Officer Jessie Hartnett, shot by a guy who said he did it in support of Islam, is a hero by any measure. Despite being shot at point blank range, and hit 3 times in an arm, Officer Hartnett called for backup then got out of his car and chased the POS and shot him. Keeping him from getting away while his backup collard him. Within minutes, President Obama got on television and gave this sobering statement, ” .” Yeah, that’s right. Not a peep out of him, his Attorney General, or the head of the FBI.
They are, no doubt, working on their “message” before going public. Translation; how can we blame anyone but the perp (except the liberal-progressive Democratically-controlled city), distance Islam from it, politicize it by tying it to the Democratic candidates’ gun control agenda, and make the American people believe it?
And to top it off, the idiotic mayor of Philadelphia, goes on TV to say that what we saw was not what we saw, and what we heard (from the perp) was not what we heard. It’s a double whammy against the liberal agenda, which resides in a perpetual state of denial. Deny that Islam has anything to do with terrorism and attacks like this, and two, they just can’t find any room to support police.
This is soooo not in keeping with the liberal meme. Black man shoots White cop. Not just any Black man. This Black man was inspired, and empowered, by radical Islam. Like it or not, believe it or not, this is a segment of the population that is more susceptible to radicalization than other demographics. Especially those in prison. Unfortunately, the perpetual state of denial that the political left is in means we can expect to see more of this kind of attack on our police.
China approves far-reaching counter terrorism law. Virtual control and access to all internet and electronic communications, to be able to get terrorists who use encryption.
The term, according to Xinhua, is “defined as any proposition or activity — that, by means of violence, sabotage or threat, generates social panic, undermines public security, infringes on personal and property rights, and menaces government organs and international organizations — with the aim to realize certain political and ideological purposes.”
“However, some analysts feel that the purpose of the bill is aimed at control of the Chinese population, rather than curbing domestic and international terrorism.”
BINGO! Well, it’s a twofer.
I tell you. This is the kind of stuff that makes Obama envious. He and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) were soul brothers. That is, in a political sense. Watch for China’s president, Xi Jinping, to be visiting The White House. Oh wait, Xi Jinping was there in September, 2015.
It’s pretty obvious that China wants a part of everything their people do. And sets the standard for what “terrorism” is, to include un-friendly sectors of the country. Like the (ethnic minorities) Muslim sectors.
In the U.S., it would be an Obama wet dream, to have government-mandated access to watch what you do. Especially those bitter clingers you know. IRS, DOJ, EPA . . . imagine the thrill of government intimidation by a visit from some of those letters of the Executive branch. Xi Jinping and Obama have a lot in common in their idea of government and its role. China doesn’t have a Constitution and Obama will not follow the Constitution. Going by China’s definition, it’s not a stretch.
Actually, Obama already uses those letters to intimidate political opponents. Using China’s definition of what terrorism is would make it more fun (from his perspective) and easier to do.
Big in the national and local news as well as on the campaign trail is the plight of, among others, the Syrian refugees seeking asylum in this country. Only, they’re not seeking refuge in this country. This administration is hell-bent on bringing them to the United States instead of supporting/protecting them in and around Syria. Some are coming here to Northwest Florida.
When asked if they would rather be home or here, they prefer to be home, or close enough to home so they can return after the civil war is over and ISIS is destroyed.
NGO’s are bringing the “refugees” and embedded terrorists here, financed with grants from the federal government. Attempts to speak to Catholic Charities CEO Christopher Root have fallen on deaf ears. Neither phone calls or in-person requests for a meeting on the subject of the refugees have been returned or acknowledged.
Mr. Root is hold up in a secure office building on Garden Street, just what you might expect for a non-profit Catholic charity. What?
In an attempt to get some transparency, and for Mr. Root to justify why, in spite of administration officials (and the terrorists themselves) saying that there will be terrorists among them, why he feels sacrificing our national security is necessary? I think the reason can be summed up in money. As in grant money. National security? Not the Catholic Charity’s problem.
Below is a letter-to-the editor submitted Dec 1, 2015. It has not been published yet. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of articles and other letters published that are sympathetic to bringing the refugees here. And, at the same time, disparaging those, like many in the country, who want no part of them coming here. Only the leading Republican candidates are talking about helping them in and around their own country in safe zones. People like President Obama are quick to say, “that’s not who we are.” Sorry, but importing terrorists to do us harm is not who we are. Democrats are all-in for bringing them here. After all, Muslims tend to vote 80% Democrat. What he means is, just like illegals flooding our borders on foot, building a permanent voting block is who he is. But that’s not who America is.
It is not just Christopher Root, but the talking heads at UWF who must justify why Syrians must come here, knowing of the high risk of terrorist embeds, and also how plucking them out of their country, continent, culture, and language will be more beneficial, for the refugees.
Letter to the editor follows.
For the U.S. to participate in helping refugees from anywhere when they come here is one thing. But to take them out of their country, continent, culture, and language, to bring them here is not only presumptuous of us to know what’s best for them, but is endangering ourselves in the process.
They need help there, in safe zones, so they can return home when their civil war is over and the dust settles. We had our civil war and no-one left the country. For the Syrians to leave their own country would be taking the opposition to ISIL away. Taking Syria’s future away. That’s not compassion.
What the media and academe won’t tell you is, it’s not the U.S. government bringing them here. It is NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) who are getting government grants who are bringing them here. Money talks. And money tends to change focus and re-arrange priorities from more important factors like our homeland security from the terrorist hotbed, Syria.
How about someone from an NGO like Catholic Charities, or a university like UWF, make their case that Syrian refugees are better helped with a one-way ticket here, instead of in and around their homeland?
This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president… Everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out.
In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.
A direct quote from the law:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Donald J. Trump managed to bring illegal immigration into public discourse and among all presidential candidates. Right out of the gate. It’s a national discussion we absolutely must have.
Now, Trump is leading the timid and weak again when it comes to asylum seekers, refugees, and immigration from terrorist-infested countries. As insensitive or Politically Incorrect as he sounds, his point is real, serious, and, real serious.
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says the enemy’s intent is to infiltrate the refugee populations. The enemy has announced that it seeks to infiltrate the refugee population. The head of the FBI says there is no good data with which to vet the refugee population.
People from both parties from the President on down continue to shift the emphasis away from the real enemy (radical Islam and Sharia Law) and onto Donald Trump, saying that what Trump proposed is UN-constitutional. It is not.
The religion clause pertains to public officials. This has nothing to do with public officials.
The equal protection clause has to do with the states. This has nothing to do with states.
The 1st Amendment is not extra-territorial. You don’t project it overseas.
Trump does not live in the PC world. He lives in Realville. And when an enemy declares war on you, ignoring the threat and their actions is not a winning strategy.
Until all those who are quick to criticize Trump and call for him to drop out of the race get serious about our national security, you can rely on the fact that they don’t have a solution to this problem. Instead, they want to import them. So far, only Ted Cruz and Donald Trump do.
Although I’m not holding my breath, I’m waiting for some Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, or anyone, to make the case for bringing terrorists into this country among the refugees which, administration and DOD experts, not the elected ones, say will happen.
And also, to make the case about why their help can not happen THERE instead of bringing them HERE, to a country that is predominately Christian (they are predominately Islamic) and that does not share their language or culture. And most likely, if Dearbornistan is any indication, a country that they probably don’t like very much. . . .
Realizing that not many people will take time out of their weekend to watch the CBS sponsored Democratic Debate, and, realizing that the DNC really doesn’t want these three to be seen or heard by a wide audience, and, realizing that CBS won’t be replaying the debate like the cable news networks do, I took the time to watch it on YouTube. It boils down to this. Continue reading CBS Democrat Debate, 11/14/2015→
Can you say ‘Sharia Law’ Mr. Zogby? The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation, like oh say, State and Federal government as guided by the Constitution.
Carson made himself perfectly clear that one’s religion does not matter as long as it is consistent with American principles and values. He also said that if a Muslim were to uphold American values and principles then that would be fine. And Muslims trying to institute Sharia Law in the United States is fact, not playing. But you’re not hearing that from the media, are you? Ben Carson is more right than anyone on the Left cares to admit. And he doesn’t do PC either.
For Zogby to deny Sharia is to deny the inseparable nature of Islam and governance. In this respect, Islam and a secular government is incompatible. Islam is the religion and the controlling governance of its believers. It’s what one says and does that matters. Obama can say he’s a Christian. He can say he’s a Witch for all I care. It’s what he does that matters. Trading a traitor for the release of 5 Muslim terrorists should tell you all you need to know.
In fact, if James Zogby wants to call out bigoted and hateful comments from politicians, he should look at Hillary Clinton who has made ‘Muslim’ the new N-word.