Tag Archives: Osama Bin Laden

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

Obama Gets SEAL’ed! Navy SEALs ‘Swift Boat’ the Prez

Ben smith

Navy Seals and other Special Operations forces have teamed up to create this video blasting the Obama administration for not only taking credit for Bin Laden’s death, but leaking highly sensitive intelligence information in the process of the announcement and the days and months following.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama Bin Laden. America killed Osama Bin Laden. The work that the American military has done killed Osama Bin Laden” – Ben Smith, Navy Seal.

“We have become a political weapon. We are not. Our job is to be silent professionals. We do not seek recognition. We do not seek popularity” – Ben Smith, Navy Seal.

“If I had one piece of advice for this administration it would be the same thing former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said…Shut the f*** up!” – Bob Cowan, Lt.Colonel, USMC (retired)

These men are trained in the art of stealth. They are nurtured in the environment of secrecy. For Navy Seals and other classified operatives to come forward publicly and denounce the President on this issue is, as our esteemed Vice President might say a “big, f***ing deal”.

Obama is being swift boated…scratch that. He’s been SEAL’ed!

Watch it all. And share (runs about 22 minutes).

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Valerie Jarrett Blocked Three Bin Laden Kill Raids

Screen Shot 2012-07-30 at 1.26.27 AM

We’ve all seen the brilliance of Obama’s Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, in action.  She stated that unemployment stimulates the economy and the distribution of the related checks is good for the economy.  How far gone would you have to be to believe this drivel?  However, in the realm of foreign affairs, it’s more unbelievable.   According to the Daily Caller, Jarrett put the kibosh on plans to kill Bin Laden not once, but three times!  The Executive Editor for The Daily Caller, David Martosko, wrote on July 29 that:

 In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

What possible reason could one have for not killing Bin Laden?  Reasons that don’t include the typical characteristics of liberal academia, which usually revolve around the incessant reiteration of international law, moral authority, martyrdom dilemma, and outright weakness.  We don’t need notes from study sessions to be factored into the methodology for every executive decision. We killed bin Laden, his martyrdom hasn’t really galvanized the Arab world, and international law was kinda rejected since we did, in the end, violate the territorial integrity of Pakistan. No major backlash.  So what was the problem?  Valerie, we’re waiting on you.

A Year of Historic Elections

The year 2012 is rapidly becoming a year of historic elections.

Greece held one recently where no single Party won enough of the vote to form a government. In ensuing weeks, no progress was made by the nation’s Parties while negotiating to form a coalition. This potentially could lead to a chaotic situation – not just for Greece. The eventual outcome might lead to that country’s exit from the Eurozone. Fragmentation or an unraveling of the Eurozone would have enormous impact on Europe as well as a sagging global economy.

France elected a Socialist president who plans to reopen the spigot of government largess. What’s noteworthy about the French election is that Hollande’s victory was due in large part to a boost from Islamist voters. Having a presidential election within one of the European Union’s largest economic powers decided by voters whose cultural background includes centuries of antagonism and hostility towards Europe should be quite alarming to all of western civilization.

Now Egypt’s presidential election is apparently headed for a runoff between Mohammed Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate and former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq. The Egyptian election, declared by world leaders as an historic first, could well be a harbinger for the Middle East, Europe and the world

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood has since called for an end to the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. The strongly conservative Islamic movement wants Egypt to move away from secularism and be ruled by the Quran. That does not bode well for western civilization. If an Egyptian government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood ends the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty, the front line of western civilization will be in enormous peril. Not only is Israel the only true democracy in the Middle East, it’s the sole nation in the region where religious tolerance is practiced.

In America, November’s election will also hold historical significance. Will voters in the United States re-elect an incumbent who sat silently by while a tyrannical, Quran ruled theocracy in Iran slaughtered it’s own citizens in cold blood for disputing election results? Will voters re-elect the candidate who openly supported the Arab Spring revolts that led directly to the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Will voters choose to retain someone who so lusts to bask in glory for “getting” Osama bin Laden that his administration granted access to highly restricted national security information to Hollywood producers to make a movie glorifying “his” achievement? A movie scheduled for release right before the election? Will the United States choose to keep those in power that leaked to Pakistan the name of the doctor who helped find bin Laden, resulting in his being sentenced to decades in prison by what’s at best a fair weather ally? Will voters elect to continue an administration that insists on calling the war on terror “an overseas contingency operation”? That continues calling terrorist attacks “man caused disasters”? That’s own Secretary of State officially refers to Osama bin Laden as a murder, instead of a terrorist?

The current White House occupant violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chaimanship of the UN Security Council. He reduced NATO security by canceling missile defense shield installations in Europe, supported a pro-Chavez candidate in Honduras and violated the Law by engaging the United States military in overseas hostilities without the consent of Congress. He’s abandoned enforcing the security of American borders while transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to enemies of the United States through Foreign Aid. He’s snubbed Britain, one of America’s traditional allies repeatedly, and treated the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel the way a member of the KKK would treat a Negro.

Over the past century, especially post WWII, America has been leader of the free world. Having originated from and being comprised primarily of former European colonies, America is naturally the leader of the western world. By extension, that makes the President of the United States the leader of western civilization. Will U.S. voters re-elect someone whose own actions indicate open hostility towards western civilization, or elect someone who will defend the west?

History shows Americans will vote to defend the west. What “progressives” will choose is largely foretold by the actions already taken by their choice in 2008 for the Office of the Presidency.

The November 2012 U.S. elections will indeed be historic. Not just for Americans.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/a-year-of-historic-elections/

Married To The Game: Where Have All Of The Entrepreneurs Gone?

miccheck

In this episode of the Married to the game, we discuss:

-Why Mitt Romney’s supporters should thank Newt.

-Why sex offenders should volunteer to remove themselves from society.  (self deportation)

-Where have the entrepreneurs gone?

-Can we make people “work” for their welfare?

-Why does Day Care cost SO MUCH???

-Have we reached a point where government regulation is killing our small businesses?

-What is America going to look like, if ONLY the irresponsible people continue to reproduce/have children?

-What if YouTube made you have to join an Actor’s Union to create and post videos?

-What did Michelle Ray do to risk Social Services being called on her?

CLICK HERE NOW to listen to the lengthy, yet fresh discussion.

 

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Obama’s end zone dance

Osama's death makes an important in–kind contribution to the Obama campaign.

Osama's death makes an important in–kind contribution to the Obama campaign.

It’s not often I agree with Sen. John McCain (R–Ego), but his description of Obama’s Osama commercial is apt. “No one disputes that the president deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy,” McCain said. “This is the same president who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn’t ‘spike the ball’ after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is… doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get re-elected.”

Even the Post Twins: Washington & Huffington find the ad distasteful, with Dana Milbank describing it and the campaign so far as, “sleazy.”

Even judging the ad strictly on content and message finds it deeply flawed.

Start with Bill Clinton as narrator. When the late, credibility–challenged Richard Nixon was running for office, Democrats used to ask, “Would you buy a used car from this man?” But when it comes to Bill Clinton, I wouldn’t buy a used car or date a used girlfriend.

Clinton is single handedly responsible for two of the biggest pre–9/11 failures. First he botched a chance to capture Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Second was his appointment of Jamie Gorelick to the Justice Department where her trademark “wall of separation” prevented the FBI and the CIA from connecting the dots and possibly preventing 9/11 in the first place.

The only raid I can recall Bill Clinton and his administration mounting was on a ramshacklecompound in Waco, TX. But wait, that must be it! Religious fanatics holed up in a poorly–constructed dump located in the hinterland of some God–forsaken wilderness without a Starbucks. The symmetry is perfect! Call Clinton’s people and see if he’s available.

What’s next, an ad on the fight against sex trafficking by the Cartagena 12?

The ad’s message problem is the complete lack of a sense of proportion. Let’s begin by addressing the operations side. SEAL Team 6’s performance was characterized by skill, daring and professionalism. These anonymous warriors penetrated deep into hostile territory and successfully eliminated America’s Public Enemy #1, without the loss of a single man. Each risked his life in the service of his country and their families faced the potential loss of a husband, father and/or son. So for them individually the scale of the operation involved their entire world.

But for the nation as a whole the scale is much different, in spite of the risible efforts of the parade of pantywaists in the White House who are attempting to conflate a small–scale incursion into “the most audacious plan” in 500 years.

Getting Osama was simply a raid: A short–term intrusion into enemy territory to eliminate a high value target. It was not D–Day. It was not dropping the atomic bomb. It was not theInchon landing. It’s not even Lincoln facing the election of 1864 wondering if Gen. William T. Sherman would fail in his march on Atlanta and doom the war effort.

The big deal these acolytes — most of whom have never served a day in uniform — make about Obama ordering the mission is simply ludicrous. In the commercial a lonely Obama stares out an Oval Office window into a threatening, overcast sky with the weight of a nation on his noble shoulders as he ponders the decision.

But what he’s actually wondering is where he can get a can of Bag Balm to rub on his hands, because they are really chapped after being wrung non–stop for the many hours he agonized over an obvious decision.

The question is not would Mitt Romney have ordered the raid. The question is, who wouldn’t have ordered it?

I suppose Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Sadique Khan would have said “no,” but I bet Muhammad Ali would have said “yes.”

And unless one was conducting an informal survey in the tonier sections of Alexandria, VA or Bethesda, MD eight out of ten strangers encountered on the sidewalk would have said, “Hell yes, light him up!”

What if the raid had failed? I can assure you the US would not have collapsed into the fetal position and begun mewling like a kitten. (Although I can’t speak for Joe Biden.) The military would have simply looked for another opportunity.

But I can tell you who is enjoying this ad: The maniacs in Iran, who are not holed up in a compound. After watching this they know there is no chance Obama, the Equivocator–in–Chief, will ever order a strike to prevent their building a nuclear weapon.

Meanwhile, it’s a good that Osama was buried at sea. It removes the temptation to have Barack pose with the body in a new commercial should his poll numbers continue to decline.

Hail to the Narcissist in Chief!

Obama's U.S.

NarcissistPsychoanalysis. a person suffering from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

NarcissismPsychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one’s own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

I figured it was best to clear the air, and point out the meanings of those two words from a psychoanalytical point of view. (For those that are particular about such things, those are the second definitions offered at Dictionary.com, as the first were simple English definitions, as opposed to the clinical ones.)

Now, there is no shortage of complaints from the right about the smug, self-righteous attitude citizens of this nation see daily out of the White House. The President has arguably raised this to an art-form, not that this is a good thing. After working far too many political campaigns over a span of over 20 years, I learned one very important fact – sane people do not run for public office. That is not to say that they are all ready for a padded room, but they are all at least a little mentally unbalanced. One needs to be, in order to be willing to have one’s life placed under a microscope by the masses, with the high probability that every skeleton in one’s closet will be dragged out for all to see. And the most common mental “quirk” among politicians is arguably narcissism. It makes sense, because if one doesn’t love oneself a great deal, it is unlikely that individual will manage being berated daily by detractors without acquiring another mental malady – depression.

However, in Obama’s case, the narcissism is quite a bit more severe than in most other politicians. And now that the tide is gradually turning against him, it is apparently causing him to attempt to transfer his own high opinion of himself on everyone else. Since he’s taken to promoting his vision of the United States as an extension of himself, I humbly suggest that our little narcissist Obama has slipped to the point of being downright delusional. If defining an entire generation in his own image, with #Gen44, didn’t warn people of this development, there are new signs just in the past few days.

First, it was the campaign ad that suggested Romney might not have been gutsy enough to order the death of Osama bin Laden. One would think that Obama had learned a lesson or two about the difference between being a candidate for the Presidency, and being President. The candidate Obama made promises about getting out of Afghanistan, before he was privy to all the neat little details that only the President would know. Now he wants to make suppositions about what his presumptive opponent in November might do in a situation that cannot be truthfully tested for multiple reasons, not the least of which being that it already occurred, and can’t again? Obama can’t even play “what if” on this in a debate, because that would involve revealing state secrets for Romney’s benefit.

But that, unfortunately, was just a start. Then, Obama thought it was a good idea to share some artwork that apparently depicts his vision of America.

Obama's U.S.

Yes, Obama’s ego has grown so large that he thinks that he is the face of this nation, perhaps for all time. Perhaps we should get nervous if he starts taking time out from campaigning to visit South Dakota – then we need to worry about whether or not he has intentions of immortalizing himself on Mt. Rushmore, perhaps replacing another president, or worse, replace them all! I think Adam Baldwin got it right with his comparison:

Now, we all know this isn’t just about a painting, disgusting as it may be. It is about the concept, that we have a president that thinks that he is more important than the sum total of the citizens of this nation. And his precious little minions are buying it. They believe him when he tells them that Democracy is still safe even if the government controls everything. Obama says that we are still a nation that protects free speech, as his minions run amok silencing the opposition. He promises a nation free from hate, at least if you happen to agree with him. And finally, back to Osama bin Laden, Obama takes personal credit for the end of that man’s life. So, is this the United States of America, or the Narcissist States of Obama?

Married To The Game Mar 17th: Apple, The Primary, And Your Introduction To SooperMexican

This weekend’s show was a little more informal than most.  We discussed what it’s like to be an Apple computer owner for the first time, and we touched a little bit on Apple’s performance in the market (as the world’s most valuable company).  We discussed the differences between the Verizon and AT&T iPads (yup there’s actually some differences).

We talked about Osama Bin Laden’s opinion of Joe Biden.

We talked about the “Stop Kony” narrator walking around naked in BROAD DAYLIGHT.

We talked about the Tom Hanks narrated campaign ad for Barack Obama.

And you got to/get to meet the multitalented @SooperMexican.  If you haven’t met Sooper Mex before, he’s quite a handful.  He’s a firecracker, even.  He runs his own website, SooperMexican.com, and he also happens to be an artist who’s contributed to MisfitPolitics.co.  He’s VERY outspoken on Twitter and has been known to ruffle feathers (mine included), but he’s a passionate conservative, and someone you should really give a chance.

Plus many more topics that were peppered in.  You’ll just have to listen right here.  (or in the player below)

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

New Book on Radical Islam Declares: ‘This Is the War of Our Generation!’

Dr. Jim Denison Explains to Westerners ‘Why Muslims Still Hate Us, What We Can Do’

DALLAS, July 26, 2011 — On the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, author and educator Jim Denison explains in his new book, “Radical Islam: What You Need to Know,” that the greatest threat our children have ever faced is Muslim extremism. “The battle waged against the West by radical Muslims is the war of our generation,” Denison says. “Killing bin Laden doesn’t end this war.”

James C. Denison, Ph.D., is a cultural apologist, building a bridge between faith and culture by engaging contemporary issues with historical, scientific and biblical truth. He founded the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture (DFTC) in February 2009 and writes for “The Dallas Morning News,” contributing weekly to the “Texas Faith Forum.” He currently serves on the board of the Baylor Health Care System and as chair of the advisory board for Dallas Baptist University. Denison is former senior pastor of Park Cities Baptist Church, a 10,000-member congregation in Dallas.

Dr. Denison’s daily cultural commentary is made available around the world to thousands of subscribers. It offers a faith perspective on topics as varied as medical ethics, the 2012 election, the Casey Anthony trial, gay marriage and many more topics.

“The events of 9/11 are still painfully raw for many,” said Dr. Abraham Sarker, former Muslim and founder and president, Gospel for Muslims, who has worked alongside Denison in his native Bangladesh. “Ten years later, questions remain about the world’s fastest-growing religion and the worldview of its 1.6 billion adherents. Jim Denison’s book provides a timely, insightful interpretation of this movement in our times. His understanding of radical Islam is accurate and balanced. His intellectual brilliance and excellent communication skills engage and support readers in navigating these complex issues.”

“Radical Islam” begins with a look at Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader killed in May in a U.S. Special Forces raid in Pakistan, and examines the ramifications of bin Laden’s death, including whether it was just. The book goes on to explain what distinguishes radical Islam from the rest of the Muslim world, then addresses basic questions: “Where was God on 9/11?” and “How Do We Win This War?”

“It’s been my privilege to know and befriend Muslims from six continents through respectful dialogue over the past 30 years,” said Denison. “But the fact remains that the threat of radical Islam is even more real and dangerous than it was 10 years ago. Osama bin Laden is dead, but his story isn’t over. His followers are more resolved than ever.

“This book is a primer that tells Westerners what they need to know about this threat, why radical Muslims still hate us and what we can do about it.”

Denison briefly touches on basic Muslim beliefs before focusing on the two tenets that distinguish radical Islam. First, extremists contend the West has been attacking Islam since the Crusades, and therefore Islam must be defended through violent attacks. Second, radical Muslims believe all Westerners are complicit in the ongoing siege of Islam because of their participation in a democratic society, and therefore in terrorist attacks on the West there are no innocent victims.

Faced with this worldview, Denison writes, both Christians and secular Westerners must act. He offers practical ideas on how to handle the threat, including praying for Muslims and supporting Christians from Muslim backgrounds.

“Radical Islam” will be available in August as a trade paperback for $13.99 and distributed by Wescott Marketing. It also will be available as an e-book Aug. 15 through all major e-book sales sites.

The first chapter, which explores bin Laden’s life and whether his death was just, along with an opportunity to subscribe to Dr. Denison’s daily cultural commentary, are available at http://www.dftc.co/presskit.

“Radical Islam” is the first in the “Unlocking the Truth” series of books offering a spiritual perspective on key cultural issues facing America. Denison is also the author of six books, including the most recent, “Wrestling with God: How Can I Love a God I’m Not Sure I Can Trust?” by Tyndale House Publishers.

The Denison Forum on Truth and Culture (DFTC) (http://www.denisonforum.org) exists to engage contemporary culture with moral truth. Founded by Dr. Jim Denison in 2009, the Forum responds to issues through a variety of communications and channels, including a column in “The Dallas Morning News,” daily online cultural commentary, Baylor Health Care System board membership, books, articles and speaking engagements.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

CONTACT: Ty Mays @ 770-256-8710

[email protected]

« Older Entries