Posted on 04/24/2013 1:12:17 PM PDT by NoGrayZone
One more item you need to be aware of.
The State Dept gave refugee status to the bombers family, probably through USAID, and WHO worked for them....
[snip]Without a doubt, Grover Norquist’s team has infiltrated USAID’s lucrative contract whirl.
In April of 2005, the respected scholar Daniel Pipes asked “Is Grover Norquist an Islamist?” Grover’s November 2004 marriage to the Muslim Samah Alrayyes reveals an insider at USAID in the Bush years. Samah Norquist’s bio is an indictment of Grover Norquist’s designs on USAID contract information. Samah was the Public Affairs Specialist for Arab and Muslim outreach at the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs at USAID:
In her position, she works on developing and implementing communications and public affairs planning with regard to various Muslim and Arab outreach issues including USAID activites in Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle and Near East and many parts of the Muslim world where AID is present. This includes serving as a liaison with Muslim and Arab American interest groups to brief them on USAID activities in the developing world and coordination of the Agency’s participation in events, conferences, and discussions designed to educate the publics about American foreign assistance.
Notably, Samah Norquist served on the board of the Islamic Free Enterprise Institute along with Khaled Saffuri. And for those, like Cleta Mitchell, who are willfully blind to the activities of Grover Norquist on the Shariah Compliant front and possible connections with Muslim Brotherhood operations in the tiers of the non-profit industry, it should be noted that a third operative of the Alamoudi stripe has made it big in the world of USAID.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-norquist-cell-operation-groverkhan#ixzz2QvUKhWio
Sorry If it replied to you. I was just Bumping it For Later (BFL).
Allah is Satan. Is that gutsy enough? :)
It's a rumor that refuses to die. A Saudi named Al Alaweed bought 7% of Fox. Somehow that's morphed into "51%".
You can have significant influence in a corporation with a minority interest and, if the company is publicly traded, you can often gain effective control of the company with far less than 51%. Why? Because most shareholders don’t vote.
As little as 7% interest? Sure. Why not.
bump
Yes, even with as little as 7% depending on how widely held the shares are, the rules that the corporation has for appointing directors and whether you have any allies among the significant shareholders. I have shares in a number of companies and have never attended a Board meeting or voted by proxy. I suspect that’s the case with many shareholders. The fewer who participate, the lower the percentage required to exert control.
No problem I have been hammered on here so much I often overreact.
Islam Delenda Est - because of what Islam is & what Muslims do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.