Biro Umroh VIP Legal di Jakarta Barat Hubungi 021-9929-2337 atau 0821-2406-5740 Alhijaz Indowisata adalah perusahaan swasta nasional yang bergerak di bidang tour dan travel. Nama Alhijaz terinspirasi dari istilah dua kota suci bagi umat islam pada zaman nabi Muhammad saw. yaitu Makkah dan Madinah. Dua kota yang penuh berkah sehingga diharapkan menular dalam kinerja perusahaan. Sedangkan Indowisata merupakan akronim dari kata indo yang berarti negara Indonesia dan wisata yang menjadi fokus usaha bisnis kami.
Biro Umroh VIP Legal di Jakarta Barat Alhijaz Indowisata didirikan oleh Bapak H. Abdullah Djakfar Muksen pada tahun 2010. Merangkak dari kecil namun pasti, alhijaz berkembang pesat dari mulai penjualan tiket maskapai penerbangan domestik dan luar negeri, tour domestik hingga mengembangkan ke layanan jasa umrah dan haji khusus. Tak hanya itu, pada tahun 2011 Alhijaz kembali membuka divisi baru yaitu provider visa umrah yang bekerja sama dengan muassasah arab saudi. Sebagai komitmen legalitas perusahaan dalam melayani pelanggan dan jamaah secara aman dan profesional, saat ini perusahaan telah mengantongi izin resmi dari pemerintah melalui kementrian pariwisata, lalu izin haji khusus dan umrah dari kementrian agama. Selain itu perusahaan juga tergabung dalam komunitas organisasi travel nasional seperti Asita, komunitas penyelenggara umrah dan haji khusus yaitu HIMPUH dan organisasi internasional yaitu IATA.
Sebuah Kasus Pemukulan Pramugari Diambil Alih Polres Pangkalpinang
saco-indonesia.com, Kasus pemukulan terhadap pramugari Sriwijaya Air, Nur Febriani, yang dilakukan Kepala Badan
Koordinasi Penanaman Modal daerah (BKPMD) Provinsi Bangka Belitung (Babel) diambil alih Polres
PANGKALPINANG, Saco_Indonesia.com - Kasus pemukulan terhadap pramugari Sriwijaya Air, Nur Febriani, yang dilakukan Kepala Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal daerah (BKPMD) Provinsi Bangka Belitung (Babel) diambil alih Polres Pangkalpinang.
"Berkas dari Polsek Pangkalanbaru sudah kita ambil alih. Pengambil alihan perkara ini supaya proses penyidikannya lebih cepat. Karena di Polsek Pangkalanbaru, penyidiknya masih menangani beberapa kasus lainnya," kata Kapolres Pangkalpinang, AKBP Bariza Sulfi, sabtu (8/6/2013) kemarin.
Ia mengatakan, berkas perkara dan barang bukti dari Polsek Pangkalanbaru sudah diserahkan penyidik Polres Pangkalpinang. Selanjutnya, berkas tersebut akan ditangani oleh Unit Reskrim Polres Pangkalpinang.
AKBP Bariza Sulfi menjelaskan, pihaknya hanya menangani perkara penganiayaan yang dilakukan Zakaria terhadap Nur Febriani. Untuk dugaan pelanggaran undang-undang keselamatan penerbangan tidak ditangani Polres Pangkalpinang.
"Saat ini kita hanya menangani kasus pidana pemukulannya saja. Kita tidak menerapkan kasus ke dalam undang-undang keselamatan penerbangan," kata Bariza Sulfi.
Hal ini karena sesuai pemeriksaan, hal-hal yang berkait dengan dugaan pelanggaran keselamatan penerbangan tidak terjadi di Pangkalpinang. Akan tetapi, terjadinya di Bandara Soekarno Hatta, Tangerang.
Seperti diberitakan sebelumnya, Zakaria dilaporkan ke aparat kepolisian oleh seorang pramugari Sriwijaya Air bernama Febriani. Pemukulan itu terjadi di pesawat bernomor penerbangan SJ 078 tak lama setelah mendarat di Bandara Depati Amir, Pangkal Pinang, Rabu (5/6/2013) sekitar pukul 19.30 WIB.
Dalam kasus ini, Zakaria sudah ditetapkan sebagai tersangka dan sudah ditahan oleh aparat kepolisian. Zakaria dianggap bertanggung jawab karena telah memukulkan gulungan koran ke arah bagian belakang leher korban sehingga menimbulkan bekas kemerahan. Pemukulan tersebut dipicu kekesalan tersangka karena ditegur korban untuk mematikan ponsel saat pesawat akan lepas landas dari Bandara Soekarno-Hatta, Tangerang, sekitar satu jam sebelumnya.
Upaya damai kedua belah pihak sudah ditempuh dengan permohonan maaf dari Zakaria. Namun, Febriani masih trauma dan tidak terima dengan perlakuan tersebut sehingga kasus ini tetap dibawa ke jalur hukum. (Hendra)
Hubungan Minangkabau dengan bangsa Barat yang pertama kali dilakukan dengan bangsa Portugis. Menurut berita Portugis, permulaan
Hubungan Minangkabau dengan bangsa Barat yang pertama kali dilakukan dengan bangsa Portugis. Menurut berita Portugis, permulaan abad ke 16 ada utusan kerajaan Melayu yang datang ke Malaka. Kedatangan utusan tersebut adalah untuk membicarakan masalah perdagangan dengan bangsa Portugis yang waktu itu menguasai Malaka. Tetapi dengan berhasilnya Aceh menguasai pesisir barat pulau Sumatera, maka hubungan dagang dengan Portugis itu terputus.
Dengan bangsa Belanda hubungan Minangkabau terjadi pertama kali kira-kira tahun 1600, diwaktu Pieter Both memerintahkan Laksamana Muda Van Gaedenn membeli lada ke pantai barat pulau Sumatera. Waktu itu beberapa pelabuhan yang ada disana menolak permintaan Belanda dibawah kekuasaan Kerajaan Aceh.
Pada waktu Sultan Iskandar Muda dari kerajaan Aceh meninggal dunia, maka kekuasaan kerajaan Aceh menjadi lemah, sehingga mulai tahun 1636 sewaktu Iskandar Muda meninggal dunia, daerah-daerah Pesisir Barat kerajaan Pagaruyung mulai membebaskan diri dari kekuasaan Aceh dan melakukan hubungan dagang langsung dengan Belanda, seperti yang dilakukan oleh raja-raja Batang Kapas, Salido, Bayang di Pesisir Selatan.
Pada tahun 1641 Belanda merebut Malaka dari Portugis dan semenjak itu Belanda mulai memperbesar pengaruhnya di pesisir barat Sumatera untuk menggantikan kerajaan Aceh. Mula-mula Belanda mendirikan kantor dagangnya di Inderapura terus ke Salido. Kemudian di Pulau Cingkuak juga didirikan lojinya pada tahun 1664 untuk mengatasi perlawanan rakyat pesisir yang dikoordinir oleh Aceh.
Untuk melepaskan pesisir barat pulau Sumatera dari pengaruh Aceh, maka Belanda melakukan perjanjian dengan raja Pagaruyung yang merupakan pemilik sesungguhnya dari daerah tersebut. Oleh raja Pagaruyung Belanda diberikan kebebasan untuk mengatur perdagangannya pada daerah tersebut. Perjanjian itu dilakukan pihak Belanda dengan Sultan Ahmad Syah pada tahun 1668.
Mulai saat itu Belanda, melangkah selangkah demi selangkah menanamkan pengaruhnya di Sumatera Barat dengan jalan politik pecah belahnya yang terkenal itu. Disatu pihak mereka menimbulkan perlawanan rakyatnya terhadap raja atau pemimpinnya sesudah itu mereka datang sebagai juru selamat dengan mendapat imbalan yang sangat merugikan pihak Minangkabau, sehingga akhirnya seluruh Minangkabau dapat dikuasai Belanda.
Semenjak abad ke 17 terjadi persaingan dagang yang sangat memuncak antara bangsa Belanda dengan bangsa Inggris di Indonesia. Pada tahun 1684 Belanda dapat mengusir Inggris berdagang di Banten. Sebaliknya Inggris masih dapat bertahan di daerah Maluku dan menguasai perdagangan di daerah pesisir Sumatera Bagian Barat. Pada tahun 1786 berhasil menguasai pulau Penang di Selat Malaka sehingga mereka dapat mengontrol jalan dagang diseluruh pulau Sumatera. Sumatera mulai dibanjri oleh barang-barang dagang Inggris. Tentu saja hal ini sangat merugikan pihak Belanda.
Tahun 1780-1784 pecah perang antara Inggris dan Belanda di Eropa. Peperangan ini merambat pula sampai ke daerah-daerah koloni yang mereka kuasai di seberang lautan. Pada tahun 1781 Inggris menyerang kedudukan Belanda di Padang dari pusat kedudukannya di Bengkulu, dan Padang serta benteng Belanda di Pulau Cingkuak di hancurkan.
Dengan demikian pusat perdagangan berpindah ke Bengkulu. Setelah terjadi perjanjian antara kerajaan Belanda dengan kerajaan Inggris maka Inggris terpaksa mengembalikan seluruh daerah yang sudah direbutnya.
Bangsa Prancis yang pernah datang ke Sumatera Barat, yaitu ketika bajak laut yang dipimpin oleh Kapten Le Me dengan anak buahnya mendarat di Pantai Air Manis Padang. Hal ini terjadi pada tahun 1793. mereka dapat merebut Kota Padang dan mendudukinya selama lima hari. Setelah mereka merampok kota, mereka pergi lagi. Pada tahun 1795 Inggris merebut Padang lagi, karena terlibat perang lagi dengan Belanda.
G.O.P. Hopefuls Now Aiming to Woo the Middle Class
WASHINGTON — The last three men to win the Republican nomination have been the prosperous son of a president (George W. Bush), a senator who could not recall how many homes his family owned (John McCain of Arizona; it was seven) and a private equity executive worth an estimated $200 million (Mitt Romney).
The candidates hoping to be the party’s nominee in 2016 are trying to create a very different set of associations. On Sunday, Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, joined the presidential field.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida praises his parents, a bartender and a Kmart stock clerk, as he urges audiences not to forget “the workers in our hotel kitchens, the landscaping crews in our neighborhoods, the late-night janitorial staff that clean our offices.”
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a preacher’s son, posts on Twitter about his ham-and-cheese sandwiches and boasts of his coupon-clipping frugality. His $1 Kohl’s sweater has become a campaign celebrity in its own right.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky laments the existence of “two Americas,” borrowing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s phrase to describe economically and racially troubled communities like Ferguson, Mo., and Detroit.
“Some say, ‘But Democrats care more about the poor,’ ” Mr. Paul likes to say. “If that’s true, why is black unemployment still twice white unemployment? Why has household income declined by $3,500 over the past six years?”
We are in the midst of the Empathy Primary — the rhetorical battleground shaping the Republican presidential field of 2016.
Harmed by the perception that they favor the wealthy at the expense of middle-of-the-road Americans, the party’s contenders are each trying their hardest to get across what the elder George Bush once inelegantly told recession-battered voters in 1992: “Message: I care.”
Their ability to do so — less bluntly, more sincerely — could prove decisive in an election year when power, privilege and family connections will loom large for both parties.
Questions of understanding and compassion cost Republicans in the last election. Mr. Romney, who memorably dismissed the “47 percent” of Americans as freeloaders, lost to President Obama by 63 percentage points among voters who cast their ballots for the candidate who “cares about people like me,” according to exit polls.
And a Pew poll from February showed that people still believe Republicans are indifferent to working Americans: 54 percent said the Republican Party does not care about the middle class.
That taint of callousness explains why Senator Ted Cruz of Texas declared last week that Republicans “are and should be the party of the 47 percent” — and why another son of a president, Jeb Bush, has made economic opportunity the centerpiece of his message.
With his pedigree and considerable wealth — since he left the Florida governor’s office almost a decade ago he has earned millions of dollars sitting on corporate boards and advising banks — Mr. Bush probably has the most complicated task making the argument to voters that he understands their concerns.
On a visit last week to Puerto Rico, Mr. Bush sounded every bit the populist, railing against “elites” who have stifled economic growth and innovation. In the kind of economy he envisions leading, he said: “We wouldn’t have the middle being squeezed. People in poverty would have a chance to rise up. And the social strains that exist — because the haves and have-nots is the big debate in our country today — would subside.”
Republicans’ emphasis on poorer and working-class Americans now represents a shift from the party’s longstanding focus on business owners and “job creators” as the drivers of economic opportunity.
This is intentional, Republican operatives said.
In the last presidential election, Republicans rushed to defend business owners against what they saw as hostility by Democrats to successful, wealthy entrepreneurs.
“Part of what you had was a reaction to the Democrats’ dehumanization of business owners: ‘Oh, you think you started your plumbing company? No you didn’t,’ ” said Grover Norquist, the conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform.
But now, Mr. Norquist said, Republicans should move past that. “Focus on the people in the room who know someone who couldn’t get a job, or a promotion, or a raise because taxes are too high or regulations eat up companies’ time,” he said. “The rich guy can take care of himself.”
Democrats argue that the public will ultimately see through such an approach because Republican positions like opposing a minimum-wage increase and giving private banks a larger role in student loans would hurt working Americans.
“If Republican candidates are just repeating the same tired policies, I’m not sure that smiling while saying it is going to be enough,” said Guy Cecil, a Democratic strategist who is joining a “super PAC” working on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Republicans have already attacked Mrs. Clinton over the wealth and power she and her husband have accumulated, caricaturing her as an out-of-touch multimillionaire who earns hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech and has not driven a car since 1996.
Mr. Walker hit this theme recently on Fox News, pointing to Mrs. Clinton’s lucrative book deals and her multiple residences. “This is not someone who is connected with everyday Americans,” he said. His own net worth, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is less than a half-million dollars; Mr. Walker also owes tens of thousands of dollars on his credit cards.
But showing off a cheap sweater or boasting of a bootstraps family background not only helps draw a contrast with Mrs. Clinton’s latter-day affluence, it is also an implicit argument against Mr. Bush.
Mr. Walker, who featured a 1998 Saturn with more than 100,000 miles on the odometer in a 2010 campaign ad during his first run for governor, likes to talk about flipping burgers at McDonald’s as a young person. His mother, he has said, grew up on a farm with no indoor plumbing until she was in high school.
Mr. Rubio, among the least wealthy members of the Senate, with an estimated net worth of around a half-million dollars, uses his working-class upbringing as evidence of the “exceptionalism” of America, “where even the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams and the same future as those who come from power and privilege.”
Mr. Cruz alludes to his family’s dysfunction — his parents, he says, were heavy drinkers — and recounts his father’s tale of fleeing Cuba with $100 sewn into his underwear.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey notes that his father paid his way through college working nights at an ice cream plant.
But sometimes the attempts at projecting authenticity can seem forced. Mr. Christie recently found himself on the defensive after telling a New Hampshire audience, “I don’t consider myself a wealthy man.” Tax returns showed that he and his wife, a longtime Wall Street executive, earned nearly $700,000 in 2013.
The story of success against the odds is a political classic, even if it is one the Republican Party has not been able to tell for a long time. Ronald Reagan liked to say that while he had not been born on the wrong side of the tracks, he could always hear the whistle. Richard Nixon was fond of reminding voters how he was born in a house his father had built.
“Probably the idea that is most attractive to an average voter, and an idea that both Republicans and Democrats try to craft into their messages, is this idea that you can rise from nothing,” said Charles C. W. Cooke, a writer for National Review.
There is a certain delight Republicans take in turning that message to their advantage now.
“That’s what Obama did with Hillary,” Mr. Cooke said. “He acknowledged it openly: ‘This is ridiculous. Look at me, this one-term senator with dark skin and all of America’s unsolved racial problems, running against the wife of the last Democratic president.”
Ex-C.I.A. Official Rebuts Republican Claims on Benghazi Attack in ‘The Great War of Our Time’
WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A. asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for administration officials in national security events that quickly become partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.
The official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But he also concludes that the White House itself embellished some of the talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and had blocked him from sending an internal study of agency conclusions to Congress.
“I finally did so without asking,” just before leaving government, he writes, and after the White House released internal emails to a committee investigating the State Department’s handling of the issue.
A lengthy congressional investigation remains underway, one that many Republicans hope to use against Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.
In parts of the book, “The Great War of Our Time” (Twelve), Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings — and those of the National Security Agency.
Soon after Mr. Morell retired in 2013 after 33 years in the agency, President Obama appointed him to a commission reviewing the actions of the National Security Agency after the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who released classified documents about the government’s eavesdropping abilities. Mr. Morell writes that he was surprised by what he found.
“You would have thought that of all the government entities on the planet, the one least vulnerable to such grand theft would have been the N.S.A.,” he writes. “But it turned out that the N.S.A. had left itself vulnerable.”
He concludes that most Wall Street firms had better cybersecurity than the N.S.A. had when Mr. Snowden swept information from its systems in 2013. While he said he found himself “chagrined by how well the N.S.A. was doing” compared with the C.I.A. in stepping up its collection of data on intelligence targets, he also sensed that the N.S.A., which specializes in electronic spying, was operating without considering the implications of its methods.
“The N.S.A. had largely been collecting information because it could, not necessarily in all cases because it should,” he says.
Mr. Morell was a career analyst who rose through the ranks of the agency, and he ended up in the No. 2 post. He served as President George W. Bush’s personal intelligence briefer in the first months of his presidency — in those days, he could often be spotted at the Starbucks in Waco, Tex., catching up on his reading — and was with him in the schoolhouse in Florida on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush presidency changed in an instant.
Mr. Morell twice took over as acting C.I.A. director, first when Leon E. Panetta was appointed secretary of defense and then when retired Gen. David H. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair with his biographer, a relationship that included his handing her classified notes of his time as America’s best-known military commander.
Mr. Morell says he first learned of the affair from Mr. Petraeus only the night before he resigned, and just as the Benghazi events were turning into a political firestorm. While praising Mr. Petraeus, who had told his deputy “I am very lucky” to run the C.I.A., Mr. Morell writes that “the organization did not feel the same way about him.” The former general “created the impression through the tone of his voice and his body language that he did not want people to disagree with him (which was not true in my own interaction with him),” he says.
But it is his account of the Benghazi attacks — and how the C.I.A. was drawn into the debate over whether the Obama White House deliberately distorted its account of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens — that is bound to attract attention, at least partly because of its relevance to the coming presidential election. The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack. By the time analysts reversed their opinion, Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser, had made a series of statements on Sunday talk shows describing the initial assessment. The controversy and other comments Ms. Rice made derailed Mr. Obama’s plan to appoint her as secretary of state.
The experience prompted Mr. Morell to write that the C.I.A. should stay out of the business of preparing talking points — especially on issues that are being seized upon for “political purposes.” He is critical of the State Department for not beefing up security in Libya for its diplomats, as the C.I.A., he said, did for its employees.
But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting some vandalism,” setting fires that killed Mr. Stevens and a security official, Sean Smith.
Mr. Morell paints a picture of an agency that was struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to understand dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa when the Arab Spring broke out in late 2011 in Tunisia. The agency’s analysts failed to see the forces of revolution coming — and then failed again, he writes, when they told Mr. Obama that the uprisings would undercut Al Qaeda by showing there was a democratic pathway to change.
“There is no good explanation for our not being able to see the pressures growing to dangerous levels across the region,” he writes. The agency had again relied too heavily “on a handful of strong leaders in the countries of concern to help us understand what was going on in the Arab street,” he says, and those leaders themselves were clueless.
Moreover, an agency that has always overvalued secretly gathered intelligence and undervalued “open source” material “was not doing enough to mine the wealth of information available through social media,” he writes. “We thought and told policy makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage Al Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative,” he writes.
Instead, weak governments in Egypt, and the absence of governance from Libya to Yemen, were “a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa.”
Mr. Morell is gentle about most of the politicians he dealt with — he expresses admiration for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, though he accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney of deliberately implying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the C.I.A. had concluded probably did not exist. But when it comes to the events leading up to the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, he is critical of his own agency.
Mr. Morell concludes that the Bush White House did not have to twist intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged effort to rekindle the country’s work on weapons of mass destruction.
“The view that hard-liners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on W.M.D. is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”