wing and certain moslems on Facebook wish to display, there is in fact, no valid reason for the deactivation of these specific profiles, since all Facebook´s rules have been complied with completely. The reason for the many reports must be found in the fact that these very profiles actually displayed the truth about islam in an – to islamisists – threatening way. So Facebook choose to submit to the many moslem reports and submits completely to the Islamic demands.

Now with the starting-point and the rules about hate-groups and racism established, we must simply prove none of these have applied to the deactivated profiles. Many attempts have been made to make Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut to make statements beyond reasonable limits or even statements which are illegal. However, no one has succeeded in making either one of them state anything racist or hateful. On the contrary, they have always emphasized that racism will not be tolerated, derogatory words or nicknames are unacceptable and that they are not criticizing muslims, as such, but rather the totalitarian ideology islam. Nevertheless the left wing activists and islam have succeded in creating the impression that Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut have violated Facebooks rules, with the result of their profiles being deactivated by Facebook.

What is, really, going on here? Why is it such a problem some people have been kicked off of Facebook? Does that really matter in the overall perspective? It certainly isn´t a real social problem, is it? Yes! That is exactly what it is. It ought to be clear to anyone, this is not really about a profile on Facebook. This is about the basic values, the basic laws of this country. We have a set of values in this country, founded on charity and equality, respect and tolerance. We have a set of laws, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which ensures us these basic God given rights – and duties.

We live in a portion of the world where basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble in demonstrations and equality, are gifts granted by God. However, we must not forget that millions of people have sacrificed their life so that we can enjoy these rights as we do today. The Normandy coast on June 6, 1944, is just one such example. We are among the just 10% of the total population on Earth to enjoy these rights and privileges. These values and laws have, in the most abusive way, been undermined, by none other than Facebook.

This sanctimonious social medium, is atttempting to make us believe it is an open and tolerant to everyone, and is demanding a decent tone and manners, so politically correct it makes you want to vomit! This very site is totally inconsistent when it comes to enforcing it´s own rules! It is not about the people who were kicked off of Facebook. It is about the principle that these people have allowed themself to –with the Constitution in hand– criticize islam as being one of our era´s greatest threats to democracy. At the same time, Facebook is yellow from infected personal profiles and hate-groups against the West, against women, against Denmark, against sexual equality, against any equality as such, against Jews, against homosexuals, against infidels and non-believers, against Danes, against Americans, against "whatever" is western and above all against democracy. All of this is going on while the site is being used by millions of people all over the world without the slightest criticism! It roars right in, on the corneas of the users like an express train, with no filter whatsoever, and indeed it is happening in the name of free speech.

Point in example, the deactivation of Anders Gravers´ and Aly Renruts' profiles...

This is a very dangerous development that we are witnessing. In the name of free speech, in the name of democracy, the advocates of free speech and democracy are being abusively harassed, threatened and now also brought to silence on Facebook, as it is increasingly becoming an islamic propaganda platform. All of this is happening right in front of our eyes without anyone interfering! In the name of democracy, democracy is being fought from the inside.

The last time we saw such in the world, was in Germany in 1933. The method is not different, nor is the goal. If we are to endure as a democracy we have to begin to understand just which threats to democracy are really being exposed to in our time.

A good place to start is Facebook.

We urge our readers to find and expose the muslim hate-groups and left wing groups clearly violating Facebook´s criteria and to voice their objections to such, on Facebook.

Thor/Aly

Help Anders Gravers back on facebook – support this group:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=101770483205664

Aly Renrut is also a VICTIM OF THE MUSLIM FIGHT AGAINST THE 1ST AMENDMENT ON FACEBOOK, AS ALY RENRUT (an ANAGRAM of her previous name: TURNER) HAS BEEN REMOVED!!!

Maine: Muslim Teen Sets off Chemical Bomb near Mosque

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:17:00 -0700

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/teenager-responsible-for-chemical-bomb.html

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Maine: Muslim Teen Sets off Chemical Bomb near Mosque

Once again we find that a violent incident at a mosque was committed by ........a Muslim. This is the pattern. But this latest incident is deeply troubling for more nefarious reasons. This wasn't merely a hoax hate crime committed by a Muslim to stoke the bogus Islamic supremacist narrative of "islamophobia," this was a young Muslim experimenting with a bomb -- practicing his craft at his local mosque. Got that?

Islamic leaders told police the explosion was just a 13-year-old "experimenting." What was the kid trying to do? "Teenager responsible for chemical bomb near Islamic Society of Portland," by Helen Dailey for WCSH6.com, September 22 (thanks to Joe):

PORTLAND, ME (NEWS CENTER) -- Police say there were no injuries or damage caused by a chemical bomb that went off in a parking lot near the Islamic Society of Portland.

The bomb went off in the lot between the Islamic Society and Back Bay Grill around 8:00 PM Tuesday night. Portland Police say Islamic elders came forward to tell them that a 13 year old from the Society was experimenting and was responsible for the bomb. Another bomb was also found undetinated [sic]....

Just a young Muslim at a mosque experimenting with a bomb. In Maine. What's to be concerned about? It isn't as if mosques have ever been centers of violence elsewhere, right?

Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:49:00 -0700

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/maryland-muslims-whine-about-islamophobia-refuse-to-address-jihad-terrorism-and-islamic-supremacism.html

Sep 23, 2010

Muslims whine about "Islamophobia,"
but refuse to address
jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

If Muslims really wants to cure "Islamophobia," here is an easy way. They can:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.

2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.

3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.

5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of "Islamophobia"!

And Pamela Geller said it best: "Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don't have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I."

Indeed, I have a stalker who has threatened my life and posted private information about me online with the clear intention of inciting Muslims to attack me, who lives in College Park, Maryland. I wonder if he attended this forum -- the Nyumburu Cultural Center is in that city.

"Panel discusses cause and effect of Islamophobia in the U.S.," by Melissa Quijada in the DiamondbackOnline, September 23 (thanks to Tipster):

Scattered views filled a forum yesterday as students and activists addressed the fear of Islam and Muslims that's recently resurfaced in the media, agreeing the term Islamophobia should be discussed emphasizing similarities, not differences.

Last night at the Nyumburu Cultural Center, the Black Male Initiative student group hosted a discussion of about 100 students and activists to address social tensions amid a recent surge of anti-Islamic sentiments. Supported by the Muslim Students' Association and the Muslim Women of Maryland members, the event challenged the word and filled seats.

"It's important for us as engaged citizens and human beings to speak out against these injustices when they rear their ugly heads," said Solomon Comissiong, Nyumburu Cultural Center's assistant director of student involvement and public relations, as he opened the panel.

And when discussing an issue that often creates deep divides, panelists emphasized the importance of unity in tackling such a phenomenon.

"The existence of 'Islamophobia' is a social failure," said Secretary of the Muslim Students' Association Osama Eshera. "This is an issue we all have to deal with together."

Panelists paid specific attention to a string of anti-Islamic events, many of which have recently made national headlines, that led to the discussion held last night.

Dave Zirin, a sports writer and socialist activist who co-monitored the event with Comissiong, referenced the New York City cab driver who was stabbed in the throat, face and arm after disclosing his Muslim faith. Comissiong cited the national unrest earlier this month when Florida pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the Qur'an in protest of efforts to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Of course, the New York cabbie stabber worked for a pro-Ground Zero mosque group, so it is hard to pin his actions on "Islamophobia." And it's outstanding moral myopia to tut-tut at the Qur'an-burning but not at the Muslims who murdered innocents because of it.

"We thought it was necessary to do something like this in light of all the anti-Muslim backlash," Comissiong said.

Much of the first half of conversation pointed to the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 as the root of fear and hatred of Islam.

"There's a notion that Muslims rejoiced while Americans suffered," said Eshera, a junior bioengineering major. "The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

Preposterous. A tenth of the people killed in the Trade Towers were Muslims? A ridiculous lie, but clearly one that Islamic supremacists have agreed upon, as it is oft-repeated lately.

A long line of both students and seasoned social activists stepped forward to ask questions and make comments, causing the event to run longer than expected. Some fundamentally challenged the term Islamophobia and the differences between Americanized fear against Muslims and the Islamic faith.

"You have an entire community calling it Islamophobia and a community of Muslims calling it Islamophobia," said university aluma and panelist Rayyan Ghuma. "It's all about semantics now."

"It takes us labels for us to do anything," said Omnia Joehar, junior government and politics major. "How many have stood up until 'Islamophobia' was made?"

Yesterday's discussion even spurred Elizabeth Rosenberg, co-president of the Interfaith Dialogue Project, to address the same topic with her group members next week.

Comissiong said he hoped the discussion was a start to spreading awareness so others can continue to address the issue on the campus.

"We want people to leave with a heightened consciousness," said Comissiong. "We want them to have a feeling of empowerment."

Oh, no worries, Mr. Comissiong. They feel plenty empowered.

U.S. News ~ Poll: 52 percent in U.S. negative on Islam

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:42:00 -0700

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/20/Poll-52-percent-in-US-negative-on-Islam/UPI-69471284998613/

Published: Sept. 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM

NEW YORK, Sept. 20 (UPI) --

More than half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam and say they consider it to be a religion that encourages violence, a poll indicates.

Americans hold strongly positive views on Christianity but are less approving in their assessment of other religions, the Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

In a survey of 1,024 adults, the poll found 83 percent generally have a favorable view of Christianity while 47 percent feel the same way about Judaism and 43 percent about Buddhism.

But 52 percent of respondents said they hold an unfavorable view of Islam, the poll found.

Asked about religion encouraging violence, 45 percent said they believe Islam encourages violence and 25 percent described it as a peaceful religion.

While 91 per cent of Americans say they have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Christianity, less than half are knowledgeable about five other religions: Judaism 43 percent, Islam 34 percent, Buddhism 31 percent, Hinduism 22 percent and Sikhism 8 percent, the poll indicates.

The poll was conducted online on Sept 14 and 15 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Related Stories

• Texas school board takes on Islam http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/15/Texas-school-board-takes-on-Islam/UPI-89351284579929/

• Security panel links radical Islam, terror http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/15/Security-panel-links-radical-Islam-terror/UPI-54401284579348/

• Florida pastor won't burn Koran http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/11/Florida-pastor-wont-burn-Koran/UPI-32421284206370/

Chandler man shoots, kills 2 suspected gang members

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:57:00 -0700

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html

by Jim Walsh - Sept. 6, 2010 05:00 PM

Published in: The Arizona Republic

The intruder who punched out a Chandler man while stealing beer at a keg party picked the wrong victim.

The man, who had been attempting to defend his wife during the beer theft, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fearing for his life and under attack, he pulled out a gun and fatally shot two men believed by police to be gang members early Sunday morning.

"People in Arizona carry guns," said Detective David Ramer, a Chandler police spokesman. "You better be careful about who you are picking on."

Ramer said police have concluded the shooter, who fears reprisals and whose name is not being released, acted in self-defense and have cleared him of any potential wrongdoing in the shooting deaths.

The names of the two men who were shot to death also have not been released by police.

The shootings occurred early Sunday morning in the 600 block of North Sunland Drive. A group of men showed up as uninvited guests at the keg party, paid a $2 admission fee, then became angry when the organizers started to shut the bash down, Ramer said.

"They thought they weren't getting their money's worth," he said.

The intruders were stealing the beer when they were confronted by a woman who had been attending the party, Ramer said. After the men started yelling at the woman, her husband attempted to come to her defense and was punched to the ground.

"This guy was punched, he was attacked," Ramer said.

When one of the intruders threatened the man with a gun, he pulled out his own gun and shot the two assailants to death, Ramer said. Police said they have documents confirming that the men are gang members.

Ramer said the husband showed restraint during the incident and only fired when he was threatened with a gun.

The man involved in the shooting had passed a concealed weapons course, Ramer said. Although he had a permit, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill earlier this year to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without one.

Chandler police have arrested seven other men and plan to recommend that they be charged not only with robbery but with murder because the slayings occurred during the commission of another crime, Ramer said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html#ixzz0yoP62Au8

SHARIA FOR DUMMIES

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:18:00 -0700

http://bigpeace.com/ndarwish/2010/08/26/sharia-for-dummies/
Posted by Nonie Darwish Aug 26th 2010 at 4:42 am

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the

US Constitution is Sharia compliant...

Now let's examine a few laws of Sharia below to see if

Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1- Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it.

A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

15- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

16- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money

(dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.

”The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life.

Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push ...From EPA - THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

noreply@blogger.com (http://twitter.com/AZPProtection ) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:49:00 -0700

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

Environmental agency ponders whether lead in bullets is poisoning wildlife.

By Paul Bedard

Posted: August 27, 2010

The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.

Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox charges in a letter to the EPA that the effort amounts to "a vehicle to implement gun control

" and could end hunting by most who can't afford the higher priced alternatives to lead.

[See who in Congress gets the most money from gun rights groups.]

At issue: lead, the most widely used material for making bullets, shot, and sinkers. The Center for Biological Diversity says in a 100-page petition that lead used by outdoorsmen and women can be blamed for causing deaths in some 130 species of birds like eagles. "Lead-based bullets fragment on impact, distributing toxic lead particles widely throughout carcasses, and making it impossible for scavenging animals or humans to avoid ingesting lead along with meat," says the center, joined on petition by the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and two other groups.

The NRA counters that claims lead is causing a horrific toll on wildlife is bogus. The proof, they say, is the population explosion of American Eagles around the nation, including some inside Washington's beltway.

But more importantly, says the NRA, the EPA is barred from regulating ammo or fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the ammo foes think that they have found a way around that by asking the EPA to regulate elements of ammo and the element they want banned is the lead.

Cox said that would counter what Congress has intended in previous laws. "Put another way, if Congress exempts a cow from regulation, one could hardly argue that it nevertheless would allow for regulation of the hide attached to the cow's body," said Cox.

Despite the opposition from the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, the EPA is considering banning lead. It is seeking public comment until Halloween.