Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Muslim Brotherhood Forms Coalition With Two Salafist Groups To Ensure Sharia Constitution For Egypt

Arab Spring:
Several Islamist political groups, including Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya, the Freedom and Justice Party and Al-Dawa Al-Salafiya have announced that they will form a coalition of political parties and Islamic forces to ensure that Egypt's new constitution is shaped in accordance with Islamic sharia (law). 
They aim to coordinate with the Constituent Assembly in order to do so, stating that they will not accept the takeover of the drafting process by a "minority of liberals", according to statements made during a meeting at the headquarters of the Islamist Building and Development Party on Tuesday. 
The group announced that they will not accept a constitution that contradicts sharia, and they plan to organise popular movements to support their cause. They are also calling for sharia to become the "only source" of legislation.

GOP Routing Democrats in Pennsylvania Absentee-Ballot Returns, 55%-36%

From Ace of Spades:

As far as history: the GOP edged the Democrats in absentee balloting in 2008, but only by 2%, in a 10% loss to Obama.
Go read the whole thing.


Dick Morris Says, Here Comes the Landslide:
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon.  
But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote. As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.  
The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
My wife and I were discussing exactly this last night.

Here's our theory:

In advertising every time you hit a person with a message it is called an IMPRESSION.

The Impression/Message the Obama campaign was putting out was "Mitt Romney is Evil".

The Obama Campaign spent tens of millions of dollars (probably much more), and the media gave Obama free air time to repeat that message hundreds of thousands of times, til it reached almost everyone in the country a good 200 times for each person.

In other words, between Obama's ads, and the free air time provided to Obama by the Palace Guard Media, Obama was able to amass a good 300 million people times perhaps 200 impressions for each person.

That's a lowball of 60 billion impressions, all with the same message: ROMNEY IS EVIL.

But then, Romney shows up in the debates, and he is not evil. Instead, he looks like a normal guy who is pretty damned intelligent, and eminently sincere. He also looks very organized, and under control of himself.


After that, everyone of those 60 billion impressions the Obama/Media Campaign put out against Mitt Romney all turned out to be for Mitt Romney.

It is as if Coca Cola ran a year long ad campaign for Pepsi.

Books and theses will be written on this campaign; Negative Advertising/Marketing Impressions, if they are an absolute lie, can transform themselves instantly into positives impressions for the target of denigration.

Obama miscalculated, on a colossal scale.

Couldn't happen to a more calculating asshole.

Screw the polls!

I've been following this election campaign since November last year on one medium or another. For a long time everyone had been saying that whoever wins the independents will win the elections. But the moment Romney took a massive lead among independents all of the news media has been quiet on that and has been touting new kinds of polls that mostly show Obama leading.

What the hell happened? What, independents aren't important anymore because if they're considered then the god incarnate (Branco Bamma) doesn't win?

I'm sick and tired of this BS. The media, mostly, in America is extremely biased. There is no news outlet that I can depend on anymore (FOX is great for conservative news but even they are biased toward the right). There is no news outlet that I can depend on for BALANCED and NON BIASED news.

Am I wrong in thinking that independents still matter? Or has the elections all of a sudden changed? If Romney is leading by double digits among the independents of Ohio, how is it that Obama still leads most of the polls?

Somebody please enlighten me!!

Remember Obamacare, 53%? Get ready for doctor initiated ‘end of life’ .. IT’S REAL, not ‘discredited’

Doctors in the U.K. have been asked to designate 1 percent of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end-of-life treatment, a move that the government estimates would save the National Health Service £1.35 billion a year.

“Say, listen, you really aren’t leading much of a life, and you are taking up valuable medical, and economic resources and some 20 year old might come off a motorcycle accident and need these resources, so let’s talk about what you can do to make these resources more available, you know, as a PATRIOT?”

‘Ok docs’, says the caring govt, ‘you have a 1% quota’ to designate for the end of life.
And if you don’t?
What does the govt do? Cut your finding? Audit your practice? Have a license hearing?  Force you into a less lucrative specialty?
In a “toolkit” introduced by Norman Lamb, minister of state for care services, doctors are advised that during routine consultations they should look for “indicators of frailty and deterioration” and that “older people are a priority to consider” because “around 70 percent to 80 percent of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end-of-life care.” 
Could the entire idea of national mandated ‘care’ POSSIBLY be any more disgusting?
How many of you readers have a grandmother, mother or great grandmother active of mind, active of body and vulnerable to someone else’s quota?
Thinking, OH… it;s the UK, not Obamacare?
Now remember this is Obamedia ABC’s sunday news show writing this:
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget — who has been caricatured by conservatives as a “Dr. Death” seeking to pull the I.V.s out of your grandparents’ arms in the name of cost containment – is not happy.
Asked by ABC News in an interview about the thoroughly discredited claim by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to paint his philosophical writings as evidence – along with a provision providing optional end of life counseling in the House Democrats’ health care reform bill – that President Obama wants to set up “death panels” to deny medical treatments to seniors and the disabled, including her son Trig, Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, does not hold back.
“It’s an absolute outrage that you would take first of all a provision written in the bill,” Emanuel says, a provision allowing for “doctors to talk to patients about end of life care, and turn it into the suggestion that we’re going to have euthanasia boards – that’s a complete misreading of what’s there. It’s just trying to scare people.”
Before this quota in Britain, just what exactly do you think UK care was?
Here is Ezekiel Emanuel …
Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classifi ed into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off , maximising total benefi ts, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.
Just trying to scare people?

Saving YOU is not saving the most lives

Read the basis for Obamacare when you get ‘frail’ HERE
Then make up your own mind about the UK, and what we can expect here.
Decisions about the end of YOUR LIFE, YOUR WIFE’S LIFE, YOUR PARENT’S LIVES, will be in the hands of those who control the doctors pay. Not a commercial corporation which has to worry the family will sue them, but the govt, LITERALLY indemnified from penalty, or ANY ACTION by you and yours.
Curtis Mayfield
Live at Ronnie Scott's


Belgium Votes For Sharia Law

This is the real deal. The campaign run by these guys called for nothing but the roll out of starter Sharia, and they openly admit their ultimate goal is an Islamic government in Europe.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Put this image up on your Facebook

This image was put up by a group representing Navy SEALS. Facebook took it down citing some sort of violation.

Go here to read the whole story.


Obama On Benghazi Hurricane Sandy: “We Leave Nobody Behind”

Speaking at a photo opportunity at the American Red Cross on Tuesday, President Obama stated that in America, “we leave nobody behind.” This remark is seen as clumsy and perhaps insensitive considering the revelations that requests to assist two Navy SEALs trapped on the roof of the American consulate in Benghazi were denied, thus abandoning the heroic Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda.



From AFP

PAZARDZHIK, Bulgaria — A trial against 13 Bulgarian Muslim religious leaders for preaching a radical form of Islam heard key witnesses Monday, while nationalists demonstrated at the court in the southern town of Pazardzhik to protest "Muslim pressure" on its work.
The 12 men and one woman -- imams, mufti Islamic scholars and teachers -- have been charged with founding a local branch of the extremist Al Waqf-Al Islami group in the southern regions of Smolyan, Blagoevgrad and Pazardzhik.
The Netherlands-based but Saudi-funded organisation is suspected of links to Al-Qaeda.
The 13 were charged with preaching a radical anti-democratic ideology based on hardline Salafist teachings during prayers at mosques, lectures, sermons and cafe meetings between March 2008 and October 2010 and with seeking to impose a caliphate state.
All defendants have pleaded not guilty and several witnesses have so far refused to confirm their initial written testimony.
Another key witness, who once worked for the Al Waqf-Al Islami foundation also rejected his testimony on Monday. Muafak al-Assad, a Syrian national who once studied in Bulgaria, also said he was pressured by state security agents to refuse an interpreter and not to appear at the trial at all....
About 300 nationalists meanwhile demonstrated at the court with Bulgarian flags and signs reading "Bulgaria is a secular state" to protest what they said was "Muslim pressure" over the court during its previous hearings.
A crowd of long-bearded men and women wearing long black dresses had then gathered outside the courtroom to support their religious leaders but their outfit, which is not traditional for Bulgaria's Muslim minority, sparked a controversy. They were absent on Monday, however.
"We want to avoid conflicts," Bulgaria's deputy chief mufti Birali Birali, who was present at the hearing, said.
Bulgaria, whose population of 7.4 million is 80-percent Christian Orthodox, also has the highest percentage of native Muslims in the European Union, at about 13 percent.
They include Turks, Muslim Roma and Pomaks, like the accused, whose Christian ancestors were forced to convert to Islam during the country's Ottoman domination between the 14th and 19th century. The Pomaks are the most devout of the three subgroups, minority experts said.
Most experts also warned that, regardless of its outcome, the trial risks raising tensions between Bulgaria's Christian majority and the Muslim minority, who have lived together quietly since the fall of communism in 1989.


Wow. Just Wow.

Take a look at this Washington Post commentary by liberal Richard Cohen.  This particular entry is one of the most popular on the Washington Post 's web site today.

The closing of Mr. Cohen's commentary:
I will vote for Obama with regret. I wish he was the man I once mistook him for.
Good and bad news: Obama is no longer "The One" for liberals, but they'll vote for him anyway.

But it wasn’t the jews!

I have been waiting.
Al Gore:

Hurricane Sandy is a global-warming 


Former vice president-turned-climate-change-activist Al Gore warned Tuesday that the storm that ravaged the East Coast Monday is “a disturbing sign of things to come.”
“We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather,” Gore said in a statement posted on his blog Tuesday afternoon.

Why Are Liberals So Friggin' Stupid?

From the esteemed Victor Davis Hanson:

Note that Barack Obama is running not on his liberal record, but as a challenger against incumbent Mitt Romney who has done all sorts of terrible things like causing the 2008 meltdown and outsourcing jobs to China. In Obama’s view, given the supposedly tranquil world abroad, we must try nation building at home, and thus concentrate on bold new initiatives like stimulus, infrastructure, green jobs, and federalized health care — none of which have been envisioned before, much less funded. And to the extent Obama has a concrete example, he points to efforts of the private oil sector to find more gas and oil despite, rather than because of, his own efforts. Conclusion? Obama himself apparently has given up on liberal ideas in lieu of Big Bird, binders, bull****ter, movie stars, and hip-hopsters, which prompts the question: does anyone believe in liberal ideology anymore — and if so, why?

Did California’s redistributive elite really believe that they could all but shut down new gas and oil production, strangle the timber industry, idle irrigated farmland, divert water to the delta smelt, have 37 million people use a highway system designed for 15 million, allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the state without audit, extend free medical programs to 8 million of the most recent 11 million added to the population, up taxes to among the highest in the nation, and host one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients — and not have the present chaos?

The California schools — flooded with students whose first language is not English, staffed by unionized teachers not subject to the consequences of subpar teaching, and plagued with politicized curricula that do not emphasize math, science, and reading and writing comprehension — scarcely rate above those in Mississippi and Alabama. Did liberals, who wanted unions, a new curriculum, and open borders, believe it was good for the state to have a future generation — that will build our power plants, fly our airliners, teach our children, and take out our tumors — that is at the near-bottom in national test scores?

Do Bay Area greens really believe that they that will have sufficient water if they blow up the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir? [1] Did Barack Obama think that the Keystone pipeline or new gas and oil leases in the Gulf were superfluous, or that we do not need oil to make gasoline, wheat to make flour, or to cut timber to produce wood?

Did liberals (and their hand-in-glove employer supporters who wished for cheap labor) think that letting in millions from Central Mexico, most without legality, English, or a high school education (and in some sense at the expense of thousands waiting in line for legal admission with capital, advanced degrees, and technological expertise), was not problematic and that soaring costs in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, the schools, and the health care industries were irrelevant?

What, then, are the motivations that drive so many to such absurdities? Note here that I am talking of the architects of liberalism, not of those who receive generous entitlements and whose desire for bigger government is thus existential and elemental.

Equality of result
Keen minds from Aristotle to Montesquieu and Tocqueville have lamented that the proverbial people sometimes prefer equality under authoritarianism to inequality accompanied by personal freedom. As long as there was grinding poverty, the liberal agenda of “leveling the playing field” made sense enough — Social Security, disability insurance, the 40-hour work week, and Medicare. But once modern mass production and consumption arose, energized by globalization and the entry of billions of new foreign workers into the equation, and high technology extended the appurtenances of the aristocracy to the poor (today’s ubiquitous smart phone is 100 times more versatile than yesterday’s $3,000 primitive suitcase cell phone), how could you keep promoting government-sponsored equality for the less well-off? Ensure no one has to drive a Kia? Petition on behalf of those who do not yet have an iPad?

Weighing over 250 pounds, not rickets, is a national plague. Riots target sneaker stores, not food bins. Sandra Fluke naturally become the epitome of frustrated liberal-mandated equality. We are to believe that an upscale white law student, who by choice enrolls at a Catholic university, is deprived because her university will not pay for her condoms or abortion pills. Her cell phone no doubt costs more than a year’s supply of prophylactics [2]. The result is psychodrama, not class struggle, as liberals strain to find ways in which America is Les Misérables rather than the Kardashians, plagued by this obsession to step in and make everyone (except themselves) the same.

Black Chicagoans rage against the Obama, the leadership, the machine

From Legal Insurrection:

startling video released today by Jeremy Segal (“Rebel Pundit”) shows inner-city Black Chicagoans expressing outrage against President Obama, union racism, and the Democratic Machine, whom they say no longer represent their agenda.Further, when money is directed at their community, it is funneled through so-called community-based organizations and nonprofits or unions, and never touches the residents themselves. 
Community resident Paul McKinley says, “Everything in Chicago is controlled by the Democratic party. Everything in my community is controlled by Black Democrats. There is no Tea Party in my community. There is no Republicans. So they can’t blame the Tea Party.” Later, he says, “I tell you that the liberal agenda is not the black agenda, it is not the family agenda, and it is not the American agenda.” 
Another woman interviewed, Jean Ray, said, “They feel they can just take us for granted, and we’re just going to vote Democratic anyways. But if there was a Republican out here doing what I felt they should be doing, I would vote for them.” 
It goes beyond party politics. One woman, who describes how any money put into the community simply goes to (non-Black) union contractors, says, “As far as the community outreach, once again, these community organizations that’s taking money and shuffling paperwork, but not really reaching out to the community…The union won’t let us in, as a whole. They will not let us in. They will figure out any way to close the doors to us…I’m going to say it right out, they’re prejudiced against us”:


from Ace of Spades: 

The video made me think of the Bradley Effect, which is usually thought of as whites falsely claiming they will vote for a black candidate, thus inflating the black candidate's standing in the polls, as compared to actual votes.
I'm wondering if there isn't a black Bradley Effect in play at the moment.
Blacks support Obama -- they say -- by 92-8. That makes sense, as blacks generally vote for Democrats by 90-10 or, at worse, 88-12. With a black president on the ballot, 92-8 seems pretty likely.
Except... except for the fact of Obama's record, which is generally miserable, and specificallymiserable when it comes to soaring black unemployment and rising black poverty rates.
Plus, some progressive social policy adventurism, which is generally unpopular in the black community.
Now, the Bradley Effect posits that there is a "socially preferred" answer and, people being people, they offer the socially preferred answer -- sure, I'm voting for the black candidate -- in higher rates than they actually vote for that candidate. The voting booth makes no judgments, whereas in the usual sort of poll you're on the phone with a human being, who might.
It seems likely to me that within the black community there is an even stronger social preference tostating that one is supporting the first black president.
And so the polls might overstate Obama's support among blacks. Given the very high passions of some blacks about this -- Stacy Dash was vilified with the worst sort of racist and sexualized insults -- it just might be that more blacks are voting for Romney than are willing to say so aloud.
Now blacks only make up 12% of the population, and even a robust Bradley effect would only account for a 5% swing within that 12%; so we're not talking about large numbers of votes here.
Still, in a tight election, in a state like Pennsylvania... who knows.

GENIUS: Pepsi's Obama-style Branding Helped Crush Its Market Share

From Director Blue:

Who could have predicted that attaching your brand to an inexperienced, Alinsky-trained community organizer would turn out badly?

When Diet Coke surpassed Pepsi to become the No.2 soda in America, it was as if the Cola Wars had finally declared a winner: Coca-Cola...

[Much of the blame] has to do with the astronomical number of gaffes Pepsi has made in the past few years, particularly in its brand management and the way it has branded its flagship product...

Pepsi's 2009 logo redesign was dogged by political distractions


In which the first amendment to the US Constitution becomes enshrined in Egypt

Well, maybe not.

New FJP leader in Egypt calls for Sharia law

Saad al-Katatny elected head of Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, says goal is to “institute Islamic Sharia law.”

Saad al-Katatny was elected chairman of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party, Egyptian media reported Friday. He beat out FJP’s acting leader Essam al- Erian in a vote that took place October 6.
The FJP is Egypt’s largest political party, currently occupying 47 percent of all seats in the country’s lower house of parliament.
Of course the even more Salafi Nour party has another 25%. I think Sharia is probably ok with them.
Katatny hailed his election as “a first step” towards achieving the goals of the FJP, according to Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper.
In this respect, Katatny was quoted as saying that “The Muslim Brotherhood established the [FJP] to represent the Brotherhood’s political project, which, in the end, will be a wise government that will institute Islamic Shari’a law.”
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi earlier this year ran for office on the FJP ticket. However, he resigned from the party immediately after being elected.
Last week Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Muhammad Badie called on Muslims worldwide to liberate Jerusalem by means of jihad.
According to AFP, in his weekly message to supporters, Badie asserted that “The jihad for the recovery of Jerusalem is a duty for all Muslims,” stressing that the city’s conquest “will not be done through negotiations or at the United Nations.”
The Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide previously vowed that if the Muslim Brotherhood ever rose to power in Egypt, it would work to sever relations with Israel. “We are certainly not happy with the illegitimate marriage between Cairo and Tel Aviv,” he said.
“Once we rise to power we will change many things in Egypt’s policy, starting with the country’s relations with Israel which have caused us great harm.”
And helping this is the lauded foreign policy of our foreign policy prez, HIS STRONG SUIT.
We support …

File under: Someone’s credibility and judgement is REALLY going bye bye

  1. Gallup shows Romney +5% at 51-46, and has not shown Romney below 50% in a while.
  2. Gallup has 3,300 respondents (compared to 500-100 in a normal survey) of those who HAVE already voted, showing Romney 52-47
  3. Gallup shows Romney +2 in Ohio today
  4. Rasmussen shows Romney +2 in Ohio today
  5. The RCP avg for Ohio is locked, STILL, into polls from Time and others over a week old. Is this accurate?
And then ….
Nate Silver, ‘supergenius’, NYT 538 blog, from Politico:

Nate Silver: One-term celebrity?

Nate Silver could be a one-term celebrity.
The New York Times’s resident political predictor says President BarackObamacurrently has a 74.6 percent chance of winning reelection. It’s a prediction that liberals, whose heart rates continue to fluctuate with the release of every new poll, want to take solace in but somehow can’t. Sure, this is the guy who correctly predicted the outcome of the 2008 election in 49 of 50 states, but this year’s polls suggest a nailbiter.“Romney, clearly, could still win,” Silver told POLITICO today.
Prediction is the name of Silver’s game, the basis for his celebrity. So should Mitt Romney win on Nov. 6, it’s difficult to see how people can continue to put faith in the predictions of someone who has never given that candidate anything higher than a 41 percent chance of winning (way back on June 2) and — one week from the election — gives him a one-in-four chance, even as the polls have him almost neck-and-neck with the incumbent.Silver cautions against confusing prediction with prophecy. “If the Giants lead the Redskins 24-21 in the fourth quarter, it’s a close game that either team could win. But it’s also not a “toss-up”: The Giants are favored. It’s the same principle here: Obama is ahead in the polling averages in states like Ohio that would suffice for him to win the Electoral College. Hence, he’s the favorite,” Silver said.
Ahem, have a cup of coffee and get up a little earlier, Nate.
Maybe, just MAYBE, you missed the interception run back for the touchdown while you taking a piss, and then went straight back to that keyboard.
Is this going to be a mini 1980?

Thank You Barack Obama… 1/3 of Adult US Males Are Out of Work

From Gateway Pundit: 
Thanks to the the failed Keynesian economics of Barack Obama, one-third of adult men are out of work.
And, he has the nerve to ask for 4 more years? Really?
The Manhattan Institute reported:
In his 1980 presidential debate with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan looked directly into the television cameras and asked the American public, simply, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The question—posed by incumbent and challenger alike—has since become a recurring feature of presidential campaign season. Now, with Election Day 2012 nearly upon us, the Manhattan Institute has enlisted six of its fellows to take up the question anew. On issues such as housing prices, energy prices, unemployment, bank regulation, and America’s reputation in the Muslim world, the news is not good. We are not better off than we were four years ago and in some cases we are worse off—far worse off. However, the last four years have seen significant improvement in one issue area of historic concern to the Manhattan Institute: education.
Jeff Beck
Live At Ronnie Scott's
(full concert)

Monday, October 29, 2012

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939:“The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.
Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
Nigerian Suicide Bomber Kills 15 Christians and Injures 150 – 90% Are Children

From Gateway Pundit:
A suicide bomber yesterday killed 15 Christians and injured 150 at Saint Rita’s Catholic Church in Malali.
90% of the victims were children.