Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Meet the Farooks: The Modern Jihad Family


Frontpagemagazine ^ | December 9, 2015 | Robert Spencer 


How did this anything-but-moderate family not attract any law enforcement attention?






When Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered fourteen people and wounded twenty-one at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, Farook's family, having lawyered up, instructed its legal representatives to tell the world how shocked - shocked! - they were by the massacre. However, just as Captain Renault is handed his winnings immediately after telling Rick Blaine of his shock that gambling was going on in Rick's Café Americain, so also in this case did the family's shock seem increasingly less genuine the more that became known about them.
Initially, however, the lie was fed easily to a credulous mainstream media. One of the Farook family lawyers, David Chesley, immediately found the nearest microphone and declared: "None of the family members had any idea that this was going to take place. They were totally shocked."
Even in stories that reported this, however, the story started to unravel. No sooner had the Associated Press quoted Chesley that it noted that he and another Farook family lawyer, Mohammad Abuershaid, said that "Farook's mother lived with the couple but she stayed upstairs and didn't notice they had stockpiled 12 pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition."
Farook's mother didn't notice the twelve pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition because she "stayed upstairs"? Was she an invalid, then, who never ventured downstairs at all? If so, why did the couple leave their six-month-old daughter in her care when they went off to shoot Infidels for Allah?
And now it has come out that Mom did venture downstairs now and again after all, and that her eye may indeed have caught the site of a stray pipe bomb or two. According to the Daily Mail, "FBI agents found an empty GoPro package, shooting targets and tools inside a car belonging to" Rafia Farook, Syed's mother. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik mounted GoPro cameras on their body armor before they began their jihad massacre; apparently, like other jihad killers before them, they hoped to cheer and encourage the faithful with scenes of the bloodbath. Authorities are investigating the possibility that Rafia Farook aided in the planning and preparation of the San Bernardino jihad massacre.
Rafia might have taken this car to meetings of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), of which she was an active member. ICNA openly supports Sharia and the caliphate, and has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to the Pakistani jihad group Jamaat-e-Islami.


The family's shock at the murders appears even more feigned in light of revelations from Syed Rizwan Farook's father, who is also named Syed Farook. The elder Syed has characterized his ex-wife Rafia as "very religious," like the killer, to whom he referred as Rizwan. "Rizwan was the mama's boy," he recounted, "and she is very religious like him. Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end." The son insisted on the divorce because he considered the father an "unbeliever."
What's more, old man Farook said that his son was an open supporter of the Islamic State, and, of course, hated Israel: "He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel." Moderate "unbeliever" Papa then told his son to bide his time since, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, everybody hated the Jews: "I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there." Moderate!
So right in the heart of sunny Redlands, California, where Syed Rizwan and Tashfeen lived with their baby and Rafia (however safely ensconced upstairs, away from the pipe bombs, Grandma may have been), there was an open supporter of the Islamic State and an open supporter of the concept of the caliphate. Then we must not forget the winsome Tashfeen, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, was linked to a jihadi mosque in Pakistan, and who had become, in one of her teacher's words, "a religious person" who often told people "to live according to the teachings of Islam."
Despite all that and more, Tashfeen passed FBI and DHS background checks and was allowed to enter the United States. And as she and her loving hubby amassed pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition, authorities didn't bat an eye. No report has indicated that they were ever questioned, or were under any kind of surveillance, or were on any watch list.
After all, they were just pious Muslims - and anyone who believes that pious Muslims who are assembling pipe bombs might be up to no good is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe, right? But now the Farooks, the modern jihad family, and the fourteen dead left in their wake, stand as a lesson as to how urgently our law enforcement and intelligence operations need to adopt a realistic approach to the jihad threat, and to discard today's prevailing politically correct fantasies. But the dead bodies are going to have to be piled up much higher for that reform even to become a possibility.

Benghazi: Dereliction of Duty

American Thinker ^ | 12/9/2015 | Greg Richards 

Why didn't we send the cavalry?

That has always been the question about Benghazi once the fat was in the fire. There has never been an answer. We know that Obama sequestered himself in the White House, and some time that evening Hillary Clinton went home.
Judicial Watch just released an email that it extracted from the tight grasp of the administration. It was written by the civilian chief of staff to the Defense Department's Jeremy Bash. Reading it makes your blood run cold:
State colleagues:
I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].
After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].
Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].
Jeremy
"They are spinning up as we speak." That is military-speak that the engines are roaring on the tarmac, and the aircraft are ready to go. That is what the country expected would happen.
And we didn't send them. Our guys were in a jam, calling for reinforcement, and Hillary didn't send it.
Why didn't we send the cavalry?
And what confidence can the troops have in her as commander-in-chief?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Yearbook says it all about Valarie Jarrett

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Influence on President Obama & Its Connection to the Jihad
Eagle Rising ^ | December 9, 2015 | Paul Dowling 
Posted on 12/9/2015, 9:27:16 AM by all the best
Reporters were “storming into the apartment of the San Bernardino terrorists, less than 48 hours after the [jihad] attack [there],” writes Joel Pollack of Breitbart. The Federal Bureau of Investigation “handed the apartment back over to the landlord, who let the media in with a crowbar.” To many Americans, this decision—on the part of our Executive—demonstrates a lack of competence. It was not.
Pollack knows this. “While the journalists’ behavior was disturbing,” he writes, “it fit a pattern: the Obama administration is careless about, or is reluctant to find, evidence of terrorism.”
It would have seemed incredible only a few years ago, but the fact is that our Islamic enemies are now attacking us from within the White House. The name of the Muslim Brotherhood’s game is infiltration. And that is exactly what the Brotherhood has been successful in doing, with help from none other than their friend, Barack Hussein Obama.
President Obama, it is widely known, grew up in Indonesia receiving a fundamentalist Muslim education there. And Reverend Jeremiah Wright says “it is hard to tell” whether Obama actually converted to Christianity. If the company one keeps is any indicator of how one defines oneself, it would appear that our president personally believes in a radical interpretation of Islam.
The president has hired staffers into the Executive Branch who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood: 1) Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Policy Development, is a co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary called the World Islamic Organization; 2) Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, is suspected of leaking Department of Homeland Security secrets to the Muslim Brotherhood; 3) Rashad Hussain, the US Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference...
(Excerpt) Read more at eaglerising.com ...



 

Abortion was always part of a widespread plan to eliminate NEGROS!

Live Action News ^ | 12/8/15 | Bethany Blankley 

A well-documented fact about abortion is that the main organization that pushes it in the U.S. (Planned Parenthood) was conceived by America's mostinfluential eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. She described Negros and dirty, poor immigrants as weeds who should be sterilized.
Listen to learn more about Sanger’s goal for Black Genocide.

Eugenics was always tied to birth control. In 1915, Sanger published her first booklet, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, in which she wrote:
“It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”
Sadly, Sanger came to this conclusion at least in part because of her own experience, writing in her autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, “I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families.”
Sanger founded the Birth Control Review in 1917. In 1922, Sanger wrote in The Pivot of Civilization, “Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism.” Her book coincided with a popular movement that used “scientific racism” to assert Black inferiority.
Keep in mind, while Black men who miraculously survived World War I were returning home (some only to be lynched in their uniforms), Sanger continued to address the need to sterilize and reduce Negro and immigration populations. And she used the Black community towards this end.
During the Great Depression, Sanger and other eugenicists argued that bringing a Black child into a hostile world was considered “pathetic.” Her friend, Walter A. Terpenning, wrote in “God’s Chillun”:
"The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous."
In the June 1932 edition of Sanger’s Birth Control Review, an editorial, “The Negro Number,” said of Blacks:
“Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?” most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality ... if they only knew how.”
By 1939, Sanger had begun to increase her focus on the reproductive practices of Black Americans. Sanger’s Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League were merged to form the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA) in 1939. And, BCFA enrolled heavy hitters to roll out Sanger’s “Negro Project.
The Negro Project was supervised by a “special committee,” including Margaret Sanger, Mary Lasker, and Dr. Clarence Gamble, of Procter and Gamble, who was also BCFA’s new regional director for the South.
Gamble proposed a “Suggestion for Negro Project” in November 1939. He wrote that to avoid Black leaders thinking that birth control might be used as an “extermination plot,” he suggested that they place Black leaders in prominent positions so they would believe they were in charge.
One outcome of his suggestion was the creation of a Negro Advisory Council, comprised of representatives and prominent Black leaders from 25 major Black organizations and universities. Another was Gamble’s effective targeting of Southern Black ministers. He enrolled them to teach Black congregants the importance of preventing pregnancies under the guise of “family planning.”
Sanger wrote of the Negro Project,
“The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach.”
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Sanger’s legacy lives on, especially in the city where she lived. To date, more Black babies are killed through abortion in New York City than are born. And, abortion facilities are strategically and disproportionately located in more low-income minority communities than in any other community. Life Issues Institute mapped Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities, for example, and found that 79 percent were located in minority neighborhoods.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in America, Black women are nearly five times more likely than non-Hispanic Caucasian women to have an abortion. And, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost one in every two Black pregnancies ends in abortion.
Imagine the entire Black population of Oakland, California, Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. completely eliminated. Then imagine that their combined total would not even reach the number of Black babies aborted in 2008, for example, in one year: 683,294.
Abortion of Black babies every year kills more Black lives than if the cities of Atlanta, Oakland, and Washington, D.C. lost their entire Black population in one year. The next year, imagine several other entire Black populations of major cities, completely gone.
That is the reality of abortion of Blacks in America.
But this reality becomes worse even than murder and genocide – because a certain class of people continue to financially profit from this destruction. Black baby parts and tissue, by their sheer number, may be disproportionately used more than other baby body parts and tissue experimented on for "scientific and medical research."
The only difference between today and pre-Civil War America is that the sale of Black babies is technically illegal. Everything else is the same: the ‘mastas’ are largely elitist eugenicists, who continue to earn millions of dollars by exploiting Black women, assuring them it's "in their best interest" to freely give their DNA and child’s body parts, without ever financially compensating them.
A dream come true for Sanger.

My Muslim faith!

I Endorse Ted Cruz for President. What Are We Conservatives Waiting For?

Conservative HQ ^ | December 9, 2015 | Richard A. Viguerie 



Today conservatives and Republicans are often not the same. However, they definitely have one thing in common: They desperately want to win the White House in 2016. For Democrats this election is important, but for Republicans and conservatives 2016 is not just crucial to the survival of this country and constitutional liberty - it is the ball game.
That means Republicans must nominate a candidate who we know will govern according to constitutional principles, who is capable of drawing a clear contrast with Hillary Clinton and the Democrats on the issues of importance in today's political environment, and who has the brains, talent and discipline to fight Hillary Clinton and win.

That candidate is Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

To conservatives who continue to window shop I say, "What are you waiting for? In Ted Cruz conservatives have a candidate that's everything we want."
1.) Ted Cruz is the best presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
2.) Ted Cruz is a fighter.
3.) Ted Cruz is a leader on our issues.
4.) Ted Cruz is one of us - a movement conservative.
5.) Ted Cruz's commitment to governing according to the Constitution is unquestioned.
6.) Even establishment commentators are saying he's running a brilliant campaign.
The inside-the-Beltway professional political class' rap against Senator Cruz from the beginning has been that he can't win, but Senator Cruz and his team have put together what political professionals and commentators in both parties have grudgingly agreed is the best campaign of this cycle.
Cruz has raised more hard money than any other candidate; it appears he has more individual donors than any other candidate and Super PACs supporting him have raised money second only to Jeb Bush. Cruz has the best ground game in the early states, with grassroots organizations in every county in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Ted Cruz also has by far and away the best online and social media campaign of the cycle, and his Internet team and analytics are light years ahead of the other Republican candidates - and the new Monmouth poll now has him 5 points ahead of longtime frontrunner Donald Trump in Iowa.
And let's not forget that Cruz began his 2012 Texas Senate campaign at 2%, in a poll with a 3% margin of error. He defeated an establishment Republican professional politician who had held office for many years and who spent over $20 million dollars of his own money in a vain attempt to fend-off Cruz's grassroots conservative army.
Contrary to what many in the professional political class would like you to believe, Ted Cruz is a winner.
Who you walk with tells me who you are, and Senator Cruz is the only movement conservative in the top tier of candidates. Conservatives don't have to wonder whether Ted Cruz will bring conservatives onto his White House staff or appoint conservatives to key decision-making roles in his administration - they are already there.
Ted Cruz has been a leader of almost all the conservative policy battles on Capitol Hill. Conservatives do not have to wonder whether if, when the chips are down, Ted Cruz will be right on the cultural issues. Ted Cruz has fought for, and will continue to fight for the conservative agenda:
Defunding Obamacare
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Stopping out-of-control spending
Stopping amnesty for illegal aliens and securing the border
Defeating ISIS and the doctrine of Islamic supremacy
Eliminating the burdens of the Obama regulatory state
Reining-in the IRS, the EPA and other out-of-control agencies
And most importantly, he has fought to bring the federal government back within strict constitutional limits
One of the oft-repeated criticisms of Ted Cruz is that he is not well-liked by the grey beards of the Capitol Hill Republican establishment.
I am reminded that the same was said of Ronald Reagan, that the DC establishment would never support him - and they didn't because he wanted to end the go-along-get-along system that allows both Democrats and establishment Republicans to buy votes at the taxpayers' expense.
Cruz's conflicts with the Republican Party's Capitol Hill leaders have all been about fulfilling the Party's campaign promises. Defunding Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, defunding amnesty for illegal aliens, cutting spending and standing against ISIS and Muslim terrorism are all issues that unite the vast majority of Republican voters as well as most Americans.
If Ted Cruz has made enemies among his Senate colleagues, it is for all the right reasons.
Along with Ted Cruz's talent and zest for political combat, and consistent record of supporting conservative policy solutions, goes a methodical self-discipline and self-control that distinguish him from the longtime front runner who has been the other message-carrier for the conservative grassroots and their demand for change in Washington - Donald Trump.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Ted Cruz is the only candidate who can unite the conservative coalition that is necessary to win both the nomination and defeat Hillary Clinton in November.
Cruz has the record and the platform to bring together the three legs of the Reagan coalition; national defense conservatives, economic conservatives and cultural conservatives. He came to Washington on a wave of Tea Party support, and unlike Marco Rubio he did not abandon those principles once he got to DC. Cruz also has stood with the liberty movement on issues of privacy and constitutional liberty, and will attract most libertarian-leaning voters that establishment Republicans have alienated.
For these reasons, and others that I plan to share over the next few weeks, I am proud and honored to endorse Senator Ted Cruz as not just the movement conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for President, but as the candidate best able to defeat Hillary Clinton and restore constitutional liberty to this great country.
 

Answering liberal "Frequently Asked Questions" about gun control

American Irony ^ | 12-8-15 | The Looking Spoon 

gun-control-debate
The following is an imagined conversation between a liberal and conservative about guns, gun violence, and gun control that is meant to answer and address common questions and arguments liberals have on this subject.
Liberals will look at this and say all I'm trying to do is make them look bad. I want to be very clear that I'm not trying.
---
Liberal: Isn't it time to stand up to the NRA?
Conservative: Name one mass shooter that was one of its members. Spoiler alert, there aren't any.
The NRA fights to preserve the second amendment, and it promotes responsibility, so what exactly are we supposed to be "standing up" to? The Constitution?


Liberal: Yeah, but isn't the second amendment obsolete? People fought with muskets when that relic of the past was written.
Conservative: We didn't have internet porn when the first amendment was written either, yet the courts have found it counts as protected speech.


Liberal: Yeah it is!
Conservative: If the founding fathers wanted to say the second amendment only applies to muskets then they would've written it down. Advances in technology don't invalidate constitutional amendments, particularly those that are part of the Bill of Rights.


Liberal: What's that?
Conservative: ... (it's hard to get upset, I'm sure that's a typical FAQ for lofos and liberals, but I repeat myself)


Liberal: Why don't conservatives care about gun violence?
Conservative: That question doesn't deserve the dignity of a response, but it will get one because that's what this post is about.
Conservatives care just as much about condemning violence and mass shootings against innocent people about as much liberals care about defending its perpetrators with excuses laced with white guilt, which usually happens right after the fantasy that it was some white Christian conservative is shattered.


Liberal: If conservatives care about gun violence then why do they oppose "common sense" gun legislation?
Conservative: Conservatives and liberals have very different ideas on what "common sense" actually means. For conservatives it means allowing people to have the liberty to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. For liberals it means reacting to shootings by passing any type of legislation that makes them feel like they've done something about gun violence. The more well-intentioned it is in there mind the better the law, actual results are irrelevant.
For conservatives, common sense solutions actually involve common sense. Giving people the liberty to defend themselves, or at least a paradigm where a potential attacker believes they're going into a situation where they'll experience resistance is the real "common sense" solution here. Gun violence, after all, has decreased everywhere except advertised gun-free zones.


Liberal: President Obama points out we are the only "advanced" nation that has as many mass shootings and murders as we do, can't you see the connection between that and the fact that the United States has, by far, the most guns per capita in the world?
Conservative: No. There is no connection.


Liberal: Why? Because the NRA said so?
Conservative: No, because the facts say so. There is no direct correlation between the prevalence of guns (or weapons of any kind) and incidence of homicide. The United States has the most guns per capita, (112.6 per 100,000) but our murder rate is #121 of 218 (3.8 per 100,000).
By a very stark contrast, Honduras has the most murders per capita (90.4 per 100,000) but it ranks 87 of 175 in guns per capita (6.2 per 100,000).
At the state level, according to this chart Washington DC with its 3.6% gun ownership rate had 16.5 gun murders (per 100,000 people). That's more than double the #2 state, Louisiana, with 7.7 gun murders and an ownership rate of 44.1%. The lowest ranked state, Vermont, had 0.3 gun murders and an ownership rate of 42%.
There is simply no data that supports the assertion by Democrats that merely possessing guns, and lots of them, in and of itself makes gun murders more likely.


Liberal: If that were true then why do other "advanced" countries in Europe have strict gun laws AND lower murder rates than the United States?
Conservative: As this video points out, (it's 6 minutes, but it's worth your time and makes this point crystal clear) it isn't conservative "gun nuts" in Texas driving America's murder rate, it's violence and murder spurred by gangs in inner cities that are wholly owned by the Democratic Party. If you removed America's gang infestation from the equation the murder rate would actually be closer to, if not lower than many countries in Europe.


Liberal: Well, maybe those cities vote Democrat because their residents know that Republicans don't want to get rid of guns in America.
Conservative: If that were true then explain Chicago, which has some of the most strict gun laws in the country and yet their murder rate is 4 times that of the entire country.
Just like there is no relationship between prevalence of guns and murder, there is no evidence that strict gun laws, or even a ban itself would do anything to actually end violence by guns, or lower murder rates.


Liberal: Fine, but no other country has mass shootings as much as America does.
Conservative: On a per capita basis that, like everything else you believe, is also not true. <-- 5.="" a="" aka="" as="" at="" but="" capita="" chart="" even="" fatalities="" has="" in="" link="" mass="" most="" nominally="" not="" of="" our="" p="" per="" population="" proportion="" re="" s="" shooting="" shows="" the="" this="" top="" u.s.="" we="" world="">


Liberal: Why do you oppose background checks?
Conservative: We don't.


Liberal: Yes you do.
Conservative: Actually, you do, Obama is the least vetted president in modern American history, and YOU gave him access to nuclear weapons.


Liberal: Yeah but he's not going to use them. That wouldn't be fair to the countries that don't have them.
Conservative: ....


Liberal: That's why we shouldn't freak out if Iran develops nuclear weapons, we're less likely to go to war with them if they had them.
Conservative: ....and that more important to the left than the right for Americans to bear arms because...


Liberal: Is it not clear to you that the mass shootings show Americans can't be trusted with guns?
Conservative: ....


Liberal: What?
Conservative: Nothing, I just learned how much it hurts my head when dangerously ironic statements cross my eyes...Looking past that as best I can...
It's not that we oppose background checks, it's that if we're going to have them then they should actually work. California has very strict gun control laws and they utterly failed to stop the San Bernadino terror attack. Every time one happens Democrats predictably call for more of the same. Why should reasonable people support such insanity?


Liberal: All conservatives do is say no to new gun laws. Why don't conservatives ever give their own solutions on dealing with gun violence?
Conservative: We do, you just don't like them because it precludes government control over our lives. Instead of being tied up in red tape caused by onerous and apparently useless gun laws, conservatives say people should be empowered to defend themselves by being allowed to bear arms with proper training.
Another way it has been put is this: Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun. The only real common sense in this debate is that criminals, like bullies, prefer the path of least resistance. Allowing the law-abiding to arm themselves does more to stop crime than disarming them ever would.
If such a fundamentally simple fact as that wasn't true then why would we even bother arming the police?


Liberal: More people with guns stops gun violence? Isn't that like saying "fighting for peace is like f-ing for virginity?"
Conservative: First off, the definition of peace, REAL peace, isn't the absence of conflict. If that were true then totalitarian dictatorships would be considered among the most peaceful nations in the world.
Second, your analogy is idiotic. The prosperity earned through the liberty you enjoy was earned in war and nothing less. It was never gained through well-intentioned bongo banging and joint toking sessions of John Lennon karaoke.


Liberal: You really don't think allowing guns in order to stop guns is idiotic?
Conservative: Let's put signs in front of our homes. Mine will say "the residents of this home are gun owners" and yours will say "this is a gun-free zone." Well make the announcement on social media and see who feels like the bigger idiot then.


Liberal: You're missing the point, why don't we just make all guns illegal? Wouldn't that stop guns too?
Conservative: Laws are meant to deter and punish. Criminals who flout the law don't care about deterrence, and the ones willing to kill with guns don't care about punishment. If a life sentence or the death penalty for murder isn't enough to stop a murderer then how would stiffer gun penalties do the trick?


Liberal: But, what if stricter gun laws would result in saving just one life, wouldn't it all be worth it?
Conservative: That is precisely the type of thinking Benjamin Franklin warned against when he said (paraphrasing) that those who would trade liberty for security deserve (and would get) neither. Besides, laws restricting abortion might save lives, and Democrats fight to the death (see what I did there?) to defend them.


Liberal: That's different.
Conservative: Not a question, however, since all of your views are questionable I guess anything you say technically counts as one. So abortion is different because...?


Liberal: Because a fetus isn't a life.
Conservative: So if you went back in time and aborted...say...Abraham Lincoln, that would've been ok?


Liberal: Why does that name sound so familiar?
Conservative: Let's dumb it down for you...He was #BlackLivesMatter before it was cool. At the risk of needing to call in the bomb squad to contain your mind, you should know he was an old white Republican.


Liberal: Whatever, what does abortion have to do with this anyway? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that abortion is a privacy right under the 14th amendment?
Conservative: Yes, the Supreme Court extended the right to privacy through due process under the 14th amendment to abortion. They had to perform some logical acrobatics to get there, which is in contradistinction to the Second Amendment to that Constitution, which says explicitly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Liberal: What's your point?
Conservative: Abortion isn't actually a right, at least not one that was enumerated under the Constitution.


Liberal: Yes it is.
Conservative: No, it isn't.


Liberal: But, the Supreme Court ru-
Conservative: Rules incorrectly on certain things from time to time, such as abortion (and Obamacare, while we're at it), because they are not infallible.


Liberal: But but but...banning abortions would create back alley abortions.
Conservative: How so? (I know the answer)


Liberal: Because if someone REALLY wants an abortion they will find a way to get it from someone who is willing to provide it.
Conservative: And that couldn't happen if guns were banned?


Liberal: Why are you changing the subject to abortion anyway?
Conservative: Because it points out the left's hypocrisy on arguing for gun control laws as a means to curtail gun use, and the complete insincerity of their concern for saving innocent life. For every life in America lost to gun violence abortion has claimed 100 times more than that.
Yet, liberals insist abortion should be on demand and publicly funded, while guns should be banned or very heavily restricted to the point where the people would agree to banning them.
They argue that abortion restrictions won't necessarily stop abortions, but that gun restrictions will stop guns, which are a lot easier to hide from government than abortions.
They argue that we should take advances in technology into account when considering the relevance of the second amendment, because in their eyes the only constitutionally valid way to protect your home from a robber with a glock is with a musket.
Meanwhile, their insistence that a human fetus is just a clump of cells is an anti-science position that clings bitterly to the past. It requires completely ignoring the quantum leap in medical technological advancement that has taken place since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. More than 4 decades later we know SO MUCH MORE about what goes on in the womb, one of the things we have learned is we know unequivocally that a fetus is life.
The left's zealotry over abortion totally destroys their credibility on anything they have to say about guns, and leaves their true motives and intentions suspect.


Liberal: Can you hold on a second while I find my race card?
Conservative: No, we're done here.
Meme at the top found here.

Poll: 68% of Trump supporters say they’d stick with him if he ran as an independent

Hot Air ^ | 12/8/2015 

If all 68 percent of those "Trump or bust" likely Republican voters are telling the truth about sticking with him if he runs third-party, we're looking at something like 17-20 percent of the total vote next November going to Trump, way more than enough to wreck the GOP's chances. Even if half of them end up deciding to either stay home or vote for the Republican nominee in the interest of beating Hillary, that's still upwards of 10 percent breaking away.
There are X factors, though. One X factor is Trump's dynamism on the stump. If he campaigned aggressively as a third-party nominee, with the sort of frequent big rallies he's doing now, the contrast with Hillary's "low energy" campaign and whatever the GOP nominee is doing might drive extra votes to him. I wouldn't put it past him to get 25 percent, especially if he finally opens his wallet to buy ads and build a national organization.
But that'll be countered by another X factor: It's hard to predict how much free airtime the media will continue to give him during a general election. Letting him on the air to ramble for half an hour about barring Muslims is a perfectly sensible thing for MSNBC to do right now, when the GOP is at each other's throats. The more he talks, the more divided their enemy is.
If he went third-party, they'd have to think more carefully. I assume they'd double down early in the general election campaign by giving him a blank check to talk on the air about whatever he likes, hoping to drive attention away from the GOP nominee and towards Trump in the name of splitting the vote. If he really took off, though, and began to threaten Hillary, they'd cut him off.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

(Remember this?) Janet Napolitano: "Right-wing extremists" pose national security threats!

seeingredaz.wordpress.com ^ | 4/14/09 

Returning U.S. military vets singled out as particular threat
A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats, according to a report in WorldNetDaily.
The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."
(Excerpt) Read more at seeingredaz.wordpress.com ...

HATE

FAULT?

GIVE ME...

SAFE?

Sleeper Cell

Advisory

That Feeling!

UNAMERICAN

GIVE

Their Hero

Liberty, Fraternity, Security

Townhall.com ^ | December 9, 2015 | John Stossel 


What should we do about terrorism?
After the attacks on Paris, the French government passed a law that allows anyone suspected of being a security threat to be placed under house arrest and searches to be conducted without warrants.
Reason's Anthony Fisher reports that this can lead to nasty experiences for anyone who associates with people from the Middle East.
A Halal-Mexican restaurant near Paris "was raided by upwards of forty police armed with rifles and clad in body armor, helmets, and riot shields. After terrifying diners, who were ordered to sit still and not touch their phones, officers proceeded to the basement, where they smashed several doors with battering rams, reportedly in search of a 'hidden prayer room.'"
The restaurant owner asked them not to break down doors because he would simply unlock them, but he was ordered to "lay on the floor and stay silent." The raid did not find weapons or anything "linked to terrorist activities."
France also decided that it now has a right to copy data from anyone government deems of interest. By "anyone," though, the politicians didn't mean politicians. They exempted themselves -- and journalists, lawyers and diplomats. Insiders protect their own. Of course, this will inspire terrorists to pose as -- or become -- politicians, journalists, lawyers and diplomats.
France also claims the right to control TV, radio and theater content that might incite violence. France has long had "hate speech" laws that make it a crime to encourage hatred against a specific minority. Actress and animal-rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined $23,000 for "provoking racial hatred" after she criticized Muslims for being cruel to sheep.Somehow this hasn't stopped hatred or terrorism in France. More likely, it drives hate underground and chills speech that might eventually resolve differences.
In the U.S., despite Attorney General Loretta Lynch's ambiguous and poorly timed comments the day after the San Bernardino attack about the need to punish anti-Muslim hate speech, it remains legal to say hateful things so long as you do not incite imminent violence, such as by telling a crowd, "Go kill that guy." Good.
Politicians' tendency when people are scared is to keep expanding government. The Department of Homeland Security is now nearly twice the size it was when it was created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Panic can cause bad spending and management decisions even in our private lives, but the problem is far worse in government, where it's other people's money being spent. Almost any waste can be justified by calling it necessary for "national security."
Homeland Security spent billions on grants to tiny local police departments to help them purchase military equipment and vehicles -- and put covert listening devices in public places.
The agency also assigns itself tasks that appear to have little or nothing to do with what most people consider "homeland security."
An elderly man in a theater in Columbus, Ohio, was subjected to a terrifying hour-long interrogation by a DHS official because he wore Google Glass and the theater thought he might be illegally taping the film. They didn't believe him when he explained that the glasses were prescription glasses.
The man told the Gadgeteer, "a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says, 'Follow me outside immediately.'" After an hour, they let the man go.
It turns out DHS considers fighting movie piracy to be part of its responsibility. DHS agents also investigate pickpocketing, expose counterfeit NBA merchandise and teach nightclub strippers about sex-traffickers. Meanwhile, the TSA confiscates shampoo and tweezers but fails test after test using dummy bombs smuggled through airport security.
Your tax dollars at work. Yet now, after the latest terror attacks, Republicans and Democrats both claim Homeland Security still needs more money.
Keeping Americans safe from terrorism is an important, basic function of government. But government doesn't stick to its basic functions.
Terrorists are a real threat. So is government with a blank check.

Hey moonbats, guess what... 
prez can ban Muslims from U.S.

The Boston Herald ^ | December 8, 2015 | Howie Carr 

For the record, this is what I tweeted out Sunday night after Obama’s pathetic address from the Oval Office: “time to close the border. No racial profiling. Nobody NOBODY can come in. What could be fairer?”
So I’m not with Donald Trump on banning only 
Muslims, never was. I want to turn off the immigration spigot the Constitutional way, the 
doable way. (If you ask a terrorist flying in from Karachi if he’s a Muslim, what do you think he’s going to say?)
It’s time to stop immigration, not just because of terrorism, but also to halt rampant lawbreaking and the multi-billion dollar abuse of the welfare system by undocumented Democrats....
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...

The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law

https://www.nccs.net ^ | nccs 

Shariah is Anti-Constitutional
Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:
the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;
the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;
freedom of conscience; individual liberty
freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);
economic liberty (including private property);
equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);
freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and
an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.
*SNIP
America's Founders and Islam
America's earliest presidents best understood these founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption, but they were professionally competent in explaining them. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.
Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:
"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

WTF, over?

IgIuU2L.gif

Radical

2BUpc3C.jpg

What do you think?

ebUaxUg.jpg

FAULT!

CZx1eJY.jpg

The result

refugees-welcome-consequences.jpg

TROUBLE!

QGHFQQx.jpg

Don't Worry!

B2Wtea0.jpg

OUTLAW!

O53lnbO.jpg

Fears

mmbEe13.jpg

It works?

xhoA44Q.jpg

Gun Control

bdWZZtK.jpg

Progress

Progress-600-nrd.jpg

Their God

daily_ne.jpg

Spin it!

Blame-Wheel-600-LI1.jpg

Be warned

nLjo9V5.jpg

One nation

fS3MRU3.jpg

The rich

Q1k0Tb1.jpg

Part of the problem

problem.jpg