"Succar, a member of the Bay Ridge Community Council, said corruption in his homeland is so rampant that anyone could easily pay bribes and obtain official identification papers bearing a fake name to disguise their real identity.
'You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,' he said.
'These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.'"
But remember, they are being vetted, the Obama administration and leftist supporters swear.
I applaud my American brother, a man of Syrian descent, for his bravery in making this statement.
"Mayor Bill de Blasio said Wednesday that 'a grand total of eight' Syrian refugees had settled in the city as part of an official State Department program, and City Hall later lowered that number to four, blaming the information mixup on the feds."
Well, that instills confidence.http://nypost.com/2015/11/19/syrian-community-leader-isis-is-already-in-new-york-city/
Saving this as I know I'll want to quote it again.
"Thirty to forty years ago there were a group of political liberal and scientists who said we were facing global cooling. They said we were headed toward a global ice age and the solution to global cooling was increased was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. Then the data disproved it. [...] And the new theory of global warming interestingly enough, the solution was the exact same as the solution had been for global cooling. It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. But then the problem became the data and evidence didn’t back up global warming. [...] So then the theory changed to a third version [...] climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven. Whether it’s hotter or colder, whether is wetter or drier the climate is always changing. [...] interestingly enough the political liberals, their solution to climate change is exactly the same as it was to global cooling and global warming. Massive government control of the economy, energy sector, and our lives. And when you start to see politicians who propose the exact same solution to every problem regardless of the facts or the data you start to think these are politicians who just want power over our lives. "http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-schools-two-separate-climate-change-activists-who-were-trying-to-work-him-over/
Gorelick might possibly be some major demon of hell. She's not THE Devil, but she might be up there in the pantheon. Certainly she's an agent.
"Gorelick spoke in favor of banning the use of strong encryption and called for a key escrow system to allow the Federal government access to encrypted communication"
The Gorelick Wall, which was not just a memo (as leftists would have you believe), but an attitude that terrorism is strictly law enforcement not intelligence. Consider that between the 1st WTC bombing and 9/11, then watch a leftist pretend that doesn't matter.
After the Gorelick Wall (I'll quote wiki here) "Even though she had *** no previous training nor experience in finance ***, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former
Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal." She made millions in salary and bonuses. (Can you say payoff?)
COINCIDENTALLY... That was exactly the period Glass–Steagall was repealed, the housing bubble exploded (with the help of Fannie/Freddie), and Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble.
Despite her controversial involvement with the "Gorelick Wall" she was appointed tot he 9/11 Commission.
She then went on to be involved in the Duke Rape Case, on the side of those falsely accusing and attempting to destroy the alleged rapists.
Later she moved on to helping the Obama administration shake down BP for billions after the OBama admionistration deliberately allowed the BP disaster to get worse. Technically "In her most recent public outing, Gorelick represented BP in the Gulf oil mess", a 'representation' that absolutely refused to stand up for the company. The fix was in.
She has recently been "a lobbyist for the lending industry fighting student loan reform", and still may be.
Teh IRS targetign of conservatives? She might have a hand in that, too. "Disturbing enough was WND’s breakthrough discovery that the liberal, Soros-funded Urban Institute has an officially sanctioned role in the vetting of nonprofits that seek tax-exempt status through the IRS.
Almost equally disturbing is the revelation that the vice chairwoman of the Urban Institute Board of Trustees is none other than Jamie Gorelick."
I don't know what she's up to currently. My guess would be overseeing the building of the Death Star. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelickhttp://www.wnd.com/2014/02/is-jamie-gorelick-in-on-irs-scandal-too/http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/mistress_of_disaster_jamie_gor.html
My words on Islam in general.
Islam has a conquest, oppression, slavery, rape, murder problem. It isn't just now, but throughout history. It isn't just one location, but world wide.
The two largest sources of terrorism in the world are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both actively export terrorism. Both are not just Muslim countries by population, but by strict rule.
Most of the worst strife in the world happens to involve Muslims on at least one side of it. Throughout the world where there are Muslims living with others there is usually conflict.
We get it. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But most world terrorism for the last how many years can be traced back to Islam?
The religion _in practice_ has a problem, and needs to address that. Rational people are sick to death of Muslims killing people then the rush to tell us the real issue is "right wing backlash" and oppression of Muslims.
The FIRST action, every damn time we have to see this crap, should be to include condemnation of the latest Muslim bloodshed against innocents.Leftists insist that a larger Muslim population isn't dangerous
"Second, Islamic State has a practical reason to focus on France: With the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, it has become Europe’s biggest potential source of Islamic State recruits. "
That's the LA Times accidentally admitting that.http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-islamic-state-targeted-france-20151115-story.htmlLeftists claim the "refugees" are being vetted. This is a lie.
FBI Director Robert Comey: "The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, they’ve never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging."
FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach to the House Homeland Security Committee: "The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet…You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the dataset, the police, the intel services that normally you would go to to seek information doesn’t exist."http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/11/15/obama-lackey-ben-rhodes-spreads-lies-about-vetting-syrian-refugees-on-sunday-news-talk-shows/Christians have been excluded as leftists lecture us that we must accept Muslims
"America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.
Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.
The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope"http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugeesThose Christians being excluded we KNOW are targeted for genocide, and there are menus online pricing Christian children sex slaves. Those Christians HAVE NO refuge. Yet they are ignored.
"A recently discovered and interpreted document reveals that the Islamic State has an actual price list it uses to sell the women and children its terrorists take — and that prices vary, depending on age, gender and ethnic background."
"And women and children between the ages of 10 and 20 are set at $127 each. Children, meanwhile, between the ages of 1 and 9 are priced to sell for $169, the document reads"http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/12/islamic-state-price-list-for-sale-christian-woman/On comparing these refugees to refusing Jews during WWII
1. Jews were not a terror threat; there is evidence terrorists are hiding among Syrian refugees.
2. Jews were singled out for persecution by the Nazis, not (initially) fleeing an ongoing war.
3. Jews had nowhere to go; Syrian refugees should have many places to go.
4. Opposition to Jewish refugees was “racial”; opposition to Syrian refugees is based on security concerns.
5. Many of the Syrian “refugees” are neither Syrian, nor refugees.
6. The Jewish refugees had communities willing and able to resettle them; the Syrian refugees may not.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/17/why-syrian-refugees-are-not-like-jewish-refugees/ More on comparing these 'refugees' to Jews
"No self-identifying Jews in the early 20th century were randomly massacring European citizens in magazine offices and concert halls, and there was no “Jewish State” establishing sovereignty over tens of thousands of square miles of territory, and publicly slaughtering anyone who opposed its advance. Among Syrian Muslims, there is. The vast majority of Syrian Muslims are not party to these strains of radicalism and violence, but it would be dangerous to suggest that they do not exist, or that our refugee-resettlement program need not take account of them."
"Third, European Jews in the early 20th century were more amenable to assimilation than are Syrian Muslims in the early 21st. By the time of the rise of Nazism, Jews had participated in the intellectual and cultural life of Germany for a century and a half — a life that, despite regional particularities, indisputably fell under the broad banner of Western civilization, in which America participated, too. Moving from Munich to Miami took some getting used to, but you could hear Beethoven in both. [...] The intellectual, cultural, and political traditions of Syria are not in concert with those of the West, and it would be foolish to think that that does not matter — especially when combined with the uncertain sympathies noted above."
"Finally: Jewish refugees — for example, those in the SS St. Louis — were coming from Germany (or Nazi-controlled Austria or Czechoslovakia), but most Syrian refugees seeking entry into the United States have already found refuge elsewhere. Of the 18,000 refugee-resettlement referrals that the United States has received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “the vast majority,” according to the State Department, are from Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt (and Iraq, parts of which remain sanctuaries from the Islamic State). It is one thing to rescue Jews from imminent danger; it is another to offer greater safety to those who already have it."
"'No regrets' is a hashtag, not a policy proposal."http://www.nationalreview.com/syrian-refugees-arent-1939s-jews
"Perhaps Rubio is unfamiliar with an amendment strategy when fighting legislation because he has been in very few firefights for the cause of conservatism since his election to the Senate. "
"As highlighted in his Conservative Review profile, Rubio was promoting his bill as ‘enforcement first’ even as he was voting down amendments to make the bill do just that. It’s not just that Rubio changed his position to “enforcement first,” it’s that he touted that Gang of 8 bill for months as doing just that. He opposed the following amendments:
A provision to ensure that the border is secured before any amnesty is granted. (Senate.gov)
A provision requiring completion of the reinforced double-layered border fencing. He was one of only five Republicans to do so. (Senate.gov)
A provision requiring that a visa tracking system be implemented before any amnesty is granted. (Senate.gov)
A provision that would require congressional votes affirming the border has been secured before the granting of temporary legal status. (Senate.gov)
As noted in our guide to political conversions, a legitimate recent convert to a cause is usually the most zealous in championing the issue unprompted by political pressure. When Cruz was fighting Obama’s executive amnesty, the border surge, sanctuary cities, the release of criminal aliens, the Islamic refugee scheme, and homegrown terror threats via immigration – using all his platforms on committee, floor speeches, and in the media – where was Rubio? Until Breitbart called him out for not supporting a single enforcement effort, Rubio never even signed onto the effort against sanctuary cities. https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/cruz-fought-amnesty-rubio-fought-conservatives#sthash.aZZ3ApEy.dpuf
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?"
- George Orwell
Or that boys aren't girls, or girls aren't boys if they feel they are.
He TOLD us all what they would become, and they've done it anyway.
"Liberalism has run out of battle grounds. It’s run out of things to say. But because it is, at its core, a deception, it cannot remain still. It must 'progress,' in the sense that it must always run left, even when it appears to have run out of room."
In other words, as I continue to say, progressivism never stops. Ever. It must
continually push and assault."Liberalism has no truth at its foundation, so it can only keep moving.
[...] With 'transgenderism,' there is some evidence that liberalism has wandered a bridge too far. Unlike some of their other ideas, they have absolutely no defense here. Not only does 'transgender' propaganda undo many of their own positions, but it makes a proposition that can only be accepted by those already fully indoctrinated into the liberal religion."
"Liberalism has officially severed itself from any semblance of reality, and indeed declared war upon it. If our culture cooperates; if we relent and concede that science is relative and human beings are gods who can choose their own biological makeup; if the left jumps over the shark and into the dark waters of full fledged insanity, and many in our society take the plunge right along with it, then there will be no stopping liberalism. It will have won the culture irreversibly.
If we willingly forfeit the definition of 'man' and 'woman,' right after forfeiting the definition of marriage, and long after forfeiting the definition of human life, then we will have no basis left to oppose anything else liberalism tries to do. We will have given it everything, ceded its every demand, compromised on every single imaginable point, and that will be the end of it. All we’ll be able to do, then, is sit and wait for our civilization to eat itself and collapse into dust."
There is no gay agenda? Let me tell you what it always was once the left got a hold of it.
Modern liberalism is a totalitarian ideology. Even compliant disagreement isn't enough. They demand you obey AND agree with them, and they will continue to find ways to assault you and those you love, no matter who you are, in any way they can until you do. The ideology is insatiable and demands obedience. If you don't care now as they force the sexual assault of every girl in every public school, eventually they'll keep pushing until they find something you do care about. When you object you will be labeled a "hater" just like us. It's not about concern. It's about control.http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/with-the-transgender-movement-liberalism-has-finally-descended-into-total-madness/
In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as "Jewish wailing" and "sob stuff"; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that "there is no Jewish blood in our veins"; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as "a dirty Jewish trick." But the most common theme in Roosevelt's private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were "overcrowding" many professions and exercising undue influence.http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-medoff-roosevelt-holocaust-20130407
From left wing WAPO.
"Snyder’s killing, as documented in interviews and police reports, is among the 800 fatal shootings by police so far this year. As the tally continues to grow, so does public debate and criticism over police use of deadly force.
But only a small number of the shootings — roughly 5 percent — occurred under the kind of circumstances that raise doubt and draw public outcry, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. "
"Of the 800 people killed by police this year, almost half have been white"http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/10/24/on-duty-under-fire/
Shove this down the throat of the Orwellian cultist regurgitating the complaint about the cost and time of the Benghazi committee.
"The clock showed the investigation has cost $4,809, 266 as of Thursday afternoon. The figure is more than $1 million less in taxpayer funds that were given to an accused conman to finance his condom inventions and studies into why the majority of lesbians are overweight.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full-body plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic self-esteem,” and young men think about their muscles.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."
Democrats don't care about costs, lying to the American people, or MURDERED Americans, including an American Ambassador. They care only about agenda and talking points to push that agenda. It is impossible to respect a Democrat voter. http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-have-spent-more-on-origami-condoms-fat-lesbian-studies-than-benghazi-committee/
“I want to show you a few things here. You’re looking at an email you sent to your family. Here’s what you said. At 11 o’clock that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, ‘Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda-like group.’
You tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.
Also, on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here’s what you said to him: ‘Ansar al Sharia’s claiming responsibility….And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this: ‘We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.’
Let me read that one more time. ‘We know’ — not we think, not it might be — ‘we know
the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.’
State Department experts knew the truth; you knew the truth. That’s not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why. Why didn’t you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?”
Video shows it at https://youtu.be/8OzrFDBMd0g?t=5m5s
We know she lied. We know it was all calculated.
We know THEY ALL LIED TO STEAL AN ELECTION.
I am sick of the evil Democrats accept. I am sick to death of pretending they mean well but are misguided. http://politistick.com/this-hillary-clinton-lie-exposed-at-the-benghazi-hearing-makes-her-utterly-unfit-for-office/
This is too big for FB and I might as well save it someplace. I'm sure I'm going to have to repeat it to the legion of stupid.
Controversy! Controversy! Trump attacks W! Not so much.
First, in defense of Bush on the overall topic...
Intel briefings said what they'd said for months and years - Bin Laden is going to attack! Um, yep.
They did not say "bin Laden has people on overstayed visas who've been living here for years who will peacefully board planes, hijack them, then fly them into buildings."
Revamping and reprioritizing the entire intelligence community after at least 8 years takes some time. Do I know that President TSA would have done that? No. But 8 months isn't that long to correct the kind of deep damage of 8 years of a POTUS who demanded the executive treat terrorism like a mugging.
Now, behind the cut, a brief tangent on a fraction of what Bush had to deal with...( Read more...Collapse )
Now, in defense of Trump's comments, THIS IS CORRECT...
"'I believe that if I were running things, I doubt that those people would have been in the country,' the bombastic billionaire added, referring to the hijackers who stayed in the U.S. illegally.
'I'm not blaming George Bush,' Trump said. 'But I don't want Jeb to say 'my brother kept us safe.'"
Nothing he said should be controversial. People were here due to our lousy immigration enforcement. Bush didn't care about immigration enforcement (just like all GOPe and all Democrats). Trump wants to immediately start enforcing immigration standards.
The real problem is that media does NOT want us talking about the real issue - immigration/invasion/colonization. So it spins this into derp Trump bash Bush.
A long but excellent piece well worth the full read.
"Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas."
"The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.
What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate.
[...] Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press.""Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money.
In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.
These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media"
"The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the 'probability density functions' of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end.""Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project."
"Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.
So where’s the outrage from scientists at this presidential distortion? It’s worse than that, actually. The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.
The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University"
"The Cook paper is one of many scandals and blunders in climate science." Too long a list for pull quotes.
"There is, however, one good thing that has happened to science as a result of the climate debate: the democratisation of science by sceptic bloggers. [...] Papers that had passed formal peer review and been published in journals have nonetheless been torn apart in minutes on the blogs. There was the time Steven McIntyre found that an Antarctic temperature trend arose “entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together”. Or when Willis Eschenbach showed a published chart had “cut the modern end of the ice core carbon dioxide record short, right at the time when carbon dioxide started to rise again” about 8000 years ago, thus omitting the startling but inconvenient fact that carbon dioxide levels rose while temperatures fell over the following millennia."
"And it’s not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced. The most recent polling data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change is down slightly on thirty years ago,"http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx
A good, short piece.
"Even so, this persisted illegally in the Ottoman Empire into the first half of the 20th century where, estimates suggest that at any one time, 20 per cent of Istanbul was made up of slaves. They didn't only own slaves for a far greater duration, but they also targeted white slaves."
"The New York Times published a report titled ‘Horrible Traffic in Circassian Women—Infanticide in Turkey’, stating that the overwhelming increase of slaves as a consequence of the war drove prices down and the temptation to possess a Circassian girl at such low prices allowed the ordinary Turk in the streets of Constantinople to own his very own white slave."
"We should stop pretending like whites haven't paid their dues and, in many cases, if it weren't for whites, slavery would still be a way of life in many nations that like to point the finger. We can't go a single day without some liberal harping about the crimes of American imperialism as if conquest didn't exist before them."http://mantalk.mobi/Slavery-Was-Never-Exclusive-to-African-Americans
"In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives— that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities.
In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.
News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close."
The media is left wing. And the left wing wants the destruction of Israel. It's undeniable.
"Today, people in the West tend to believe the ills of the age are racism, colonialism, and militarism. The world’s only Jewish country has done less harm than most countries on earth, and more good—and yet when people went looking for a country that would symbolize the sins of our new post-colonial, post-militaristic, post-ethnic dream-world, the country they chose was this one.
When the people responsible for explaining the world to the world, journalists, cover the Jews’ war as more worthy of attention than any other, when they portray the Jews of Israel as the party obviously in the wrong, when they omit all possible justifications for the Jews’ actions and obscure the true face of their enemies, what they are saying to their readers—whether they intend to or not—is that Jews are the worst people on earth. The Jews are a symbol of the evils that civilized people are taught from an early age to abhor. International press coverage has become a morality play starring a familiar villain."http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide
"Israel is not an idea, a symbol of good or evil, or a litmus test for liberal opinion at dinner parties. It is a small country in a scary part of the world that is getting scarier. It should be reported as critically as any other place, and understood in context and in proportion."
Very important. Even if the voter fraud we know exists weren't taking place, Democrats are STEALING elections. Aiding illegal immigration, including failing to enforce the law, should be considered a kind of treason.
"In other words, the number of members of the House that each state gets is based on the total population of each state relative to the total population of the U.S., which includes noncitizens. Thus, the upwards of 12 million illegal aliens present in the U.S., combined with other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House.
Various studies have been done on the effects of this distortion, including by Leonard Steinhorn of American University and scholars at Texas A&M University and the Center for Immigration Studies. If you calculate the results based on the latest Census numbers, according to Steinhorn, ten states each are short a congressional seat that they would otherwise have if apportionment were based on citizen population: Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.
States with large numbers of illegal aliens and other noncitizens have congressional seats they otherwise would not have (and should not be entitled to): California (five seats), Florida (one seat), New York (one seat), Texas (two seats), and Washington State (one seat)."http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/06/how-noncitizens-can-swing-elections-without-even-voting-illegally
"Beyond that, if you really want to commit suicide (and there’s good reason to think that people who use a gun to try to commit suicide — as opposed to, say, pills — really do want to commit suicide) but can’t get a gun, it’s not hard to find alternate reliable means of killing yourself. (On the latter point, see the National Academies’ Firearms and Violence report, which concludes, as of 2004, that “Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.”) And, finally, even if some gun laws could decrease suicide, those would often be very different gun laws than those intended to decrease homicides. For instance, even total handgun bans or sharp restrictions on handgun purchases, which have been urged as means of reducing homicides, would be highly unlikely to affect suicides, which could just as well be committed with shotguns (a la Kurt Cobain or Ernest Hemingway). Same for bans on so-called “assault weapons,” bans on large capacity magazines, restrictions on carrying guns in public, and more."Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws
Since I'm sure I'll encounter this again.
1/2 - On the use of 'exceptionalism" (Hint: IT'S LEFTIST PROPAGANDA):
Wikipedia leans left. Therefore it has limited use as evidence to contradict the right. However, when it accurately addresses things unpalatable to the left it serves some purpose.
I'm not accusing Ed of using it as propaganda. He may have just been trained to cling to and constantly repeat the word while condemning the U.S. Many leftist don't know better.
"American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations. In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation" and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism.""
The article frequently talks about how 'neoconservatives' MEAN X or allude to X. Not so much on the saying it.
"In a 2015 book entitled Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney sets out and argues the case for American Exceptionalism, and concludes: "we are, as Lincoln said, 'the last, best hope of earth.' We are not just one more nation, one more indistinguishable entity on the world stage. We have been essential to the preservation and progress of freedom, and those who lead us in the years ahead must remind us, as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan did, of the special role we play. Neither they nor we should ever forget that we are, in fact, exceptional.""
Again, this very clear means what the word actually means, not some new interpretation of the word.
Now on to part 2, the Orwellian left remaking of a word to demonize any who use it...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
2/2 - On the origin and current use of "exceptionalism"
"In June 1927 Jay Lovestone, a leader of the Communist Party in America and soon to be named General Secretary, described America's economic and social uniqueness. He noted the increasing strength of American capitalism, and the country's "tremendous reserve power"; a strength and power which he said prevented Communist revolution. In 1929, the Soviet leader ***** Joseph Stalin, disagreeing that America was so resistant to revolution, called Lovestone's ideas "the heresy of American exceptionalism"—the first time that the specific term "American exceptionalism" was used. " *****
Origin of the wording, unsurprisingly Stalin. Most of the Orwellian reshaping of words throughout the 20th C can be traced back to communists. A
But here is where it came into regular use the way that Ed is (possibly accidentally) misusing it.
"During the George W. Bush administration, the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context. Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being "above" or an "exception" to the law, specifically the Law of Nations. (This phenomenon is less concerned with justifying American uniqueness than with asserting its immunity to international law.) This new use of the term has served to confuse the topic and muddy the waters, since its unilateralist emphasis and historical orientation diverge somewhat from older uses of the term. "
Let me translate from leftist: Democrats mutilated the meaning of the word to demonize any who was patriotic, believed in US sovereignty, or supported any war. It was purely calculated.
"In his interview with RT on October 4, 2013, President of Ecuador Rafael Correa criticized Obama's policies and compared America's exceptionalism with Nazi Germany, saying: "Does not this remind you of the Nazis' rhetoric before and during World War II? They considered themselves the chosen race, the superior race, etc. Such words and ideas pose extreme danger.""
SOP leftist. Change the popular meaning of words so that the opposition seem to damn themselves.
Exceptionalism when used by the right DOES NOT MEAN exemption.
Exceptionalism when used by the left ALWAYS means "OBEY the world of oligarchs and tyrannies or you're evil".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Exceptionalism_as_.22exemptionalism.22
This ends the lie once and for all:
“'We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.'”
As she says, that 'solution' was gun confiscation.
Whom among the left protested or even questioned him after this statement?
So we're done. The Big Lie is over. "Common sense" is bullshit and they know it. Background checks are bullshit and they know it. Progressives know we won't accept gun confiscation so they "progress" us by whatever steps they can. That's how they work. The end goal is confiscation of all firearms owned by the populace, leaving them only in the hands of government rulers. The Big Lie is revealed.
Anyone who says the party isn't out to confiscate guns is a liar or an idiot. If they deny it, shove this in their face.
An ideology so superior
it requires constant deceit. Make them have the real conversation.http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/255971-katie-pavlich-yes-obama-does-want-to-take-your-guns
I recently read a Salon article written by a pedophile who said we should be more understanding of pedophiles as long as they don't touch children. Regardless of how you feel about that, here's an update.
Stephen Crowder shared his dissent. The pedo attacked him. Crowder started looking into his past. Guess what?
The pedo: "'Once again, I’ve always maintained that, if we lived in a different, more sex-positive society and it were legal to do so, I WOULD engage in sex play with a child that I loved if she wanted it and initiated it. I will never deny that.'"
Again we have a leftist trying to normalize something with an agenda behind it. If you'd said that when the first article came out leftists would shout, "TINFOIL" in unison. Leftists lie. It's what they do. If they say they want a, b, c, they want z.
Crowder addresses something here that's pretty important...
"Finally, my issue is not as much with this sick, hobbling bag of excrement as it is with Salon.com. Why are they so hell-bent on normalizing pedophilia? This is the second time they’ve given a pedophile a platform to sell his sob story. Does Salon.com KNOW that Todd may be an active, pro-contact pedophile? Shouldn’t they launch an investigation? I mean, this is criminal. And not like 'oh he called me a tranny' hate-speech, criminal, but really criminal."
Salon either didn't vet or didn't care as they provided a venue to normalize pedophilia. This is the left.http://louderwithcrowder.com/salon-com-pedophile-calls-me-out-but-now-ive-dug-into-his-past/
He's a liar
"Obama said after the church shootings in Charleston that "this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."
The data shows that it clearly happens in other countries, and in at least three of them, there’s evidence that the rate of killings in mass-shooting events occurred at a higher per-capita rate than in the United States between 2000 and 2014. The only partial support for Obama’s claim is that the per-capita gun-incident fatality rate in the United States does rank in the top one-third of the list of 11 countries studied. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False."http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
The UN is evil, and wants to control every aspect of your life.
"The U.N. defines violence against women as 'any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.' The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment."
So basically, any interaction a female doesn't like is cyber violence.
That's insane. But good news! It gets far worse...
"The report also argues that 'cyber touch is recognized as equally as harmful as physical touch,'
suggesting that online harassment might be just as lethal as domestic violence or sexual abuse."
Got that? Saying you want to hit someone is EQUALLY AS HARMFUL as hitting them. If some jerk online says they want to rape a woman, she is EQUALLY AS HARMED as if he had actually raped her.
This is not sane. It is irrational. It is delusional. No thinking person can believe this. So why say it when we all know it's a lie? I'll get back to that.
"Still, one in five female internet users live in countries where law enforcement are extremely unlikely to respond to internet violence, and only 26% of law enforcement agencies in the 86 countries surveyed are properly prepared to address the problem."
Is that really a surprise when any negative interaction is considered cyber abuse?
"Even with her position at the U.N., Mlambo-Ngcuka says it’s been difficult to convince some people that this is a problem to take seriously. She recalled some resistance from industry leaders, particularly in the gaming space
, who seemed to think that cyber violence was not their problem."Note the highlighted part, gamers. THE UN is directly targeting the industry you love.
Make no mistake whether gamergate and others you interact with are interacting with this world government force. They are. Ignoring them will not make them go away.
"If the internet isn’t a safe place for them, Mlambo-Ngcuka added, they risk swearing off it altogether. 'If the woman is tormented, she may then decide that ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with technology,'"
Oh. I get it now. Women are so equal that they need special protection due to their sensitivity. Males get "cyber touched" many times a day and handle it, but females might swear off internets for life! That makes perfect sense.
Consider for a moment.... Millions today live in slavery. Sex trafficking is in the multi-millions. Female genital mutilation is the norm in many regions and countries. In many countries homosexuals are publicly murdered by the state. Mass murder is common in several countries. I could go on and on about human rights abuses around the world. And a priority of the UN is "cyber touching"?!?
So what is this all about? As always with the left, power.If you get people to embrace the insane for their own power there is nothing they won't accept down the line.
They want males in first world countries in constant terror. They want women in those countries perpetually angry and feeling victims. This is all obviously calculated on the part of the left. Divide and conquer.
There is no acceptable reason to consider cyber harassment to be on the same level as the many human rights abuses the world over. It can only be for power. It cannot be credibly argued that they care about other human rights abuses.
Remember all of this whenever some damned fool praises the UN. http://time.com/4049106/un-cyber-violence-physical-violence/
McInnes' opening disclaimer. This is the kind of disclaimer non-leftists should always issue:
"I'd like to just say I'm sorry if my column offends you especially the part about Islam being the Benjamin Buttons of religions. It was thoughtless and doesn't represent how I truly feel. Besides all the inbreeding and pedophilia and terrorism, I think it is a wonderful religion with a rich history so please don't be mad. Please. Sorry."
"Cultural terrorists like the Mohameds know we don’t do that so they come here to exploit our system. We see the same behavior when mass shooters choose gun-free zones to carry out their attacks. We’re happy to send home white kids when they wear an American-flag shirt or bite a Pop-Tart in a threatening manner, but when a Muslim kid brings a fake bomb to school, the first reaction is 'What can my country do for you?'"
"Islamophobiaphobia has permeated every facet of our lives. This week, the news cycle was all about Muslims even though they represent less than 1% of the American population and likely have very little interest in the election. Ben Carson was asked if he would be all right with a Muslim president despite the fact that no such candidate exists or has ever existed. He said no, which is the correct answer, and the black neurosurgeon was called 'racist.'""Islam, which has had absolutely nothing to do with building America, gets a free pass. This archaic religion that has plagued us for centuries and has followers who are inbred is the boss of us. That’s not good, because they ruin everything they touch. Look at the countries they took over. Iran used to have chicks in miniskirts working in science labs. Today these same women are being stoned to death for being raped. They’ve got to be the only culture in history that evolves backwards. Islam is the Benjamin Button of religions."
And remember, the left supports and defends them at every opportunity.
Worth the read.Islamophobiaphobia
Brace yourself for the new Big Lie of the Climate Change hoax... Climate change is SO BAD, they dare not even tell you how bad it is or prove it anymore.
"What Goodell wants to know, on behalf of Rolling Stone readers, is how the president 'decides how much truth to tell the American public about climate change and how much he feels it’s his job to inspire people and how much he withholds some of the truth because if they knew what we were really facing it would be too much for them to bear.'
Let’s pause just a moment to savor the sublime fatuousness of that question. Here is a journalist, on a reasonably well-respected and well-read magazine, who appears genuinely to believe that climate change is right up there with the Roswell incident and the Kennedy assassination and all those events that THEY can never tell us the truth about for fear of what it might do to our foolish impressionable minds.
And worse, here’s the President of the USA actually playing along with this game."
The worst part of this genuine insanity is that DEMOCRATS WILL FALL FOR IT. Obama To Rolling Stone: Climate Change Is So Terrible I Dare Not Tell You The Full Truth
This is remarkably damning.
"Obama acknowledges in Dreams from My Father that his grandfather was a Muslim (page 104) and that he spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia studying the Koran (page 154).
There is no evidence Obama was baptized, in any formal sense, in Jeremiah Wright’s church. What’s more, there is no evidence that Obama ever specifically rejected Islam. Indeed, Obama could have joined Wright’s church in Chicago without disavowing the Muslim faith. Author Edward Klein notes that Wright told him that he 'made it comfortable' for Obama to accept Christianity 'without having to renounce his Islamic background.':
As we noted in a review of Klein’s book, Wright was asked if he converted Obama from Islam to Christianity, and Wright said, 'That’s hard to tell.
I think I convinced him that it was okay for him to make a choice in terms of who he believed Jesus is.
And I told him it was really okay and not a putdown of the Muslim part of his family or his Muslim friends.'”
There is absolutely nothing Christian about those two statements. The opposite, in fact. This is about as clear as one can be that the subject is not
a Christian. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-muslim-identity/
Someone posted this to comments elsewhere about Obama and Islam. Pretty damning when you put it all together like this. (I have not vetted all of it)
To President Obama:
It was you who told an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you."
It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."
It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."
It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that - "I am a Muslim."
It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator" - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Quran.
It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the WH.
It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.
It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.
It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the WH, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community.
It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.
It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
"So, as we have often seen in these last few years, a conservative grassroots candidate squared off with a moderate candidate backed by the establishment. The grassroots conservative candidate was Chuck DeVore and the establishment candidate was Carly Fiorina. Almost every big name conservative except for Sarah Palin lined up behind DeVore [...] On the other hand, the NRSC, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were all supporting Fiorina. Interesting question: ___When have John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the NRSC EVER backed a conservative candidate over a moderate in a competitive race? Yes, that’s right; they don’t do that. Ever.___
After beating DeVore by outspending him more than 3-to1, Fiorina went toe-to-toe with charisma-free Senator Barbara Boxer and got her brains beaten in."
"So, Fiorina’s a failed CEO and it would be more accurate to call her an 'establishment favorite' than an outsider, but at least she’s a hardcore conservative, right? Well….not so much. Here’s Redstate on Carly Fiorina back in 2010.
'From her praise of Jesse Jackson, to her playing the race and gender cards
[I've noticed this, too, and don't like it]
against DeVore, to her support for the Wall Street bailouts, to her qualified support for the Obama stimulus, to her past support for taxation of sales on the Internet, to her waffling on immigration, to her support for Sonia Sotomayor, to her Master’s thesis advocating greater federal control of local education, to her past support for weakening California’s Proposition 13[...]
She endorsed the California DREAM Act, which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.
She refused to endorse California’s Proposition 23, which suspends the job-killing AB 32 climate-change law.'
Fiorina also strongly supported Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan that even he claims not to back anymore, endorsed cap & trade and attacked Ted Cruz for being willing to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.
How do you trust Fiorina on immigration, small government issues, taxes, pro-life issues, global warming or to even try to kill Obamacare after that?" http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/09/19/the-conservative-case-against-carly-fiorina-n2053948
A reminder and some thoughts on the topic of Obama - Muslim or not.
(Keep in mind, I do not believe he is a believing Muslim.)
This from the NYT, though it's a simple matter of history/fact.
"But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. "
So a reminder of a few things.
1) Just FYI, __according to Muslims__
Muslim. That's just fact.
2) Because Obama claims to have become Christian one of two things applies _in the eyes of Muslims_
Obama is practicing some form of taqiya
(permitted denial of faith to avoid persecution or further the faith)
Obama is an apostate Muslim, just about the worst thing one can be.
3) Not a single one of the radical Muslims worldwide seems to be concerned about or have mentioned #2. The leader of Iran, who calls the U.S. The Great Satan and chants Death to America, doesn't care that the leader of the Great Satan is an apostate Muslim. ISIS, Al Qaeda, all Muslim extremists worldwide... none of them care that the leader of the U.S. is an apostate Muslim according to their rules
. Isn't that odd?
Have a nice day.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html
An excellent piece well worth the read in full on several aspects of this current leftist Narrative.
"Rarely do the narratives coincide with reality, and wherever the two contradict, the narrative wins. Every time. If progressives decided to construct a narrative that the moon is made of rock candy, it would be immediately required that every discussion about the moon be centered on reaffirming this fiction. If an astronaut visited the moon then came home and reported that, in fact, the moon does not consist of delicious sugary confections, he would be labeled a moonophobe or a moonist, and calls would ring out for his termination and possible execution. Once the narrative is established, everything surrounding it must serve the sole purpose of reinforcing it. Nothing else matters to progressives. Only the narrative.
I think if more people understood the progressive focus on narrative, and learned to be suspicious of stories that so strangely and simplistically fit right into them, we would be living in a much more rational country. We wouldn’t have, for example, a Black Lives Matter movement born in a thoroughly discredited lie made up on the spot by a criminal thug. Without that movement, it’s likely that Ferguson and Baltimore never would have been torched"
"The kid’s activist father cried to the cameras that his son was put through “hell,” and that “he was hurt and was tortured and arrested and mistreated.” Tortured. TORTURED. He sat in an air conditioned room for an hour. Get a grip, pops. Torture is what Muslims are doing to people overseas. What happened to Ahmed was more of an annoyance. A profitable annoyance, it turns out. Indeed, the very fact that his dad is going so absurdly and eagerly and automatically overboard makes me suspect all the more that the whole thing was a set up. At this point at least, a set up is far more likely than the idea that the kid was targeted purely for his skin color and religion.
But most will assume the latter because in our culture the narrative is what matters"
"“If they thought it was a bomb, why didn’t they evacuate the school???!??!?!$!??!” Well, because that wasn’t the issue. The cops knew it wasn’t a real explosive, but they were trying to discern whether Ahmed was attempting to cause alarm or play some sort of joke. That would be a serious and illegal offense, and it’s not outside of the realm of possibility for a kid to do that sort of thing. When I went to school, we had bomb threats every once in a while, usually called in by some idiot who thought it’d be funny.
The cops say Ahmed was not forthright with them and that’s why this thing went on for as long as it did. They say he was being passive aggressive and refusing to answer their questions about why he brought the device to school. Ahmed retorts that all the adults are Muslim hating liars and he is pure and innocent. Choose to believe whoever you want, but either way, the fact that they didn’t evacuate means nothing. That’s not the point. But the point doesn’t matter in Narrative Land."
"Clearly, someone in this situation is not telling the whole truth, and it seems likely that it might be the kid who sounds like he’s repeating lines fed to him by his grievance-monger parents. Many people seem to have no problem always assuming the adults and the law enforcement officials are lying and the kids are always paragons of honesty, but as a former 14-year-old, I can report that such assumptions are ridiculous."
"One affirms a racial narrative, the others do not. That’s why Obama reaches out to the kid with the clock that looks like an IED, but not the frat boys at the University of Virginia who were slandered all over the national media because of a feminist rape hoax. That’s why we still hear ”Hands Up Don’t Shoot” shouted by fools, even though everyone knows Mike Brown said no such thing, as he was too busy trying to beat Officer Darren Wilson to death. That’s why the Matthew Shepard murder is still cited to prove anti-gay hatred in the United States, despite the fact that Shephard was actually an addict killed by another homosexual over a drug dispute.
The narrative is all the matters. Truth is utterly irrelevant in progressivism.
Ironically, the narrative destroys itself in this case. If America is really teeming with ingrained Islamophobia, we wouldn’t be making overnight celebrities of Muslim kids who get in trouble at school, while ignoring non-Muslim kids who’ve been in similar situations."http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/istandwithahmed-because-the-liberal-narrative-is-more-important-than-the-truth/
I am SICK TO DEATH of having to constantly address these deliberately distracting Narratives.
FALSE: "the blatant falsehood that Obama is a Muslim" Megyn Kelly pulled this dumb shit last night on her show, too.
Blatant falsehood? Why? Because Obama said so? He also said "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and a long list of other confirmed lies.
Obama grew up in his very early years around Muslims. He's called the Muslim Call to Prayer "the sweetest sound I know".
He shows no record of faith in Hawaii that I know of.
He shows no record of faith in college.
When he arrives in Chicago __to become a political activist__ he joins the coincidentally __politically powerful__ FAR left (Christian in name only) Reverend Wright's church. He attends that church for TWENTY YEARS yet claims never to have heard any of Wright's racist, anti-America sermons. Quite the attentive Christian.
Whenever he speaks of Christianity he speaks of the Crusades, Inquisition, slavery, and Jim Crow.
Every prayer service or discussion of faith leads to his pushing leftism.
It requires PC fear or dogma, ignorance, or stupidity to take on faith that Obama is Christian.
I don't think he's Muslim. But he sure as hell isn't Christian.
I've been watching smart but in this case regrettably ignorant people saying Trump attacked Jeb's wife. Jeb even demanded an apology. Unless they mean some other attack, no Trump did not.
Trump said that having a Mexican wife would make Jeb more sympathetic to immigration from Mexico. Somehow people pretend this is controversial. Well here:
"Despite Bush’s apparent irritation, in the opening lines of his 2013 book, 'Immigration Wars,' he admitted that his wife Columba had in fact shaped his views on immigration.
'Immigration to me is personal. It means my wife and my family,' Bush wrote in the very first two sentences of the book.'"
Trump was accurate. Jeb is a Mexiphile because of his Mexican wife. http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/trump-was-right-in-book-jeb-credits-his-wife-for-his-immigration-views/
What's so maddening is you can show all this to leftists and they just don't care
. Just about anyone I see reference "separation" just wants anything Judeo-Christian, even opinion/speech, driven from the public square.
They cite Jefferson? Um...
"Although today Jefferson's Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President 'regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.'"
"Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because 'no power to prescribe any religious exercise...has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government[,] it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.' He sounded the same theme in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:'In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."
The court who embraced the "precedent" of "separation" was a progressive FDR court. Progressives do. not. care. what argument they use to achieve their agenda. Certainly the court knew all of the above. They didn't care! "attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter
that contains the 'wall of separation' image. The challenged state statute, the ACLU ominously concluded, 'constitutes a definite crack in the wall of separation between church and state. Such cracks have a tendency to widen beyond repair unless promptly sealed up.'
The trope's current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson's figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment. In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
People often and easily forget, the actual purpose of thew Constitution, pre-progressives, is to protect citizens from government...
"Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from corrupting interference by the federal government and not to protect the civil state from the influence of, or overreaching by, religion. The wall, however, is a bilateral barrier that unavoidably restricts religion's ability to influence public life; thus, it necessarily and dangerously exceeds the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.
Let me say as an aside: I do not believe that many so-called strict separationists are, in fact, consistent adherents of their 'high and impregnable' wall. Virtually all advocate the separation of religion (and religious influences) from the civil state and public life, but few consistently argue that civil government should be completely separated from the concerns of the church. Few strict separationists are willing, even in strict adherence to a wall-of-separation principle, to exempt churches, clergy, and religious entities from the civil state's generally applicable civil rights, criminal, employment, tax, and zoning laws, as well as health and safety regulations."
"We must confront the uncomfortable fact that, for much of American history, the phrase 'separation of church and state' and its attendant metaphoric formulation, 'a wall of separation,' have often been expressions of exclusion, intolerance, and bigotry. These phrases have been used to silence people and communities of faith and to exclude them from full participation in public life."
A somewhat long, interesting read. The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
"The development of Star Trek’s moral and political tone over 50 years traces the strange decline of American liberalism since the Kennedy era."
A very interesting read that does not require knowledge of the series to understand.
"[In Star Trek VI] Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that 'Spock was right.' His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: 'I was used to hating Klingons.'
This represented an almost complete inversion of 'Star Trek’s' original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races.
In 'Errand of Mercy,' they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In 'The Trouble with Tribbles,' they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, 'We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.' Within the context of the original 'Star Trek,' such pride is morally insane.
Yet in service to Spock’s mission of elevating peace over right, the film portrays the Klingons not as thugs, but as misunderstood casualties of human bigotry."
“'Star Trek’s' latest iterations—the 'reboot' films directed by J.J. Abrams—shrug at the franchise’s former philosophical depth. In 2009, Abrams admitted to an interviewer that he 'didn’t get' 'Star Trek.' 'There was a captain, there was this first officer, they were talking a lot about adventures and not having them as much as I would’ve liked. Maybe I wasn’t smart enough.'” <- The wisest thing Abrams has ever said.
"His films accordingly eschew the series’ trademark dialogues about moral and political principles, and portray the young Kirk and crew as motivated largely by a maelstrom of lusts, fears, and resentments.""Over nearly 50 years, 'Star Trek' tracked the devolution of liberalism from the philosophy of the New Frontier into a preference for non-judgmental diversity and reactionary hostility to innovation, and finally into an almost nihilistic collection of divergent urges. At its best, 'Star Trek' talked about big ideas, in a big way. Its decline reflects a culture-wide change
in how Americans have thought about the biggest idea of all: mankind’s place in the universe."http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/15/how-star-trek-explains-the-decline-of-liberalism/
"Christina Gupana, a Hillary campaign worker and Las Vegas attorney
, was caught by Project Veritas Action journalists advising her fellow campaign workers to 'do whatever you can, whatever you can get away with just do it.'"
"In the state of Nevada, it is a felony for those involved in the registration process to 'solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.'
However, did that stop Philip Kim, a paid Hillary for Nevada staffer, from encouraging a woman during the voter registration process, 'I would say Hillary is your girl'? Nope it did not. [...]
Harrison Lee is also with Hillary for Nevada. He openly admitted that he was reprimanded because he was openly endorsing Clinton outside a local library. Again, he’s in violation of the law and he’s admitting to it."
You think these people don't commit voter fraud if they can? 'do whatever you can, whatever you can get away with just do it.'"http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/09/13/hillary-clinton-campaign-workers-busted-on-video-bragging-about-breaking-election-law-whatever-you-can-get-away-with-just-do-it/
A good piece.
"They lied. We believed their lies. It is two years later. Even John Kerry has been forced to admit that the Syrians sold us a bill of goods. He is, of course, “deeply disturbed”. The Administration is once again reaching out to our good friends the Russians for help, ignoring for the moment at least the ominous reports that Putin has stepped up support for Assad and that he is building a large new Russian military base in Syria.
The result will be exactly the same in Iran.
I have spent a great deal of my adult life in the Middle East. It is a harsh place where sentiment, wishful thinking and delusions about the nature of the nations and groups with which you are dealing will get you killed."
The only question is whether they are fools or traitors. (It isn't a question for me.)http://www.epictimes.com/charlesfaddis/2015/09/shame-on-us-what-the-syrian-chemical-weapons-debacle-says-about-the-iran-deal/1/
My problem isn't necessarily that this woman was jailed. My problem is that all below are arguments that should matter, yet almost no on cares.
"Nevertheless, all reasonable people must agree that imprisoning this innocent woman for her conscience is both an absolute outrage and gross violation of her constitutional liberties. Even the ACLU thought it was a bridge too far. The fact remains that people don’t shed their First Amendment rights when they become government employees. Kim Davis swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution and the laws of the Bluegrass state. When she took her oath, United States law, the Kentucky Constitution and the Kentucky Revised Statutes all reflected the millennia-old definition of natural marriage: 'Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.'
The Kentucky Legislature has yet to change this law one jot or tittle. Instead, five left-wing extremist lawyers in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion presuming to move the goalposts mid-game. Court opinions are not 'the law of the land.' Judges don’t make laws – only the legislature can do that. Kim Davis is not defying the law; she is upholding it as codified.
Accordingly, she has repeatedly asked, 'Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?'
Neither Judge Bunning nor anyone else can answer.
Because no such law exists."http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/needed-a-million-more-like-kim-davis/#.Ve7Q2KS4ZnQ.facebook
Rule of man, not of law. Useful idiots and Democrats won't care.
"Mark, writing in his 2005 bestseller Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, notes this of Justice Kennedy - and noted this years before Kennedy’s ruling on same sex marriage this year.
[...] Kennedy again decried Federal Sentencing Guidelines in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee when he said, "I do think federal judges who depart downward are courageous."
This is a remarkable declaration. We have a Supreme Court Justice praising judges who violate federal law, and almost no one noticed, and even fewer cared.
I doubt Kennedy would be so complimentary about lower court judges - or legislators - defying his Court rulings.'
And here we are all these years later after Mark wrote those words and the media is going nuts because one county clerk in Kentucky - Kim Davis - is doing precisely what Anthony Kennedy suggested. She has taken it upon herself to 'depart downward' (to use Kennedy’s exact words) from Kennedy’s own ruling on same-sex marriage. If its OK for Kennedy to call for exactly this type of action - to give it his sanction when it involves sentencing guidelines - why shouldn’t Ms. Davis have every right to believe she is following Kennedy’s own suggestion to the letter? And in her case in departing downward from Kennedy’s ruling standing up for the Constitution?"Kim Davis, the Media, and the Constitution
"One of the most pervasive arguments against a border fence is the puerile nursery chant, “show me a 20-foot fence, I’ll show you a 21-foot ladder.” [...] The problem is they can’t show us the 21-foot ladder."
"Congress passed a bill in 1996 to require construction of a double-layered fence (triple-layer in some places) in the San Diego corridor along the coast. You can see a picture of the fence with razor wire here. By the end of the decade, apprehensions fell by 95% as illegals moved eastward, even though the fence covered only 14 miles of the 60-mile sector. "
"The 245-mile security fence in Israel cost $450 million, averaging $1.8 million per mile. Assuming the completion of our security fence would cost the same amount, the total tab would come in at just under $2 billion."
"According to a conservative estimate by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, for every illegal alien that returns home (or is prevented from crossing the border), taxpayers save $700,000. That means we would reach the break-even point after preventing just the first 8,500 illegal immigrants from crossing."https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/08/Border-Fences-Work
"After looking at the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the report found immigrants — both documented and undocumented — used a disproportionate amount of the nearly half a trillion-dollar welfare budget for the 2012 fiscal year. While Medicaid was the most popular, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Women Infants and Children food program, subsidized school lunches, food stamps and housing subsidies were also largely utilized."
Imagine how it's ballooned since then.
"Even with the exclusion of Medicaid, 44 percent of immigrants use other major supplemental programs [...]
The study, put out by the Center for Immigration Studies, found the number of households using the benefits sharply inclined to 76 percent when children were added into the mix.
While most illegal and newly legal immigrants are barred from using welfare programs upon arrival, the report shows children are frequently used as a loophole"Report: 51 Percent Of Immigrants Use Welfare Programs
USA Today propaganda on it. Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
"a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan's administration, said it's irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country's welfare system any more than native-born Americans.
Chavez said today's immigrants, like all other immigrant waves in the country's history, start off poorer and have lower levels of education, making it unfair to compare their welfare use to the long-established native-born population."
They mention the Reagan Administration because apparently that's supposed to have added weight. It doesn't.
It doesn't matter if they are doing it more than Americans. Americans are our citizens
. That's a false comparison.
How many are we supposed to take? There are more than a billion living in poverty. How many do we take into our nation of 300 million?
Why is it we don't have the right to say no to subsidizing people we didn't ask to come and don't want to stay
. THis is insanity.
"Chavez, president of the Becoming American Institute, a conservative group that advocates for higher levels of legal immigration to reduce illegal immigration, said politicians should be careful about using the data. "
Gee whiz. Sounds Latino, and pushing for even more immigration while defending welfare to immigrants. Oh but "self described conservative" and "Reagan". No.
"'These kids who get subsidized school lunches today will go on to graduate high school ... will go on to college and move up to the middle class'"
It's an investment! Where have we heard that before? Fromm every leftist for all spending?
"Camarota said one of the most shocking findings from the report was the high number of native-born Americans also on welfare"
But that can't be because illegals drive down wages and take jobs. No, sir.