Obama is no friend of Israel

USA declares a united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

Obama has erred. This is the official declaration by this citizen that the United States of America suspends President Obama’s powers to invoke section 7(a) of the Act, and that United States of America declares all of Jerusalem is now and forever the capital of the Medinat Yisra’el (Israel).

Obama Signs Document That Tells Israel Jerusalem Is Not Your Capital

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

Obama signed this on June 3, 2011 – Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

Obama’s stance was proof that neither the U.S. nor the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Rudeineh told the agency.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the Federal Register.

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act Explained

Congress in 1995 passed a law recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and stating that “the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.” An inbuilt waiver authority allowed the president to postpone the move, in the interests of “national security,” for consecutive six-monthly periods. Reflecting the strong level of support in the U.S. for Israel and for Israel’s claim to Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed 374-37 in the House and 93-5 in the Senate.

President Clinton was not enthusiastic about the legislation, which he warned “could hinder the peace process.” He allowed it to become law, but without his signature.

Should the Jerusalem embassy not be opened by May 31, 1999, the law stated, the State Department would be barred from spending 50 percent of the funds allocated to buy and maintain official properties abroad during that fiscal year. The due date came and went, and then on June 17 Clinton issued the first “Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act” notice.

President Bush continued the policy every six months, to the continuing frustration of pro-Israel lawmakers who argued that the intent of Congress was for the waiver would only be justified in the case of a genuine security threat. A striking difference between Obama’s waiver notifications and those of President Bush is that in Bush’s case, he inserted into the legal jargon a sentence stating, “My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.” The phrase appeared in all 16 Bush waiver notifications.

Obama’s stance was proof that neither the U.S. nor the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Rudeineh told the agency.

“The world has made it clear that East Jerusalem has been occupied since 1967 and that it is the capital of the State of Palestine in the framework of the two-state solution.”

Israel insists that Jerusalem is its “eternal, indivisible” capital, a claim it says dates back some 3,000 years, to the reign of the biblical King David from the city. Historians note that while Jerusalem was fallen under the control of many empires and powers, no nation other than the Jews ever declared it its capital.

The Palestinians want Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent state.

“Jerusalem is the crux of the question of Palestine and the key to war and peace in the region,” the Palestine Liberation Organization’s mission to the United Nations declares on its Web site.”

Original Article Here

Related articles

• Romney says Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, vows to move embassy (theuglytruth.wordpress.com)

The Reasons Not To Make Fun of Muhammad

USA declares a united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

Obama has erred. This is the official declaration by this citizen that the United States of America suspends President Obama’s powers to invoke section 7(a) of the Act, and that United States of America declares all of Jerusalem is now and forever the capital of the Medinat Yisra’el (Israel).

Obama Signs Document That Tells Israel Jerusalem Is Not Your Capital

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

Obama signed this on June 3, 2011 – Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

Obama’s stance was proof that neither the U.S. nor the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Rudeineh told the agency.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the Federal Register.

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act Explained

Congress in 1995 passed a law recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and stating that “the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.” An inbuilt waiver authority allowed the president to postpone the move, in the interests of “national security,” for consecutive six-monthly periods. Reflecting the strong level of support in the U.S. for Israel and for Israel’s claim to Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed 374-37 in the House and 93-5 in the Senate.

President Clinton was not enthusiastic about the legislation, which he warned “could hinder the peace process.” He allowed it to become law, but without his signature.

Should the Jerusalem embassy not be opened by May 31, 1999, the law stated, the State Department would be barred from spending 50 percent of the funds allocated to buy and maintain official properties abroad during that fiscal year. The due date came and went, and then on June 17 Clinton issued the first “Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act” notice.

President Bush continued the policy every six months, to the continuing frustration of pro-Israel lawmakers who argued that the intent of Congress was for the waiver would only be justified in the case of a genuine security threat. A striking difference between Obama’s waiver notifications and those of President Bush is that in Bush’s case, he inserted into the legal jargon a sentence stating, “My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.” The phrase appeared in all 16 Bush waiver notifications.

Obama’s stance was proof that neither the U.S. nor the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Rudeineh told the agency.

“The world has made it clear that East Jerusalem has been occupied since 1967 and that it is the capital of the State of Palestine in the framework of the two-state solution.”

Israel insists that Jerusalem is its “eternal, indivisible” capital, a claim it says dates back some 3,000 years, to the reign of the biblical King David from the city. Historians note that while Jerusalem was fallen under the control of many empires and powers, no nation other than the Jews ever declared it its capital.

The Palestinians want Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent state.

“Jerusalem is the crux of the question of Palestine and the key to war and peace in the region,” the Palestine Liberation Organization’s mission to the United Nations declares on its Web site.”

Original Article Here

Lacking control drives muslims to false conclusion and conspiracy theories

Lacking control drives false conclusions, conspiracy theories and superstitions

“Control – you must learn control!” These wise words were uttered by no less a sage than Yoda, and while he was talking about telekinetically hoisting spacecraft, having control has another important benefit. It protects a person from spotting false patterns that aren’t there, from believing in conspiracies and from developing superstitions.

Control and security are vital parts of our psychological well-being and it goes without saying that losing them can feel depressing or scary. As such, people have strategies for trying to regain a sense control even if it’s a tenuous one. Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky from the University of Texas have found that one such strategy is to identify coherent and meaningful relationships between things we observe.

These patterns can help us to make sense of past events and predict future ones, affording us a degree of control over our fates, albeit an indirect one. We can’t change the weather, for example, but if we can tell when it’s going to rain, we can be prepared. At the more extreme end, conspiracy theories can help the bewildered to make sense of otherwise unconnected events. And explaining random events by invoking superstitions or higher beings can help to bring reality’s many possibilities within one’s understanding, if not under one’s heel.

Whitson and Galinsky demonstrated the link between desiring control and seeing patterns through a set of experiments that used a variety of psychological tricks to induce feelings of insecurity among groups of volunteers. With these tricks, they managed to induce a number of different illusions – increasing the risk of seeing false images, making links between unrelated events, creating conspiracy theories and even accepting superstitious rituals. Superficially, all of these behaviours seem quite different but they all involve seeing patterns where none exist. They have a common theme and now, this study suggests that they have a common motive too.

 

Losing control

To begin with, they asked students to watch pairs of symbols, one of which represented a specific concept. After ten trials, most could deduce the correct symbol but for some recruits, there was never any concept in the first place – every guess was essentially random and no amount of deduction would help. Without the ability to affect their scores, the recruits became understandably frustrated, but they also became more likely to see images where none existed.

Whitson and Galinsky presented them with pictures of objects that had been digitally doctored to make them “snowy” and grainy. If faint outlines of the image were left, virtually all the students saw it amidst the grain, but if absolutely all traces of the original were removed, students tended to see more images if their earlier efforts to deduce the right symbol were fruitless than if they had paid off.

Next, Whitson and Galinsky asked different students to remember a time when they either were in complete control of a situation or lacked it entirely. Afterwards, they were immersed in role-playing scenarios that involved superstitious beliefs. For example, they had to picture themselves as a marketing executive who always stomps three times before important meetings and has a good track record of getting ideas accepted. On a day when they forgot their foot-stomping ritual, their ideas were ignored.

Sure enough, the volunteers who reminisced about a lack of control were more likely to see a connection between the two events than those whose memories involved complete control. They were also more likely to worry about behaving in the same way in the future. So just thinking about absent control makes people more likely to embrace superstitions.

Of course, the recruits’ memories could reflect other feelings besides their degree of control – such situations are often threatening in some way, so perhaps it was a fear of threat that changed their behaviour. To control for this, Whitson and Galinsky added a slight twist to their earlier task – this time, they asked students to remember a situation in which something threatening happened, and in which they either had or lacked control.

Even though all of them had threatening situations on their minds, those who thought about losing control still saw more non-existent patterns. They were more likely to see images in random collections of black and white dots that resembled television static, and they were more likely to buy conspiracy theories. When told stories about good or bad events befalling someone, they were more likely to believe that it was due to the coordinated actions of their conspiratorial peers.

Stocks and interventions

The next experiment used a real-life setting that frequently demands the ability to predict inherently unpredictable events – the stock market. Volunteers read statements about the financial performance of two companies after hearing that the stock market was either stable or volatile. Both companies had twice as many positive statements as negative ones, but company A had twice as many statements overall than company B.

During a stable market, the information gap didn’t matter and volunteers were about just as likely to invest in either company. But if volatile conditions were afoot, a mere 25% minority decided to invest in company B and more likely to associate it with the negative information. With less control over the fate of their investments, they were more likely to make a false connection between company B and its negative statements, even though the pros actually outnumbered the cons for both companies.

So a lack of control not only affects our perceptions, but our actions too. What happens if you restore control? Will that reduce one’s propensity for seeing false patterns? To find out, Whitson and Galinsky asked volunteers to remember events where they had control or lacked it, and tested their tendency for see shapes in snowy images, and for believing conspiracy theories. This time, however, some of the volunteers were given a chance just before the tasks to complete a questionnaire on a value that was very important to them.

Studies have found that this sort of self-affirming exercise can help to counteract feelings of helplessness of distress, so the duo reasoned that it should go some way toward negating the tendency to see patterns brought on by a lack of control. And that’s exactly what happened – compared to volunteers who went straight into the tasks, those who remembered lacking control but had a chance to affirm their closely-held values were less likely to see patterns in snowy images or conspiracies in everyday events. Their behaved in the same way as volunteers who had thought about being in control in the first place.

Together, this group of experiments show that the need to feel in control is so powerful that people will resort to psychological solutions that return the world into a predictable state – pulling patterns from noise and causality from randomness.  Whitson and Galinsky acknowledge that each individual study only looked at a small number of people, but the results strengthen each other through their consistency and the fact that they were all statistically significant.

Good or bad?

Obviously, the effect has both good and bad sides that should make for interesting discussions. For a start, an ability to spot patterns isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It could be downright beneficial if it ramps up a person’s skill at spotting subtle trends that are actually real (although future studies need to test whether this actually happens).

Even spotting false patterns could have psychological benefits if it restores a person’s sense of control, increases their confidence or even reduces their risk of depression. Scientists, fond as we are of truth and fact, would typically argue that it’s better to get an accurate picture of the world around you. Whitson and Galinsky agree but they also take a pragmatic stance, saying that “it may be at times adaptive [to allow] an individual to psychologically engage with rather than withdraw from their environment.”

Of course, there are instances when making false connections can be downright damaging, especially if they’re used as the basis of bad, or even fatal, decisions. Imagined pharmaceutical conspiracies or implications drawn about medicines from one-off anecdotes could drive people to embrace fruitless or potentially dangerous forms of alternative treatment. People can avoid taking responsibility for, or psychologically coping with, events in their lives if they ascribe them to higher powers or sinister agencies. And seeing too much meaning in the actions of others could lead to paranoia and severed social ties.

Thankfully, Whitson and Galinsky’s work suggests that it’s possible to counteract the inclination to see misleading patterns by instilling people with a greater sense of security and control. In their own words, studies like these “hold promise for preventing futile pursuits born of the perception of illusory patterns.”

Reference: J. A. Whitson, A. D. Galinsky (2008). Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception Science, 322 (5898), 115-117 DOI: 10.1126/science.1159845

Proper Caption for this photo

Why We Are Afraid of the Evils of Islam, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

Why We Are Afraid of the Evils of Islam, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

 

 

USA declares a united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

See on Scoop.it – Islam Revealed

Obama has erred. This is the official declaration by this citizen that the United States of America suspends President Obama’s powers to invoke section 7(a) of the Act, and that United States…

See on paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com

Related articles

• The Quran Says that People of Other Religions are to be Violently Punished in This World (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)

Challenge to Write Suras Superior to the Quoran Accepted in Arabic

1 والآن يا إخوتي الأحباء، لقد قرأت هذه الأشياء التي قد تعرف أيها بشأن المواثيق الرب أنه مع معاهد كل بيت إسرائيل.

2 أن عليه قد تكلم حتى اليهود، عن طريق الفم من أنبيائه المقدسة، حتى من البداية إلى أسفل، من جيل إلى جيل، حتى يحين الوقت أنه لا يجوز لهم استعادة الكنيسة الحقيقية وأمثالها من الله، وعندما يكون هؤلاء تجمع موطنا لأراضي ميراثهم، وتنشأ في جميع أراضيهم من الوعد.

3 هوذا يا إخوتي الأحباء، أنا أتكلم لكم هذه الأشياء لعلكم نفرح، وارفعوا رؤوسكم إلى الأبد، وذلك لأن من النعم التي تضفي الرب الله عليه أطفالك.

(4) للوأنا أعلم أن كنتم قد بحثت كثيرا، وكثير منكم، لمعرفة من الأمور التي تأتي؛ ولهذا السبب أنا أعلم أن تعلمون أن لحمنا يجب النفايات بعيدا ويموت، ومع ذلك، في أجسامنا سنرى الله.

5 نعم، وأنا أعلم أن تعلمون أن في الجسم قال انه يجب إظهار نفسه مصلين الذين هم في القدس، من أين جئنا، لكان من المناسب أنه ينبغي أن يكون من بينها، بل من الضروري الخالق العظيم انه يعاني نفسه ليصبح الموضوع فقال الرجل في الجسد، والموت من أجل جميع الناس، أن جميع الرجال قد تصبح خاضعة له.

6 لهاث الموت كما مرت على جميع الرجال، لتحقيق خطة الرحمن الرحيم من الخالق العظيم، يجب أن تكون قوة احتياجات القيامة، والقيامة يجب أن آتي احتياجات الرجل بسبب سقوط، وجاء سقوط بسبب العدوان، ولأن الإنسان أصبح سقط وقطعوا من وجود الرب.

I’m Islamophobic

See on Scoop.it – Islam Revealed

For me it’s fear, not hatred, confesses Chris McEvoy.

See on www.women24.com

Related articles

• Four Stages of Islamic Conquest (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• ‘Sharia Harassment’ Plagues Egyptian Women (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• Dawn Ellen & Rican to the Right – Silenced by Jihad (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)

Indian Hindu Rally against Jihad at Consulate: “Save India from Islam” – Atlas Shrugs

See on Scoop.it – Islam Revealed

To the deafening chants of “Save India from Islam,” the Indian Hindu people gathered today on 5th Avenue by the Indian consulate in New York City to protest the relentless jihad against the free and brave nation.

See on atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the Peace Process

The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

 

View original post

Radical Islamic Chaplain at Northeastern Must Go!

The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

 

View original post

Facebook discussion of Being Unequally Yoked and Universalism

Mike Ghouse

JEWISH WOMAN WEDS A NEW THOUGHT CHRISTIAN MAN BY A MUSLIM OFFICIAINT – wedding on Saturday, August 25, 2012

Dallas, Texas – Not only are two special people being joined together, so are two spiritual traditions, as well. Out of different spiritual paths, they have come together to learn the best of what each has to offer, appreciating their differences, and confirming their love. So this is not only a joyous occasion, but a holy one, as well. May they see that their love for each other is truly a gift from God. http://interfaithmarriages.blogspot.com/2012/08/jewish-woman-weds-new-thought-christian.html

Paul Marcel-Rene Wow, this union in this manner is so wrong so many ways, I don’t know where to start. First, no Christian should be unequally yoked to a non-believer of the Son of God Jesus. Second, no muslim has the authority to marry anyone in the sight of God as they do not worship the same God of the Universe as do Christians and Jews. God will not recognize the marriage and its union is fornication.
15 hours ago · Like

Mike Ghouse

Paul, my friend, you did not ask questions to find what it is, instead you chose to pass judgments. Everyone on the earth can invoke God, it is the same God no matter what name you call it. The marriage is between two people with god as witness. God does not say different things to different people, we make that mistake.God is same, message is same – rituals differ.

Paul Marcel-Rene

What question shall I ask? I did not pass judgment, but rather simple stated fact as given in the article. You are correct, there is Only ONE God and His Son Jesus to whom all can invoke regardless of the name chosen. This does not make …See More

Fazal Shere

mike are you seriously going to debate with this guy?

Mike Ghouse

Paul, thanks for sharing your point of view.

For a political christian god is his private property, for a political muslim god is his to have, for a political Jew, god exclusively showers on him. However for a spiritual Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or other God is indivisible and every one is a part of him, and he is a part of everyone.

We have a choice to bottle up Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, and other souls or let them belong to whole humanity, my choice is UN-chain them and have them belong to all. Since God is free from our nets, so are theses souls.

I’ll be happy to learn and share, provided we free god and these souls from our cells. I hope you see another point of view.

Fazal Shere

i am not sure whether there is a God or not but if there is he/she cannot be this sublime creator and yet ridiculously parochial…

Paul Marcel-Rene

Of course God is not parochial. Let me attempt to frame this in an example. A single man has children. Now, the children are his by most human standards (there are exceptions, but that is a different subject). Now lets say the neighbors on either side claim the children as their own. Does the father share the children? Do the children now belong to the neighbors as well since they claimed them? Let us give names to these people as example of course. Lets call the single father God of the Holy Bible. Lets call the neighbor to the left allah, who is has been trying to get God’s job as well. Lets call the neighbor to the right Vishnu. I maintain, with the creator God of all things, that the children (the whole human race) remain God’s (the Christian and Jewish God), and not the allah of islam, not vishnu of Hinduism, or of any other “neighbor” down the street.

Paul Marcel-Rene

Now, Mike Ghouse, let me address your comment. There is no distinction between any person in regards to the divine nature God has given each individual. But, the indwelling of the spirit of God, happens only from those who fully accept Him and His Son Jesus. Being “spiritual” is a man’s way of responding to the divine nature God gave all, but spirituality without full knowledge of God and His Holy Word found only in the Holy Bible, does not free mankind, but rather enslaves him to the limits of the human condition without the means to be given eternal life in paradise once he sheds this mortal coil.

As for “bottling up” the list of individuals, I will need first to explain that God intended only the Prophet of God Moses and the Son of God Jesus to be for all mankind. Though, acknowledge that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha was a very wise man whose teachings were helpful at that time in that place. Krishna is an invention of man to explain that which they had no explanation and thus stands out in the list of individuals. And then mohammad, who founded a political system with a heavy religious bent from half remember Christian, Jewish, and local paganism who’s major tenet is denial of the Son of God Jesus.

 

2 Corinthians 6:14

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

His Only-begotten Son and the Word of God 1885-1896

Related articles

• Love for Mankind (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• Muslim Contributor to Answering Christianity returns to the Son of God Jesus (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• Shirk Idol Islamic Building (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)

Scientific Miraclles in the Quran Debunked

Scientific Miraclles in the Quran Debunked

Glenn Beck Interview about the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood

Glenn Beck Interview about the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood

Click the link above: