Setiap jamaah yang berangkat umroh atau haji khusus Call/Wa. 08111-34-1212 pasti menginginkan perjalanan ibadah haji plus atau umrohnya bisa terlaksana dengan lancar, nyaman dan aman sehingga menjadi mabrur. Demi mewujudkan kami sangat memahami keinginan para jamaah sehingga merancang program haji onh plus dan umroh dengan tepat. Jika anda ingin melaksanakan Umrah dan Haji dengan tidak dihantui rasa was-was dan serta ketidakpastian, maka Alhijaz Indowisata Travel adalah solusi sebagai biro perjalanan anda yang terbaik dan terpercaya.?agenda umroh 12 hari
Biro Perjalanan Haji dan Umrah yang memfokuskan diri sebagai biro perjalanan yang bisa menjadi sahabat perjalanan ibadah Anda, yang sudah sangat berpengalaman dan dipercaya sejak tahun 2010, mengantarkan tamu Allah minimal 5 kali dalam sebulan ke tanah suci tanpa ada permasalahan. Paket yang tersedia sangat beragam mulai paket umroh 9 hari, 12 hari, umroh wisata muslim turki, dubai, aqso. Biaya umroh murah yang sudah menggunakan rupiah sehingga jamaah tidak perlu repot dengan nilai tukar kurs asing. biaya umroh desember di Serang
5 Cara Makan Agar Terhindar Sakit Kronis
KOMPAS.com -
Beberapa penyakit kronis yang diderita sekarang, seperti diabetes, hipertensi, stroke, jantung
dan sebagainya berkaitan erat dengan apa yang kita masukkan ke dalam perut kita, atau apa yang
kita makan. Sayangnya, ditengah-tengah kesibukan kehidupan modern sekarang ini, apa yang kita
masukkan itu sering luput dari perhatian kita, maka tidak heran penyakit-penyakit itu menjadi
pembunuh utama kita sekarang ini.
Beberapa tips di bawah ini mudah-mudahan
dapat membantu Anda.
1. Makanlah hanya pada saat
lapar
Makanlah saat Anda lapar bukan pada saat
Anda sedih, bosan, stres, ada resepsi, undangan, atau hanya karena ada makanan yang gratis,
makanan yang kelihatan menggugah selera. Bila Anda makan karena alasan ini, maka
makanan yang Anda konsumsi biasanya cendrung tidak sehat, berlebihan, dan apa yang menjadi
tujuan dari makan sendiri untuk memelihara tubuh, kenikmatan, kepuasan memperoleh enerji
yang cukup tidak akan tercapai, malah sebaliknya, penyakit yang akan Anda dapatkan. Tapi, bila
Anda makan hanya waktu lapar nikmatnya makanan itu akan lebih Anda rasakan. Di samping itu, Anda
tidak perlu makan berlebihan, sampai kekenyangan, agar Anda puas, merasa sudah cukup, tapi
kalau Anda makan karena sedih, bosan, stres, lagi bersenang-senang, Anda memerlukan makanan yang
lebih banyak.
2. Makanlah masakan dari dapur
Anda sendiri
Mengkonsumsi makanan yang Anda
beli di luar, dengan makanan yang Anda masak sendiri pasti tidak sama kualitas dan pengaruhnya.
Makanan yang dari dapur Anda, Anda sendiri yang menentukan apa yang akan Anda masak, mau memasak
daging, ikan, sayur, berapa banyaknya, apa bumbunya, berapa garamnya, dan bagaimana memasaknya.
Apa yang Anda masak, apa bumbunya, berapa garam yang Anda masukkan, bagaimana memasaknya akan
menentukan kualitas makanan yang akan Anda makan. Di samping itu, aktivitas di dapur yang Anda
lakukan dapat menjadi sesuatu yang menyenangkan, dan membakar cadangan energi Anda. Bila anda
makan di luar, yang menentukan sesuatumya adalah kokinya, tidak hanya cara mengolahnya, tetapi
juga apa yang harus Anda makan. Sayangnya, dapur kita sekarang sudah jarang
berasap.
3. Pilihlah piring yang lebih
kecil
Apa, berapa, dan bagaimana makanan yang
Anda taruh dalam piring Anda akan mempengaruhi selera makan Anda, rasa puas, kenyang, dan kesan
yang Anda lihat melalui mata juga akan akan mempengarhui porsi makanan Anda. Piring yang lebih
kecil yang Anda pilih memberi kesan bahwa makanan yang ditaruh di atasnya kelihatan menjadi
lebih banyak. Ini dapat mencegah Anda makan lebih banyak juga
4. Makanlah lebih sedikit, tetapi lebih
sering
Dalam keadaan serba sibuk sekarang ini,
ada kecendrungan orang makan 1-2 kali saja sehari, tetapi dalam porsi yang besar. Banyak yang
tidak sempat makan pagi, kompensasinya mereka makan siang dalam jumlah yang besar atau
sebaliknya. Makan dengan pola ini ternyata tidak sehat, memberikan beban belebihan pada perut
Anda dalam sekaligus, dengan bermacam keluhan seperti, perut tidak nyaman, menyesak, mual,
muntah, cegukan, dan pengolahan, penyerapan makanan tidak sempurna. Bahkan banyak laporan
kejadian serangan jantung akibat pola makan seperti ini.
Di samping itu, makan banyak sekaligus, apalagi Anda mengkonsumsi
makanan yang indeks glikemiknya tinggi, makanan kurang mengandung serat, kadar gula darah Anda
dapat naik mendadak, yang kemudian juga memacu pelepasan Insulin dalam jumlah besar. Pelepasan
insulin dalam jumlah besar ini mengakibat gula darah turun cepat juga, sehingga menimbulkan
gejala seperti letih, mood anda terganggu, mmengantuk dan Anda cendrung mencari
makanan ringan yang manis-manis. Sebaliknya, makan lebih sedikit, tetapi lebih sering, disamping
sehat untuk sistem pencernaan, juga dapat mempertahankan gula darah Anda lebih stabil. Karena
itu kebiasaan ini bisa mengurangi risiko ancaman diabetes. Jadi, biasakanlah makan dalam
porsi lebih kecil tetapi frekwensi lebih sering. Ada ahli yang menganjurkan 4-5 kali dalam
sehari lebih untuk Anda.
5. Makanlah dengan
rileks, santai, dan pelan-pelan
Karena merasa
waktu yang sempit, diburu target, banyak dari kita yang makan sekarang ini, dibawah
tekanan, dalam keadaan stres, saat menonton TV, di depan komputer, di atas meja kerjai, sedang
berjalan, bahkan selagi membawa kendaraan. Bila Anda tidak fokus dengan makanan di depan Anda,
disamping Anda tidak dapat menikmati makanan itu, sistem pencernaan anda juga akan terganngu.
Anda juga cendrung makan dalam porsi berlebihan. Sebaiknya makanlah dalam keadaan tenang,
pelan-pelan. Makan dengan situasi begini memberi Anda kesempatan menikmati makanan lebih baik,
mengunyah lebih lama dan sistem pencernaan kita juga berkerja lebih sempurna.
Makan terburu-buru, misalnya 1-2 piring sudah habis Anda santap dalam 10
menit, atau kurang, tetapi Anda masih belum merasa kenyang, puas, ini disebabkan oleh
refleks puas, kenyang yang sampai ke otak kita perlu waktu sekitar 20 menit setelah kita
mulai makan. Jadi, kalau Anda makan terburu-buru Anda juga cendrung makan dalam jumlah yang
lebih besar. Anda baru tahu bahwa Anda makan berlebihan beberapa saat setelah Anda berhenti
makan.
Bila 5 kiat di atas dapat Anda jalani, Insya Allah di
samping kemungkinan Anda menjadi penyandang beberapa penyakit kronis, diabetes, hipertensi,
jantung, stroke dapat diperkecil, tubuh Anda juga akan lebih cantik dan sehat.
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.
Advertisement
“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.”