5 out of 535 Take Their Jobs Seriously

 Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal for America:

A strategy paper for the Muslim Brotherhood, often referred to as the Ikhwan in Arabic, found in the Virginia home of an unindicted conspirator, describes the group’s U.S. goals, referred to as a “civilization-jihadist process.”

“The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” it states. This process requires a “mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.'”

Only 5 stand against evil:

WASHINGTON – On June 13, amongst rising concerns that members of the Muslim Brotherhood may have infiltrated the highest levels of the U.S. government, Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Thomas Rooney, R-Fla., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., sent letters to the various inspectors general, acting inspectors general or deputy inspector general of the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense and Department of Justice, raising serious questions about their department’s policies and activities, which appear to be influenced by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In their letter to Ambassador Howard Geisel, Deputy Inspector General, Department of State, they state, “Given that the U.S. government has established in federal court that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in the United States is ‘destroying the Western civilization from within’ – a practice the Muslim Brothers call ‘civilization jihad’ – we believe that apparent involvement of those with such ties raises serious security concerns that warrant your urgent attention.”

The letter goes on to say, “The State Department and, in several cases, the specific direction of the Secretary of state, have taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”

They specifically cite Secretary Hillary Clinton’s personal intervention that allowed prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan to enter the United States, overturning a policy of a previous administration that precluded him from entering and pointed out, “Mr. Ramadan has reportedly used the visits thus made possible to engage in what the Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad’ in the United States: proselytization, recruitment, indoctrination, fundraising, and other forms of promotion of the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah.”

Also included in their concerns was Clinton’s “waiver of congressional restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority, which now has a so-called ‘unity government’ that includes Hamas, a designated terrorist organization and the Palestinian franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood. This cleared the way for a transfer of $170 million in U.S. foreign aid to terrorist organization, Hamas, and its partner, Fatah.”

In their letter to Department of Homeland Security Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards, they raised concerns about the advisory roles of three individuals, Dalia Mogahed, Mohamed Elibiary and Mohamed Magid, who have extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations and causes.

They wrote, “The problematic nature of this arrangement is evident from, for example, the use of Imam Magid by the Department of Homeland Security – among other federal agencies – as a liaison with the Muslim-American community insofar as he is the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in America, the Islamic Society of North America (lSNA). In this regard, we note that the ‘Supreme Guide’ of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Badie, in September 20I0 openly called for jihad by all ‘the Arab and Muslim peoples” against the United States.”

It goes on to state, “Examples of other aspects of the DepaIrment’s activities that suggest an undue, and potentially dangerous, influence exercised by such individuals within DHS or other parts of the federal government include: A DHS ‘Lexicon’ that obscures, rather than clarifies, the threat we face from jihadism. Its approved words effectively equate those perpetrating this threat with ones said to arise from ‘Christian patriots,’ ‘Constitutionalists,’ and ‘militia extremists.’”

The letters revealed numerous incidents in which departmental policy decisions were based on the influencing directives of the Muslim Brotherhood and/or other radical Islamist organizations.

On July 13, Bachmann responded personally to concerns raised in a letter from Rep. Keith Ellison, D- Minn., one of two Muslim members of Congress.

Bachmann referred to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Feb. 10, 2011, in which he stated “Brotherhood operatives” within the U.S. government may have directly influenced the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said, “Director Clapper’s statement was in response to a question by Rep. Sue Myrick about information entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terrorism finance trial in American history – that specifically identified these U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and their commitment to a published agenda to ‘destroying Western Civilization from within.’”

Ellison claimed their letter to the Department of State indicated: “The mother, brother and deceased father of Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that she, too, by extension, may be working on the organization’s behalf.”

Bachmann countered his statement with, “Not once in the letter to the Inspector General of the Department of State, as you summarize, was it stated that ‘by extension, (Ms. Abedin), may be working on the organization’s behalf.’ In fact, what we wrote was that: … the Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position provides her with routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.”

Bachmann stated, “Given the reasonable assumption that Ms. Abedin has a high-level security clearance, as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence I am particularly interested in exactly how, given what we know from the international media about Ms. Abedin’s documented family connections with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, she was able to avoid being disqualified for a security clearance. If these known and documented family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood would not disqualify someone for a security clearance, what specifically is the standard to be disqualified on foreign influence grounds?”

While Bachmann has taken heat from more than a few members of Congress, including Sen. John McCain over the letters, she has stood her ground.

And, on July 18, Rep. Michele Bachmannn, R-Minn., issued the following statement: “The letters my colleagues and I sent on June 13 to the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of State – and the follow up letter I wrote to Rep. Ellison on July 13 – are unfortunately being distorted.

“I encourage everyone, including media outlets, to read them in their entirety. The intention of the letters was to outline the serious national security concerns I had and ask for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical group’s access to top Obama administration officials.

“Most recently, the State Department shockingly decided to give Hani Nour Eldin, a member of an Egyptian designated terrorist group, a visa to not only enter the country in violation of the federal laws prohibiting material support for terrorism, but to be granted a meeting inside the White House with National Security Council officials.

“The terror group member used the opportunity of his White House visit to call for the release of the imprisoned leader of his organization, the ‘Blind Sheikh,’ Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and later planned terror plots inside the U.S.

“This is just the latest example of the dangerous national security decisions made by the Obama administration. I will not be silent as this administration appeases our enemies instead of telling the truth about the threats our country faces.”

Of course, those who publicly criticize & berate Baachmann and her collegues, will do what they do with bills that they vote on. Not read the documents and spew nonsense in replace of the facts.

Attribution: Linda Bentley

Droning On

FAR from the airplane-sized craft that are the face of cutting-edge warfare, a much smaller revolution in drones is under way.

Micro-aerial vehicles (MAVs) with uncanny navigation and real-time mapping capabilities could soon be zipping through indoor and outdoor spaces, running reconnaissance missions that others cannot. They would allow soldiers to look over hills, inside buildings and inspect suspicious objects without risk.

Unlike their larger cousins, whose complex navigation systems let them fly autonomously for hours or even days, MAVs are not known for their smarts. They typically rely on a GPS signal to tell them where they are, and on human operators for nearly everything else, such as where to go, what to look for and where to land.

Now researchers led by Roland Brockers at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, have developed a MAV that uses a camera pointed at the ground to navigate and pick landing spots. It can even identify people and other objects. The system enables the drone to travel through terrain where human control and GPS are unavailable, such as a city street or inside a building.

A human operator needs to tell the drone only two things before it sets off: where it is and where its objective is. The craft figures out the rest for itself, using the camera and onboard software to build a 3D map of its surroundings. It can also avoid obstacles and detect surfaces above a predetermined height as possible landing zones. Once it selects a place to put down, it maps the site’s dimensions, moves overhead and lands.

In a laboratory experiment, a 50 centimeter by 50 centimeter quadrotor craft equipped with the navigation system was able to take off, travel through an obstacle-filled indoor space and land successfully on an elevated platform. Brockers’s team is now testing the system in larger, more complex environments. The system was presented at the SPIE Defense, Security and Sensing conference in Baltimore, Maryland, in April.

Vijay Kumar of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia says that autonomous navigation and landing capabilities are unprecedented in a drone of this size. “Typically the information required to locate a landing site and stabilize a vehicle over it is coming in at a 100 times a second,” he says. “No one else has been able to design a system so small with this kind of processing power.”

With such capabilities making their way into ever smaller craft, it may not be long until the PD-100 Black Hornet (pictured right), which is set to become the world’s smallest operational drone, gets an upgrade as well.

As it stands the PD-100, which has been in testing by Norwegian manufacturer Prox Dynamics since 2008, can navigate autonomously to a target area using onboard GPS or fly a pre-planned route. It can also be controlled by a human from up to a kilometer away, has an endurance of up to 25 minutes, can hover for a stable view, and fly both indoors and out.

At just 20 centimeters long and weighing about 15 grams, the PD-100 makes the drone created by Brockers’s team look like a behemoth. And while it may look like a toy, Prox Dynamics claims it can maintain steady flight in winds of up to 5 meters per second. This has attracted the attention of the UK Ministry of Defence, which last year issued a request for the vehicle under the name “Nano-UAS”.

Attribution: New Scientist

Joke of the Day

A skydiving instructor was going through the question and answer period with his new students.

One of them asked the usual question always asked: “If our chute doesn’t open; and the reserve doesn’t open, how long would we have till we hit the ground?”

The jump master looked at him and in perfect deadpan answered: “The rest of your life.”

So a Priest, a Minister and a Rabbi…

Who did build that business, then, Mr. President?

by: Vincent Carroll

Let’s be honest: If the nearest priest, minister or rabbi had uttered essentially the same words about personal merit that got President Obama in trouble recently, we’d have hardly thought twice about it.

Reminding high-achievers that they didn’t make it on their own — that they’re not necessarily any smarter or more hard-working than lots of other folks — is a time-honored means of cultivating the virtues of gratitude and humility, not to mention a sense of realism.

But Obama is not a priest, minister or rabbi. He’s a man with his hand on the tiller of economic policy, and his attitude toward entrepreneurs, innovators and business owners in general is of major importance. So when he says, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” it tends to grab public attention — despite the creative claims of his campaign to portray his remarks as merely indicating that business owners hadn’t built “roads and bridges.”

Sorry to his campaign, but that’s not what he said. He said they didn’t build their businesses, while deprecating their savvy and hard work as the engines of success.

Now it’s true, as the MaddowBlog quickly pointed out, that Mitt Romney himself made much the same point when he said “a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help.”

What Romney did not say, though, was “you didn’t build” your business — and even if he had, there are two big differences between Romney saying it and the president.

First, we know Romney believes in an entrepreneurial culture. He’s lived it. And he extols free enterprise all the time as the foundation of prosperity.

By contrast, Obama’s background is bereft of any significant first-hand experience that might foster respect or sympathy for business owners. To the contrary, he hails from occupational niches — community activism, academia and politics — in which disdain for commerce is quite widespread.

Of course, you can be a law professor or a politician who bucks the ideological tide. Far more telling is that Obama for years has been making similar statements that suggest a decidedly low regard for commerce and the motives of those who flourish within the private sector.

One of these revealing moments occurred four years ago during his commencement address at Wesleyan University, when he exhorted graduates to take up community service. That’s a worthy theme, of course, but consider how he did it.

“There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care,” he said. “You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s. But I hope you don’t.”

Several times elsewhere in his speech, Obama cited public sector jobs as examples of meaningful work. The candidate basically offered graduates the following choice: meaningful work in the non-profit and public sectors, on the one hand, or money-grubbing that chases big houses and nice suits. To call this a caricature would be kind.

This nation is engaged in a decisive debate about how to revive an economy mired in slow growth and meager job creati0n, so naturally we pay attention to a candidate’s views of how the economy works. If Obama wants critics to stop saying he’s disdainful of business, maybe he should stop providing them with evidence for the charge.

Joke of the Day

A big game hunter goes on safari with his wife and his mother-in-law. One morning, the wife wakes up to find her mother gone. Immediately, she awakens up her husband and they both set off to find the old woman.

Suddenly, they break into a clearing and there’s the mother-in-law, standing face-to-face with a ferocious lion!

“Quick, darling,” the wife shouts frantically, “Do something!”

“Oh, no,” the husband says, “That lion got himself into this mess. Let him get himself out!”

The Ever-Tolerant Left

In yet another shining example of the lefts hypocrisy comes a story of a liberal city vs. the private sector. Always be tolerant and accepting of others’ views, except when they are not the “correct” views. Then it’s okay to stomp on them. As you read, notice also it is never stated that there is ever any actual discrimination, but the left needs always to invent villains & dragons to slay in the name of “Social Justice”. They have a lot of nerve picking on my favorite eating establishment.

BOSTON (The Blaze/AP) — The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant near the city’s “Freedom Trail” because of the company’s stance on gay marriage.

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the Boston Herald Thursday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail,” he added.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is “guilty as charged” in support of what he called the biblical definition of the

Worlds Best Chicken!

family.

Of course, people flipped out and the company was eventually forced to issue an official statement on its position.

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” the company said in a statement.

“Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But, apparently, that’s not good enough for Boston’s Menino who says he’s going to contact the comapny’s main office and tell them exactly how he feels.

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he threatened.

This isn’t the first time Menino has turned a business away. He blocked Walmart from putting in a development in 2011 because of the store’s supposed “impact on neighborhood businesses and lower-wage workers.”

And it looks like he’s set to do the same to Chick-fil-A.

“It doesn’t send the right message to the country. We’re a leader when it comes to social justice and opportunities for all,” Menino said, utterly oblivious to the irony of his statement.

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A has more than 1,600 stores nationwide but just two in Massachusetts, both located in suburban malls.