Monday, December 14, 2015

San Bernardino jihad murderer was vetted by FIVE different government agencies

Jihad Watch ^ | 12/14/15 | Robert Spencer 

It just keeps getting worse. At first we were told that she had been vetted by two agencies. Apparently Obama Administration officials were hoping to cover up the magnitude of this failure. In any case, Tashfeen Malik stands as a witness to the impossibility of vetting for jihadis.
“U.S. missed ‘red flags’ with San Bernardino shooter,” CBS News, December 14, 2015:
As investigators focus on what or who motivated San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, to open fire at the Inland Regional Center, a report about Malik’s comments on social media before she moved to the U.S. is raising questions about how thoroughly she was vetted.
Law enforcement sources confirmed to CBS News that Malik made radical postings on Facebook as far back as 2012 — the year before she married Farook and moved to the U.S., reports CBS News correspondent Carter Evans. According to a report in the New York Times, Malik spoke openly on social media about her support for violent jihad and said she wanted to be a part of it. But none of these postings were discovered when Malik applied for a U.S. K-1 fiancé visa.
“If you’re going to start doing a deeper dive into somebody and looking at their social media postings or other things, you really want to focus your effort on the high-risk traveler, the person that you’re really worried about being a threat to the United States,” said James Carafano, national security expert and vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. “The question is, how do you identify them?”
Malik was not identified as a threat despite being interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and vetted by five different government agencies that checked her name and picture against a terror watch list and ran her fingerprints against two databases.

Herschel Walker, football great: I'm with Trump

WND ^ | 12/14/2015 | Cheryl Chumley 

'We have to quit being politically correct'
Herschel Walker, the former NFL football great with Dallas, Minnesota and Philadelphia, who later made a star-studded appearance on "The Apprentice," weighed in on the upcoming presidential election by naming his candidate of choice: Donald Trump.
Why?
In part, because of Trump's controversial remarks about Muslims and the need to temporarily shut U.S. borders to them for security reasons.
"Look, we can't build a wall and not let people in the country," Walker said to TMZ Sports. "But we do have to get this country safe. We have to quit being politically correct. We have to do what's right to save America."
And that means Trump for president, Walker said.
"I guarantee you [Donald] would be better than a lot of people in office now," Walker said, TMZ Sports reported. "That I can tell you for a fact. Donald has said what he's said, but his numbers haven't gone down. That's a sign he is saying the things that people think, but are afraid to say themselves. Donald is saying what people want to hear."
Walker appeared on the eighth season of "The Apprentice," the long-running series hosted by Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

America's Public Schools: Exalting Islam, Banning Christmas

FrontPage Mag ^ | 12/14/2015 | William Becker 


Charlie Brown: I guess I don't really know what Christmas is about. Isn't there anyone who understands what Christmas is all about?
Linus: Sure, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.

-- "A Charlie Brown Christmas"

In the Peanuts Christmas (not "holiday") classic, a morose Charlie Brown struggles to come to grips with "the true meaning of Christmas." Recall that Lucy, dispensing psychiatric advice as a cure for Charlie Brown's melancholy, therapeutically tasks him with directing their school's Christmas play. "You need involvement," she tells him. "You need to get involved in some real Christmas project." When the advice fails to pay off, Linus takes to the school auditorium's stage and having transformed his blanket into a shepherd's costume recites Luke 2:8-14. "That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown," Linus concludes.
At least one court disagrees. In a ruling issued last week in the case of Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools, a federal judge ordered an Indiana high school to cancel a live Nativity musical number enjoyed since 1970 as a regular part of its annual "Christmas Spectacular" shows. Over drifting choruses of Christmas carols and surrounding a hay-lined crèche, costumed student performers played the parts of Mary, Joseph, the Three Wise Men, shepherds and angels. In light of last week's ruling, Linus' homily no longer represents a message of hope for all mankind. Rather, it is an unconstitutional example of religious indoctrination imposing its cruelty on children vulnerable to religious conversion at the twinkle of a light and the tranquil strains of Silent Night.
Atheist activists and the Democrat-appointed liberal judges who empower them (or is it the other way around?) have seen to it that their interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") will be strictly enforced in our nation's public schools. It took Judge Jon E. Deguilio, an Obama appointee, 16 lumbering pages filled with the kind of tortured insight only a progressive lexicologist might enjoy to conclude that "a reasonable observer would fairly believe that the portrayal of the living nativity scene, when viewed in the particular context, circumstances, and history of the Christmas Spectacular, conveys a message of endorsement of religion, or that a particular religious belief is favored or preferred."
This is what it has come to. Good grief.
But the piety reserved for constitutional transcendence apparently extends only to restricting Christian expression in public schools. For decades -- yes, decades -- Islamic religious dogma and practices have been part of public school curricula nationwide. In 2003, parents in Northern California sued over a middle school world history program featuring a series of role--playing activities ("simulations") in which students were required to "become a Muslim" for three weeks. They were told to choose a Muslim name, recite Islamic prayers (including the Shahada, a Muslim's profession of faith in Allah and acknowledgement of Muhammed as his prophet), participate in imaginary pilgrimages to Mecca, perform ritual fasting during lunch to simulate fasting Muslims carry out during their "holy month" of Ramadan, dress in Muslim robes and recite Arabic phrases meaning "God is great." (The case was Eklund v. Byron Union Sch. Dist.)
The parents expressed additional concern over a trivia card game in which students were taught to affirm that Allah is the one true God, that Muhammad is his prophet, and that the "Holy Qu'ran" is God's third revelation as revealed to Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel. There's more, but you get the picture. Under the test employed by Judge Delguilio in the Nativity case, these facts should have been more than sufficient to find an Establishment Clause violation and end the instruction. Had the tables been turned, no court would have allowed schools to teach children to recite the Lord's prayer or take communion. That has been the law of the land at least since the Supreme Court banned school prayer inEngel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).
But through the fractured prism of progressive thinking, one plus one doesn't always equal two, and a San Francisco federal judge dismissed the case. Affirming the judgment, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't even bother to perform a legal analysis, concluding perfunctorily that "[t]he Islam program activities were not ‘"overt religious exercises" that raise Establishment Clause concerns.'" The Court ordered its opinion not to be published, so it can't be cited as binding precedent, which may explain why the U.S Supreme Court turned down an appeal.
A decade would pass before other parents would take notice of what their children were being taught. Just last month, a Huntington Beach mother was shocked to discover a poem her seventh grade son brought home from school promoting the spread of Islam through violence: "This is their fight song/Spread Islam now song/Prove that they're right song … And they don't really care/If no Jews or C[hristians]' believe..." The school district apologized for the teacher's use of such "supplemental materials," materials a teacher is not required to use, but the incident exposed only the tip of an enormous propaganda iceberg concealed from parents and the larger public.
Indeed, the scope of educational tools being used to aggrandize, and even glamourize, Islam -- or what is more widely, and broadly, described in school curricula as the "Islamic Civilization," -- is not limited to the "supplemental materials" teachers are recklessly using. Various studies surveying history, social studies and other textbooks adopted for use have found, as one summarizes it, a "pattern of historical revisionism, omission, and bias in the presentation of all aspects devoted to Islam." Common Core Standards all but ensure that students will be taught the "approved" version of Islam educators desire. And there is no credible program that educates teachers regarding how to teach about religion without crossing the line into teaching religious dogma.
Slowly awakening to what has been described as an entrenched ideological environment that extols Islam as a superior religious choice under the pretense of fostering diversity and multiculturalism, parents, activists and legislators are beginning to mobilize against it. In Tennessee, our organization, Freedom X, has partnered with activist groups to expose the inadequacy of religious instruction. Tennessee Representative Sheila Butt has proposed legislation delaying the teaching of religions until high school.
But these efforts are only a beginning and the challenges are great. As a legal matter, finding a parent willing to sue a school district prior to his or her child's graduating from a particular school is like finding a needle in a haystack. Then there is the problem of discovering what precisely the child has been taught, and with what materials, and how aggressively. Overcoming those hurdles, there is always the specter of liberal judges to contend with.
Making a pedagogical case for Christmas in public schools stands as much a chance of winning in courts as teaching about Islam's conquests -- not to mention 9/11 -- is likely to be taught through public education. It is a whitewashing of history that cannot be taught with any objectivity at all, much less to children in K-12 schools, who sadly are denied a simple message of hope one time, one season, one Christmas each year.  
***
Bill Becker is founder, president, CEO and General Counsel of Freedom X, a non-profit public interest law firm protecting conservative and religious freedom of expression. Freedom X was lead counsel in Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee v. City of Santa Monica. www.freedomxlaw.com.

The warped world of our delusional president

investors.com ^ | 12/14/2015 | ANDREW MALCOLM 

One of the more intriguing -- and disturbing -- aspects of Barack Obama's presidential behavior is his stubbornly persistent belief that saying something, anything, makes it so. Even in the face of bold facts to the contrary.
ObamaCare state exchanges are failing one after the other and he routinely informs both domestic and foreign audiences that it's a huge success.
Thanks to his virtual international coalition of 65 countries, now minus Canada, Obama says on national TV that ISIS is contained. Hours later, its operatives kill 130 in Paris, an horrific slaughter the Democrat dismissed as a "setback." Yes, especially for the dead people.
The United Nations -- that once well-meaning, now feckless body of talkers -- assembles scores of delegates to emit hot air in Paris about global warming, which Obama says was a sharp rebuke to ISIS' killers. At least two of its adherents apparently missed the rebuff and killed 14 Americans in San Bernardino.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

'Sold Out' to Lobbyists: A Look at the I-Squared Act

Center for Immigration Studies ^ | 12/8/15 | John Miano 

Michelle Malkin and I have written a new book, Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best & Brightest Workers.

Among much else we cover the I-Squared Act, S.153, (short for the "Immigration Innovation Act of 2015"). If you are an American worker, that bill is more appropriately called the "I'm Screwed Act". But there was so much other ground to cover, our book does not go into the bill's provisions in detail. Therefore, I thought I would take the time to do that here.

But first, some background on the book. We were fortunate to have good timing, with the book coming out after the media has partially lifted its blackout on reporting the politically incorrect fact that employers use foreign workers to replace Americans.

It took months from the time ComputerWorld and a local TV station reported that Americans were replaced by H-1B workers at Walt Disney World to the time it was first reported in the New York Times. As I previously pointed out, the local newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel, reported on the Disney layoffs but, in a case of political correctness run wild, failed to report the fact that foreign workers were replacing those losing their jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at cis.org ...

The 'Hooking Up' Culture

American Life League ^ | 12/14/15 | Emily Brown 

Did you know that college-aged women account for more than one-third of all abortions? One in 10 women will have an abortion by the age of 20! That statistic only worsens as women get older, becoming one in every four by the age of 30.

Sadly, this is our reality. Young women in their teens and twenties are having abortions more than anyone could imagine. So what is it that makes women seek abortion as the answer to an unplanned pregnancy? I do not believe it is hatred toward the child, but instead a mixture of feelings—from fear to confusion—and ignorance about the pain and sorrow they will eventually feel once the reality of what they have done sinks in.

Let’s back up further and address the culture that fosters this lack of respect for human persons—this culture that leads women (and men) to think that killing a child is an acceptable option. I believe it comes from the mentality of today’s throw-away culture. When women feel that they are something to be used, any product of that behavior can be discarded as well. These women are often having sex or “hooking up” indiscriminately and on a regular basis. And if a child should be created, they likely feel that the easy option is to just “get rid” of the problem.

The fact that college-aged women are having abortions should be no surprise. On most campuses sex, alcohol, birth control, and condoms are pushed on students relentlessly and without shame. Trust me, as a recent college graduate, I know because I have seen this. Not a single weekend went by where one of my friends did not hook up with a guy. Almost every weekend the individual man hooking up with my friends would change. However the situation was always the same. Every weekend my girlfriends were looking for love. They were looking for a man to truly appreciate them and show them that he cares and loves them. And after a few drinks and smooth pick-up lines, they would end up having sex.

This is nothing unheard of. In fact, this same story plays out repeatedly on every campus every single weekend. Girls are made to feel like if they want a man to truly love them they must give up what is most valuable to them.

Because of this hooking up culture, men and women do not understand the true meaning of romance. True romance is selfless, meaning a person sacrifices his wants and needs for another. So, maybe a person’s passions or even friends are pushing him to have sex. But young people must not lose sight of that selfless love—a love that necessitates both partners wait until the sacrament of marriage to fully give themselves to a partner and to be open to love and to life.

Young women need to know that they are worthy of this true romance. They do not have to conform to the hooking up culture.

This is what is missing on college campuses. Young people usually do not hear about selfless love or abstinence on campus. Instead, condoms, birth control, alcohol, and sex are pushed and seen as normal. These then lead to confusion, pain, misunderstanding of love, and, worst of all, abortion.

We can and must put a stop to this chaos! It begins with educating our young men and women. If they understand true romance and respect themselves and others, then not only will the hooking up culture diminish, but the abortion rate will diminish as well. This can and will happen!

When one young person goes against the tide, standing firm against the culture’s hedonistic mindset and living a virtuous life, others will follow. Are you ready to be that person?

Emily Brown, the granddaughter of Judie Brown, graduated magna cum laude from Mount St. Mary’s University with a bachelor’s degree in special and elementary education and a minor in theology in May 2015. She began working for American Life League this summer and is the director of its new youth department, ALL Life Defenders. She plans on educating and collaborating with young adults all over the country to empower the new generation to respect all life from creation to death! 

Does The Left Want Us Dead?

Townhall.com ^ | December 14, 2015 | Kevin McCullough 


In the days since the deadly attacks in Paris, one thing has been made clear: the political and cultural left in America desire the average American to live with maximum vulnerability towards future terror attacks. They seem oblivious to the natural outcomes of such desires. But they insist that no solution to terrorism or potential terrorism take on an ounce of common sense.

No matter the suggestion, they scoff, condescend and even threaten those who would take even basic precaution—in order to save American bloodshed.

How else do you explain their opposition to the following suggestions?

Arming lawful and law-abiding Americans — There is zero doubt that Syed Farook and his radicalized wife could be persuaded by armed citizenry. In 2012 Farook postponed a planned attack simply because four suspected terrorists in California were apprehended. Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik's intentions were to kill as many unarmed Americans as possible. Evidence continues to mount, but it appears they had originally desired to hit a much bigger, more dramatic, and more painful target like a school or church. Resigning themselves to make their big stand with his former co-workers and hoping for the residual damage of killing the first responders that arrived was due in part to the idea that getting caught or getting shot back at weighed heavily on their minds. In both Colorado Springs as well as San Bernardino the absence of people who could shoot back influenced the perpetrators—as do the majority of these shootings, given that close to none of them ever occur in gun friendly zones. Unarmed civilians look like sitting ducks when it comes to those who wish to kill as many of us as possible.

Suspending or at minimum slowing the stream of refugees — In the one month since the Paris attacks the United States has allowed the importation of 237 refugees from Syria. According to reports, 236 of them were Sunni Muslims. Exactly one is a Syrian Christian. Given that Sunni Islam is the strain that produced the terror groups Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Nusra, and ISIS, it may be worthwhile to take a second or third look at those 236 before accepting the vetting process in place by the Obama administration. That process thinks that asking the actual refugee if they are "a terrorist" or have any desire to perform an "act of terror" on America is a sufficient means of vetting a secret killer's hidden intention. Syrian refugees are especially problematic given that they are arriving here from a nation whose actual records' infrastructure has been destroyed in 6-8 years of civil war and a takeover in some regions by ISIS. Syrian passports are also easy to forge—as multiple reporters have documented—but we also know that ISIS got their hands on a Syrian passport technology that is allowing them to create false passports. When anyone has mentioned slowing the process down, "Islamophobia" is screamed at the top of lungs. But we know that some of the attackers in Paris got there under the "refugee" ruse.

Profiling potential terror activity based on facts —Profiling is always one of those ideas that the politically correct hyperventilate at but there is nothing negative about using certain criteria to screen groups of people. For instance, if we know for a fact that many of the terrorists are from a Sunni Muslim background, let's allow refugees from Christian, Yezedi, and Shia populations to immigrate first. But since we are allowing Sunnis to come here at a clip of 236 to 1 we might need to take another step forward in our activity to screen them once they are. Along those lines FBI Director Comey this week admitted that Syed Farook's name had come up multiple times in their operations. As it turned out Syed Farook was actively contacting Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS. Yet even though Farook is a Sunni Muslim, an attendee of a radicalized mosque in Southern California, had traveled to radicalized areas, and had repeatedly reached out to terrorists and terrorist organizations—the FBI Director astoundingly uttered, "the contact he had was not enough to bring him onto the law enforcement radar." What more did he need to do? On the same day FBI Director Comey uttered those words, Fox News Channel's Megan Kelly reported on Homeland Security investigations that were literally shut down by the State Department because they focused exclusively on radicalized Muslim mosques. The man who originated the program firmly believes that had the investigations been allowed to continue, San Bernardino, would've never happened.

The political, cultural, and even spiritual left in America argue that it is of no use to allow Americans to arm and defend themselves. Some even go so far as to imply that law-abiding gun owners would conduct more terrorism than they would stop. Even cursory knowledge of the numbers knows that's the opposite of what always happens—without fail.

The political, cultural, and spiritual left do not wish us to re-examine our vetting policies of how quickly we allow those coming from radicalized areas, and who practice the brand of Islam where the majority of our sworn enemies have had their minds shaped, and who can penetrate our nation's borders because of our policies towards refugees.

And the political, cultural, and spiritual left do not want us profiling—even when common sense factors like repeated attempts at trying to contact and join Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Nusra, and ISIS have been tried.

Which leaves America wondering, "then what basic steps will the American left take to even attempt to insure our security from future San Bernardino style attacks?"

And America waits for the answer…

Unless you actually believe that getting "serious" about global warming gives terrorists pause.

Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion story is beyond disgraceful

The Dallas Morning News ^ | December 11, 2015 | Jim Mitchell 

The last time I heard something as far-fetched as U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s rationale for leaving his post was O.J. Simpson’s vow to search for his ex-wife’s killer…on the golf course.
I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or be angry. Bergdahl is one troubled young man. Listen to this podcast. I think you will agree.
His reason for leaving his post and endangering the lives of soldiers searching for him is remarkably juvenile. He wanted to expose leadership failures, and test whether he could pull off a Jason Bourne adventure, he says. He wanted to draw attention, like a petulant child who hides and panics his parents just to spite them...
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com ...

Men's rights group lawsuit: Male-only draft violates Constitution!

SCPR ^ 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard arguments this week about the constitutionality of a male-only draft — and whether or not the case should go to trial.
The suit was brought by the San Diego-based National Coalition For Men nearly three years ago — after the military began considering allowing women into combat - but was thrown out at the time after the court ruled it wasn't "ripe" because the combat role of women was then in flux.
Now on appeal, the three-judge panel heard arguments in Pasadena a week after Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that he was lifting all remaining barriers to women serving in military combat jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at scpr.org ...

ACLU leader forced to resign after making violent threats towards Trump supporters

http://www.allenbwest.com ^ | December 13, 2015 | Michele Hickford 

Yes, we conservatives are the hate-filled bigots because we still use terms like "illegal immigrants," "Islamic terrorists" and oh yeah, "Merry Christmas." Yes, very hateful - and you know the American Civil Liberties Union would be first in line to point that out, except...
What happens when one of their OWN squeaks out a little bona fide hate speech?
His rant was accompanied by a USA Today article calling Trump a ‘fear monger in chief.’
The original post, which has been taken down, read, ‘The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him. I will have to shoot you before election day.’ They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force, as Laurie would say.’
Per the Daily Mail, "Loring Wirbel stepped down from his job with the Colorado Springs chapter of the ACLU after his Facebook post likening Trump to a Nazi and saying that he would have to shoot anyone who votes for him began making the Internet rounds, according to the New York Daily News."
(Excerpt) Read more at allenbwest.com ...

Hey old lady where you going to?...US Army Ranger School

US Defense Watch ^ | December 13, 2015 | Ray Starmann 

“Saw an old lady walking down the street She had a ruck on her back and jungle boots on her feet I said ‘Hey old lady where you going to?’ She said ‘U.S. Army Ranger School”
Who knew that the famous, age old running cadence used by the US Army Rangers would become prophetic one day? That day is now.
With the “graduation” of three females from Ranger School at Fort Benning and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s subsequent decision to allow women to serve in combat; the Army’s toughest, roughest training seems to have a revolving door for every crackpot concept conceived in a Berkeley coffee house.
In the last three months, Ranger School has graduated three female officers, Captain Griest, First Lieutenant Haver and Major Jaster, the 37 year old mommy of two. Nothing against mothers, where would be without mothers? It used to be rare for a 37 year old male to come out of Ranger School alive, much less a 37 year old mother of two. But, hey, times have changed…So, have the standards apparently.
Standards?
Just a thought here: in World War II, Merrill’s Marauders, the parent of the 75th Ranger Regiment, conducted a 1,000 mile forced march behind the Japanese lines in the mountainous jungle of Burma. That’s 1,000 miles, 1600 klicks up and down mountains and through jungle on foot, without Skechers, people. I’m just trying to picture a 37 year old mommy on that mission. Call me a skeptic; might be difficult. Just saying…
After all, anything is possible now in this neuter’s Army. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy all exist at Fort Benedict Arnold, I mean Fort Benning. Benning has become a virtual fantasy land for feminist social engineers with moving parts, rides and wax figures.
The old Army adage, “Everyone will qualify,” has taken on a whole new meaning at Benning.
Congressman Steve Russell has been trying to get the Ranger School records for the female graduates for three months now. Russell has received nothing from Benning except some half-baked white paper showing that all men and women are equal at Ranger School tasks.
Why won’t the Army just give Russell the records? At first they told him they were destroyed. That’s interesting since Army schools usually keep records a year or two after graduation. Then, Russell requested the Green Cards, the transcript of someone’s performance at Ranger School that everyone who has attended the school since 1952 has in a file cabinet there.
The Army balked at the Green Card request stating “privacy concerns.” That’s a good one, considering the people looking at the records are elected officials with top secret clearances. What’s private about a land navigation score? Nothing, unless one of the female graduates had a history of BOLO-ing land nav repeatedly and the Army passed her anyway. Can you think of a bigger cluster than a Ranger who doesn’t know how to use a map and compass?
Azimuths?
As I’ve said before, the Army is clearly hiding something down at Benning.
The Army wants the story to disappear, but it won’t. Former Congressman Allen West wrote an article last week that touched on the subject and the issue of women in combat in general.
West called for Senator John McCain and Congressman Mac Thornberry to investigate this issue and to also deny the Army any further funding until they cough up the records for Griest, Haver and Jaster.
I was recently on the Todd Herman Show in Seattle to discuss the ongoing scandal. Yes, I use the term scandal, because until the Army comes clean it is a scandal. These articles could cease in two seconds if the Army provided the school records and showed that the standards were maintained honestly.
So, what’s next?
With Ash and Trash Carter’s decision to allow women to serve in the combat arms and special operations, the social engineering will march on with a new vim and vigor. As with police and firefighters, a new double standard will emerge.
Since Carter has now opened a virtual Pandora’s Box of equal opportunity, I predict no one will be blocked from attending and graduating from Ranger School. We’ll have grandmothers and great-grandmothers leading the way!
We are now heading into very strange waters, where anyone, regardless of age, sex or qualifications could potentially be serving in the toughest jobs the military has to offer. The insane premises of gender-neutrality, political correctness and equal opportunity will soon know no bounds. Any denial of a request to serve will be met with a lawsuit and a visit to Judge Mathis.
Mark my words, there will be a 70 year old woman trying to be a Ranger soon enough. Think I’m nuts. There’s a 37 year old mother running around with a Ranger tab right now. Think about that.
During the last two months of covering this story, USDW has had a plethora of comments from readers, mostly positive, some critical. Here are some of the best negative comments:
“You’re a jerk, Starmann.”
“I wonder how long you would have lasted on Omaha Beach, Starmann.”
“Stop criticizing the Army!”
“Why do you care? You’re not even in anymore.”
“Those senior officers are doing their best.”
And, my personal favorite, “It’s 2015. Get on board!”
All aboard! Next stop, fantasy land!
No doubt USDW is not the most popular website now in some military quarters. To quote FDR in reference to the bankers, “I welcome their hatred.” The articles will continue until we learn the truth.
The Army needs to learn a little Latin such as Veritas Liberabit Vos. The truth will set you free; a thought to chew on down there at Benning with your pogey bait, gentlemen.
Until then…
Saw an old lady walking down the street…

Kerry Says Paris Agreement Crafted To Avoid Congress

Washington Examiner ^ | December 13, 2015 | SARAH WESTWOOD 
\
Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the climate agreement reached this week in Paris did not contain any enforcement provisions because Congress would not have approved them.
"It doesn't have mandatory targets for reduction and it doesn't have an enforcement, compliance mechanism," Kerry said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
Kerry said such mechanisms were not included because Congress would have refused to greenlight the deal.
Binding legal requirements would have made the Paris agreement a treaty, requiring approval from two-thirds of the Senate. Because no climate change measure could close to the high bar in the chamber, the Paris deal was written to avoid it
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

'Objective' Reporters Wildly Cheer As 'Climate Change' Agreement Announced

Newsbusters ^ | 12/14/15 | Tom Blumer 

Apparently a generation of "journalists" has been raised to believe that the matter of human-caused global warming is "settled science," and that anyone who doubts the agenda-driven, redistributionist "climate change" movement is an enemy of civilization. Additionally, these people clearly don't understand the orchestrated, false-drama nature of diplomatic gatherings such as the one in Paris which just concluded with yet another "breakthrough" but non-binding "agreement" to reduce carbon emissions.

Thus, it's disconcerting, but not at all hard to believe, that these ignorant, gullible children disguised as discerning adults wildly cheered the announcement of the aforementioned agreement as if an athlete on one of their favorite teams just delivered a last-second victory:


Meanwhile, in the real world, mountains of evidence exist that CO2 levels don’t affect global temperatures, while satellite data indicate that there has been no global warming for almost 19 years.

For those who believe I am overplaying the the sports-related analogy, here is Sooper Mexican's grab (HT Progressives Today) of a tweet (since deleted) from The Economist's Miranda Johnson:

SoccerClimateChangeTweet121215

Objectively written history, should it continue to exist, will not be kind — to the statist alarmists, or to the journalists who continue to provide them cover.

Clinton will not even come close to Trump in the general election!

Coach Is Right ^ | 12/14/2015 | Kevin Collins 

2008 and again in 2012, real Americans knew we were being lied to about Barack Obama and that the media covered for him.
Fortunately those days are over.
In next year's election against Donald Trump all that has been whispered, smothered, lost and hidden about Hillary Clinton will be blasted out by Trump. The media will have no choice but to help him because he owns them.
By March Trump will be coasting to the Republican nomination. In the past such early success has been a problem for Republican candidates. The media used it as an excuse to stop covering him.


Rules about matching funds and not starting too soon have also hampered Republicans while Democrat PACs have openly violated the spirit of the campaign finance laws. That won't happen next year. Trump commands coverage and will start campaigning against Clinton months before she even gets her party's nomination.
He will bang away in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia where Clinton already is at 57% unfavorable.
As the Benghazi investigation wraps up (which cannot possibly help Clinton); Trump will call a press conference with Benghazi victim families who say she lied to them. Every minute will be another gut punch to Clinton. Trump will run TV spots showing Clinton cackling and asking Hillary,"What difference does it make?," that will be very effective.
To erode Clinton's female support, Trump will stand with Kathleen Willey and talk about how Hillary's job was to smear and belittle her husband's sexual abuse victims and the media will cover it.



Again and again Trump will tell America about Huma Abedin and her connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
None of these pressers would be covered if called by Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. They would have to buy the time. Thinking otherwise is delusional. The so called experts who say Trump is unelectable are even more delusional.
Of course there are countless additional Clinton crimes and scandals which can be used to hit Hillary, but those I've mentioned will more than make the point. Those who bank on 2016 being a re-run of 2008 and 2012 when cowardly Republicans would not and could not level knock out punches that might have stopped Obama cold are simply wrong.
Hillary Clinton will not even come close to Donald Trump in the general election.

Valerie Jarrett: Imposing More Gun Laws will Make US a “More Perfect Union”

Freedom Outpost ^ | 12/12/2015 | Tim Brown 

The fact that anyone actually believes that gun control is a solution to criminal actions by individuals with guns is really laughable. Yet, the Marxists are always eager to take advantage of every crisis. This week, Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett attended and spoke at a vigil at Sandy Hook and later tweeted out the "ending gun violence" (aka imposing more gun restrictions) would lead to the united States being a "more perfect union."
Jarrett, who spoke to those in attendance at St. Marks Episcopal Church on Wednesday, said that Hussein Obama was ready to act with illegal executive orders against the rights of gun owners and in defiance of the Second Amendment's protections if Congress was unwilling to pass more illegal legislation to restrict guns.
She also said the administration was attempting to encourage states to implement infringements upon the rights of gun owners and impose stricter legislation.
"We must continue to stand together in the face of cynical political failure," she said.
Jarrett then tweeted out this little bit of nonsense:
To families who have lost loved ones & are dedicated to ending gun violence: you are inspiring our country to be a more perfect union

is ironic that Jarrett would use the Sandy Hook incident to push gun control, since recently Paul Preston said that officials inside the Obama Department of Education told him that the entire Sandy Hook incident was merely a drill and used to advance the Obama administration's gun grabbing agenda.
Obama has said that the rest of his term in office, he will give "sustained attention" to attacking the Second Amendment. And there is no doubt that engineered shootings are a part of advancing his agenda. However, remember that under Barack Obama, more mass shootings and more mass murders have taken place than the previous four presidents combined!
Additionally, now the administration is attempting to violate the Second Amendment rights of the people by keeping those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. While some on that list may be violent criminals, some are not. Take for instance Pastor Chuck Baldwin. During his presidential run in 2008, he flew into San Antonio for a campaign stop and then upon leaving just 12 hours later, he found himself on the no-fly list for no apparent reason and all.
"Two men dressed in full battle uniform, complete with body armor, Kevlar helmets, and M16 rifles walked up behind me," recounted Baldwin. "To make a long story short, after over an hour of interrogation and phone calls to 'upper management,' I was told I would be allowed to fly 'this time'."
You can be sure that if that goes through, that a lot of individuals will find themselves on that list and will be targeted for gun confiscation and harassment.
All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Every. Single. One. And so are the agencies that enforce them.
Obama, Jarrett and those supporting any of this anti-gun legislation or executive orders are engaging in treason against the people of the united States by disarming us before our enemies as they are allowing them to come in and even burdening us with debt to bring them here.
They used to hang traitors. Sadly, in America today, they are tolerated.

Loretta Lynch’s Pro-Muslim Rhetoric Stems from Her Own Ties to a Pro-Terrorist Group

Freedom Outpost ^ | 12/11/2015 | Tim Brown 

Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently said that the Department of (IN)Justice would stand with Muslims in the wake of the San Bernardino jihad attacks and stated unequivocally, "When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."
But beyond the fact that she has engaged in unconstitutional criminal activity, Lynch was also a part of a Jew-hating, Pro-Terrorist Harvard Group.
Discover the Networks informs us that Loretta Lynch was born in Greensboro, North Carolina (So Lynch is not African-American, she's American, at least by birth. Having dark skin does not make you African. My friend Andre De Villiers, who makes custom knives, is from Africa and is as white as can be!), Lynch "earned an A.B. from Harvard College, where she was an original member of Delta Sigma Theta, a newly formed African-American sorority chapter; another noteworthy original member was Sharon Malone, who subsequently went on to marry Eric Holder."
However, Discover the Networks goes on to report, "After completing her undergraduate studies, Lynch in 1984 earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was a member of the Black Law Student Association."
Well now, just what is the Black Law Student Association? Charles Johnson reports on the group during the years between 1981-1984 when Lynch was a member.
During those years the radical black group brought representatives from the Palestinian Liberation Operation (PLO).
The group's leader, Mohammed Kenyatta, called for the "liberation of Palestine" and expressed support for the terrorist organization.
The BLSA defended bringing the terrorists in a letter to the editor of the Harvard student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson.
Jewish student organizations protested the speeches, especially in 1984. Liberal professor Alan Dershowitz joined the anti-PLO protests.
For documentation of the event, click here, here, here and here.
While the BLSA responded to the controversy in a letter to the editors of the Harvard Crimson, in an attempt to do damage control, the Crimson blasted the BLSA's letter.
THE BLACK LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (BALSA) committed an unjustifiable and discriminatory violation of student liberties last week when it denied Jewish students an opportunity to participate in a campus forum featuring a representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
More than 30 Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA) members attended the panel discussion, outnumbering members of BALSA and the Third World Coalition, the event's sponsors. But after opening the forum to questions from the floor, BALSA moderator Muhammad I. Kenyatta refused to recognize any of the white hands raised in the audience. BALSA and TWC members were to be given priority, he announced, proceeding to call on a Black student who hadn't raised his hand.
We defend the PLO's right to appear in an open forum at Harvard. All groups have a right to present their views; had Kenyatta permitted all students to challenge the speaker with critical questions, the ensuing discussion might have provided a constructive exchange of ideas and opinions.
By stifling debate, however, Kenyatta reduced the event to little more than a propaganda platform for a terrorist organization that has pledged to destroy the State of Israel. His refusal to open the floor to all students views showed a glaring disregard for the principles of free discussion that are vital to an enlightened academic community.
Moreover, Kenyatta's actions are particularly disturbing in light of the apparently widening rift between Black and Jewish organizations at Harvard and nationwide. Longtime political allies, particularly on civil rights issues, these groups recently have traded bitter words on a variety of issues; it is regrettable that Kenyatta acted in a way that helps further drive this wedge between Blacks and Jews.
None of this should surprise us, as Lynch has not only tied herself to organizations that promote terrorism, but she has served alongside other criminals. Under President Bill Clinton, Lynch served as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. During that time, from October 1994 to January 1998, Lynch was a partner with the Connecticut-based Ujamaa Investment Group. "Ujamaa" is a Swahili term signifying a commitment to the practice of "shared wealth" and a repudiation of economic inequality.
Lynch is as much a racist as Eric Holder and Barack Obama are. She believes that an enforcement of critical race theory is what is needed. By the way, keep in mind that she graduated from Harvard just like Hussein Obama, the same Harvard where Professor Derrick Bell, the racist man who produced critical race theory, taught.
Ms. Lynch has called Voter ID laws racist and has stolen over $900 million in asset forfeitures in 2013 alone, against the protections of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
All of this is not only immoral, but anti-American.
To further make the point of associations in this administration, consider the Eric Holder even participated in an armed takeover of a former Columbia University ROTC office! And don't forget the Michelle Obama, as well as Healthcare.gov creator's Executive were also part of a racist college group that hosted a pro-terrorist speaker. Show me who your friends are and I'll tell you what you are!
Lynch is a criminal just like Obama, Holder and the Clintons. She is a woman who cannot be trusted and yet, US Senators had all of this information, but many of them chose to confirm her, just like they did her predecessor Eric Holder, whom Congress held in contempt for his obvious obstruction of justice concerning Fast and Furious.
Marxists and Islamic sympathizers have it in for America, and there is no doubt that Loretta Lynch is among them. Now the question is, who in Congress will call for her impeachment and subsequent indictment? I'll be the first among the people!

Donald Trump: Right as Usual

American Thinker ^ | 12/14/15 | Steven Simpson 

When the next Islamist atrocity spills more blood in the streets of America, many now criticizing Donald Trump for his call to ban Muslim immigrationtemporarily may reconsider.  And whether it is the GOP establishment elite or the hysterical and maniacal media that are gunning for him, Donald Trump is saying things that grassroots conservative Americans only dare think.

In the wake of the atrocities of Paris and San Bernardino, why not have a temporary ban on Muslim immigration?  And why has the GOP establishment declared Donald Trump Enemy Number One?

Mr. Trump's recent call for such a ban in the wake of the Muslim massacre in California has sent the political-media axis from right to left and from coast to coast spinning into a mass apoplectic attack.  Forgetting that it is Islamic supremacists who are at war with America – and living among us – Donald Trump's enemies have brought out the long knives against him while performing the most incredible verbal gymnastics in defending the "religion of peace" and acting as apologists for so-called "violent extremists."

What is unfolding in the wake of Mr. Trump's views is nothing short of sheer insanity.  Whether it is likening the proposed immigration ban to Hitler's extermination of the Jews or simply calling Trump (what else?) a racist, it appears that America's political puppeteers have become completely unhinged.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Success?

2psey48.jpg

Cannot understand

30vk4gg.jpg

The Problem

qxvu5i.jpg

The AG

SAVAGEMUSLIM.jpg

Plumbing ban

x1et83.jpg

A reminder...

197408.jpg

Think

197416.jpg

We need...

6s6sep.jpg

Connecting

kEtEnHj.jpg

Screening

28jdydh.png

The Gun

kQlSoEo.jpg

Locking the door

197319.png

Invasions

C3NbL4A.jpg