Our D-Day Legacy 75 Years Later

I find it ironic that on the Day we honor D-Day and those who put their lives up to fight WWII, on the same day we are under an invasion from our southern border.

And we still cannot convince Congress to take action, spend money for the wall, or do anything to stop the flow. But they do make the time to pass some sort of Dreamers’ bill. Not a priority to secure the border but Democrats can rally support for that bill!

DHS Frees 5.5K Illegal Aliens into U.S. in a Week; 196K Released in 5 Months

JOHN BINDER6 | June 6, 2019 | Breitbart

President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released about 5,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into the interior of the United States over the past seven days, federal data confirms.

From May 28 to June 3, DHS released 5,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities in various states across the country. The latest federal data, obtained by Breitbart News, finds that DHS, in the last week, released nearly 800 border crossers and illegal aliens into the U.S. every single day.

The catch and release process often entails federal immigration officials busing border crossers into nearby border cities — as well as flying them into the interior of the country — and dropping them off with the hope they show up for their immigration and asylum hearings. The overwhelming majority of border crossers and illegal aliens are never deported from the country once they are released into the U.S.

Today, there are anywhere between 11 and 22 million illegal aliens living across the country — the majority of which are concentrated in states like California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois.

In the last week, about 2,500 border crossers and illegal aliens of the 5,500 released were dropped off in El Paso, Texas. Another 1,100 were released by DHS in San Antonio, Texas and another 1,100 were left in 1,100 Phoenix, Arizona. Since December 2018, El Paso has been forced to absorb nearly 70,000 of these nationals, while San Antonio has had to take 73,100.

Roughly 800 border crossers and illegal aliens were dropped off in San Diego, California in the last week.

In the last five months, DHS has released at least 196,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into the interior of the U.S., though this does not count the tens of thousands of border crossers and illegal aliens who have been released into the country by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan recently admitted to Congress that “100 percent” of adult border crossers arriving at the southern border with children are being released into the U.S. and eventually given work permits.

Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has exclusively detailed at Breitbart News three executive actions the Trump administration and DHS officials could take to immediately end catch and release — including creating additional detention space where immigration court hearings can be heard quickly. Kobach has also warned that wage hikes for America’s blue-collar and working class will not continue while illegal immigration levels are soaring.

At current catch and release rates, by the end of the year, DHS will have freed more than 470,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities — in addition to the projected half a million illegal aliens who are expected to successfully cross the U.S.-Mexico border this year, undetected by federal officials.

Every year, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million legal immigrants with the overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent, coming through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign nationals to the country. The mass inflow of legal immigrants is in addition to the hundreds of illegal aliens who are added to the U.S. population annually.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
 

So about a million illegals in a year. What part of crisis are they not getting? All of it.

Numbers And History Show A Crisis … Democrats stuck firmly in State of Denial

If Democrats refuse to call it a crisis and a huge debacle on the border, then they have a problem with math and numbers, and history. Maybe history won’t be kind to them?

Here is an excellent editorial from Investors’ Business Daily. Subject: crisis and illegal immigration by the numbers.

Yes, There Is A Crisis At The Border — The Numbers Show It

1/10/2019 — IBD Editorial

Illegal Immigration: Democrats and the mainstream press accuse President Donald Trump of manufacturing a crisis at the border. The numbers tell another story.

As soon as the words “growing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border” left Trump’s lips in his Oval Office address this week, Democrats and media “fact-checkers” were trying to dispel it as a deliberate lie.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump “must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.”

Border Crossings Climbing

NPR’s “fact check” — like countless others — dismissed Trump’s claim as false because “illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than in either 2016 or 2014.”

What they aren’t telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.

Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended more than half a million people trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before.

Downplaying Number Of Illegals

Trump’s critics certainly don’t bother to mention that those figures only count illegals the border patrol caught. It does not count the ones who eluded border patrol agents and got into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security claims that about 20% of illegal border crossers make it into the country. Other studies, however, say border agents fail to apprehend as much as 50% of illegal crossers.

Even at the lower percentage, that means that 104,000 illegals made it into the country in 2018 alone.

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Massive Illegal Population

Pelosi and company also don’t bother to mention the fact that there are already between 12 million and 22 million illegals — depending on which study you use — in the country today.

Let’s put that number in perspective.

At the high end, it means that the illegal population in the U.S. is larger than the entire population of countries like Syria, Chile, the Netherlands and Ecuador. Even if the number is just 12 million, that’s still more than the entire population of Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland and New Zealand.

It is, in short, a massive number.

Here’s more perspective. The U.S. is virtually alone in the world in having such a large share of its population in the country illegally.

An analysis by the nonpartisan ProCon.org found that in 2010 almost 4% of the U.S. population was in the country illegally. The average for 13 other countries it analyzed was just 1.3%.

In France, for example, illegals make up just 0.9% of its population. It’s 0.3% in Germany, 0.8% in Spain, and 0.5% in the Netherlands.

Isn’t having millions in the country illegally, with thousands joining them every day, not a crisis at the border?

Illegals and Crime

Critics also complain that Trump overstated the risk of illegal immigrants committing crimes. They all point to a report from the Cato Institute, a pro-immigration libertarian think tank. Cato did a statistical analysis of census data and concluded that incarceration rates for Hispanic illegals were slightly lower than those of the native-born.

But the Center for Immigration Studies looked at federal crime statistics. It found that noncitizens accounted for more than 20% of federal convictions, even though they make up just 8.4% of the population.

“It is almost certain that a majority of noncitizens convicted of federal crimes are illegal immigrants,” said Steven Camarota of the CIS.

Texas also has been monitoring crimes committed by illegals. It reports that from 2011 to 2018, it booked 186,000 illegal aliens. Police charged them with a total of 292,000 crimes. Those included 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults, and almost 3,000 weapons charges.

Even if Cato is right that the crime rate among Hispanic illegals is a bit lower than for natives, that’s cold comfort to victims of these crimes, which would not have happened had the border been more secure. They would likely agree with Trump about their being a crisis at the border.

Past Presidents Promised To Fix This

Here’s another problem with claims that we don’t have a crisis at the border.

Past presidents all treated it like one.

In 1982, for example, President Ronald Reagan said that “The ongoing migration of persons to the United States in violation of our laws is a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

President Bill Clinton said in his 1995 State of the Union address that “All Americans … are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.” That’s why, he said, “our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders.”

President George Bush, in a prime-time Oval Office speech in 2006, declared that securing the U.S. border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security.”

Bush also promised to end the practice of catch-and-release “once and for all.” He said that “people will know that they’ll be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally.”

President Barack Obama in 2005 declared that “we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.” And in 2014 even he admitted there was a crisis on the border — one that he did virtually nothing to fix. (Apprehensions at the border last year were almost the same as in 2014.)

What Is A Crisis?

Yet despite repeated promises by presidents and Congress for the past three decades, the border remains nearly as porous as ever. And catch-and-release is still alive and well. Is it any wonder so many try to cross the border illegally every month?

Isn’t the failure of leaders to do what they all say is necessary to protect national security interests the very definition of a crisis at the border?

Democrats, it seems, want to label everything a crisis. We have a health care crisis. A clean water crisis. A “food desert” crisis. An infrastructure crisis. A homelessness crisis.

Democrats label just about everything a crisis. Why? Because they want to whip up public support for bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government programs.

Everything, that is, except for the very real, long-standing crisis posed by a porous border that each year lets in tens of thousands of illegals.

See at Investor’s Business Daily https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-crisis-at-the-border/

This article was posted for educational and informational purposes. It certainly does make a case. It is offensive when politicians and leaders continue to deny that there is a crisis at the border. I mean what will it take? Numbers don’t seem to convince them, or reality.

And now with caravan  after caravan, who is kidding whom? Who is in denial here? Then again, this is the same Democrat Party that quibbled over the definition of “is.”

I think I know, when a couple kids get sick and die in transit across the border illegally. Or when detainment facilities are overwhelmed and accompanied children are separated from adults. Then that is a national problem worthy of discussion and national outrage.

Except even then they refuse to do anything about it. And when Trump refers to that as part of the whole crisis, then it is time to deny there is any crisis at all.

If, as Democrats repeat in lockstep, this is a “manufactured crisis” whipped up by Donald Trump, then he would have had to start 35 years ago or go back in time to create it. The problem here is there really is a crisis on the border, but Donald Trump did not build it.

Oath To Tough Talk On Border Wall

Since we all know just what we are talking about, here is the Senate’s Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

If Senator Schumer or Speaker Pelosi wants to protest their oath, he or she can resign.

There are two distinct issues in this whole scenario: one is the wall and securing the border; and two is the status of Government in this partial shutdown mode.

But Pelosi and Schumer only recognize one as a problem, the government shutdown. Now what is extremely ironic is that they only care about opening government when the first basic, functional duty of that Government is to secure our borders and protect citizens.

No reservations.

Secondly that they took an oath — “freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion“– to “ defend the Constitution… against all enemies, foreign and domestic” The Constitution puts that central tenant of Government on protecting its borders, from invasion, as a priority function of their duties.

Now they don’t want to do that. They want to stand in the state of resistance, which is actually the state of Sedition. But that resistance is against the government of the US. Whether their base has lulled them into that position makes no difference. That is where they all stand. It comes down to either honoring their oath to defend the country or not. Their open-borders base does not want to defend the Constitution and makes no bones about their position of opposition to the administration and duly elected president.

So, by their own efforts, they are in a current state of sedition. That is what it is.

Thus Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer are aiding and abetting the enemy. They are also giving comfort to the broader enemies and invaders of the US, generally.

I found it fascinating how yesterday Nancy Pelosi was made Speaker and then swore in all the Dems by their oath. The skunk in the room was Democrats’ obvious ongoing state of protest with Trump, the administration and our national border security. Yet they stood their claiming to take that oath “without mental reservations.” Which one is it?

Are they proud card-carrying members of the Seditious, resistance Left or are they authentic members of the US Government — with no “purpose of evasion?” It does make sense though that the very first thing Nancy Pelosi would do as Speaker of the House is to defy her oath of office.(and then lead others) I mean it is what radicals do.

They either stand with the Sedition and their radicalized open-border, anti-American base of subversive miscreants… or honor their official sworn oath. But they cannot do both.

They did not take an oath to only make talking points and lies about some fictional “border security” illusion that lives only in their minds. And “technology” does not physically slow down invaders. How many invaders did their talking points repel? Actually, it undoubtedly encourages them. So, what is it about no “mental reservations” they do not understand?

God Bless America because the Left sure won’t.

Hey hey, ho ho… time to build the wall, ho ho!

Right Ring | Bullright

Insecurities of Border Security

A lot has been made about Trump’s use of the word invasion. Let’s consult the Constitution, shall we? See what it has to say.

The Constitution:
Article I; Section 8 (Congress)
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I; Section 9 (Congress)
“2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article IV; Section 4 (states relations)

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Now given that our own legislature has not risen to the challenge and taken action to protect and secure the border is ignoring their duty. Who is violating their oath?

You can draw all the pertinent conclusions about it you want but I don’t see a problem with the term invasion, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Of course a borderless, lawless country would have no such worries. So, many Islamists would like to call murder an honor killing, too, but it doesn’t change what it is. Likewise, substituting the word caravan(s) doesn’t change an invasion.

Presidential oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Congressional oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

See how that works? There is something about the “well and faithfully” part.

Who is lying?

Right Ring | Bullright Trump’s use of the word invasion

Rice the evil spewer

In Obama’s second term, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argued why Rice should be kept from Sec of State, but because of Rwanda.

“But what is not arguable is that she deserves to be denied the post for a different reason [than Benghazi] altogether: Rwanda. What emerges when taken together — Rice’s weak response in Benghazi, blaming the murder of four Americans on a stupid video, and her shameful lack of action in the Rwandan genocide — is a career diplomat of singular weakness, lacking the spine or muscularity to assert American moral influence in the world.

Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team that in 1994 refused any involvement whatsoever in the Rwanda genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded.”

Both events argue against any noble-good notion, when she was involved in both.

Rice now writes in a NYT op-ed article: “Susan Rice: When America No Longer Is a Global Force for Good

“President Trump’s National Security Strategy marks a dramatic departure from the plans of his Republican and Democratic predecessors, painting a dark, almost dystopian portrait of an “extraordinarily dangerous” world characterized by hostile states and lurking threats. There is scant mention of America’s unrivaled political, military, technological and economic strength, or the opportunities to expand prosperity, freedom and security through principled leadership — the foundation of American foreign policy since World War II.

In Mr. Trump’s estimation, we live in a world where America wins only at others’ expense. There is no common good, no international community, no universal values, only American values. America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy, or a “shining city on a hill,” as in President Reagan’s vision. The new strategy enshrines a zero-sum mentality: “Protecting American interests requires that we compete continuously within and across these contests, which are being played out in regions around the world.” This is the hallmark of Mr. Trump’s nationalistic, black-and-white “America First” strategy.”#

America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy. So she claims Obama’s strategy, or policy, was “a global force for good.” Fancy that when it was exactly the opposite in action. It consistently stood in the face of a good legacy.

The ME and their Muslim Brotherhood obsession, then the anti-Israel platform, the Benghazi debacle — with or without the gun running — botched with mistakes and denials from the beginning, the Syrian issue of mixed messages and disappearing red lines, Russian influence throughout, the bad Iranian deal at all costs to us, ignorance on N Korea, and ISIS sprouting an official Caliphate in Syria and Iraq, reactionary spiteful withdrawal from Iraq, depleting our military, politicizing military intell and rules of engagement, not enforcing laws here in this country and politicizing the DOJ and intelligence.

Add to it the radicalization of government at home, with a war on energy, and lies about current events that were impossible to ignore. (the media really tried their best) I won’t even get into the racism for lack of space.

So we’re to infer all that was part of a “global force for good. If it was, then I’d like to know what a global force of empowering evil would look like? So all the above were part of the force for good? But now she has the arrogance and audacity to call Trump basically a force for bad. Here fellow comrades like Rhodes and Pfeiffer were on social media calling for the obituaries of current leadership. I hate to rain on her parade — or march — but the last 8 years was no picnic or vacation from evil. In fact, it was awash in it and corruption. Yet hearing her call it a force for good is hilarious.

This week we confirmed that Obama’s administration was so eager to get an Iran deal at any cost that they stood down on actions against Hezbollah’s international crime and terrorism operation. Let’s forget the Uranium deal for the moment. Politicizing and weaponizing government made it a force for good?

Now that all the skeletons are falling out of the closets (there aren’t enough closets) she is pointing fingers at the Trump administration, like her comrades. That rapid, immediate withdrawal from Iraq set off a chain of events. At home, Obama was so worried about his scummy legacy that he couldn’t have events called terrorism.

But all of that was part of some “global force for good.” What’s her definition of good?

Then back up a moment. She also called Trump’s policies a zero sum game that requires everyone else lose in order for us to win. We haven’t seen anything like that. Trump hasn’t called for that. Actually, he holds that they are winning while we are winning. But contrast that with Obama where we constantly lost on the deals and the world, or others, always won. That was more the zero-sum game. We weren’t really meant to win in Obama’s view.

She then goes for “enshrining Mr. Trump’s harsh anti-immigration policies, from the border wall to ending family preferences and limiting refugee admissions.” Again, contrast that with Obama’s mixed signals about border control, catch and release, and unconstitutional DACA program, and opening us to external threats in wartime. Refugees that were at least partly created by his own policies of complicit ignorance.

The perpetual do-gooder also made a policy of ignoring Christian persecutions while favoring Muslim refugees. He could only point to one major accomplishment of getting Osama bin Laden, but allowed a caliphate to form and spread, referring to it as JV. Yet he didn’t really take on that JV squad. Instead, he simply said it was not Islamic. Imagine that, a caliphate that is not Islamic? Oh, he banned using accurate terms to describe that caliphate of terrorism.

Enough contradictions in there to show she is shoveling more bullshit? What’s worse is they know, but have a constant need to deceive, try to control the narrative and revise Obama’s entire legacy. The people didn’t see it his way either, which showed in the election. Again, argue against the results and legitimacy of the election. Now…. they are going to lecture us on being a do-gooder? How about people just do what is right, and forget this false do-good narrative? Although I used to think that doing the right thing was being a force for good!

Right Ring | Bullright

Wolves in the midst, Islamic cleric at Inaugural prayer service

One thousand chapters strong across America with 400 thousand members, ACT has been speaking out on the issues of Islamic Radicalism within our borders and beyond.

So it is only natural they had a curious eye on the inaugural events. Guess what they found at one of the services?

Radical Islamic Cleric Poisons Inaugural Prayer Service

(ACT)On January 21st, the noble occasion of Interfaith National Prayer Service at the Washington National cathedral was poisoned by the presence of a radical Islamic cleric named Mohamed Magid.

The attendance of Magid at this occasion to honor President Trump and Vice President Pence, clarifies with absolute precision, how close the tentacles of radical Islam can stretch towards those with the very task of eradicating them.

Magid serves as the executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center and is the former executive director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which according to declassified FBI memos, acted as a Muslim Brotherhood front group as early as 1987.

Magid has endorsed sharia governance, and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. To advance his dream of a caliphate, Magid believes in incremental infiltration of both government, and the media.

A 1991 document from ISNA’s mothership, the Muslim Brotherhood, stated “its work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

The Muslim Brotherhood also considered Magid’s ISNA as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

Given these facts, a man as dangerous and radical as Magid should not be allowed anywhere near the President of the United States.

Magid, and many others like him, are crafty characters who understand that by attending this noteworthy event, they can now claim innocence from radical ties since they were seen attending an interfaith prayer service with the President of the United States.

This is why eradicating the stealth jihad is one of the most critical aspects of the war on terror. While combatting ISIS is paramount, we must open our eyes to the infiltration taking place within our own borders.

Always trying to innoculate themselves against the boilerplate of radical Islam. If they wanted to try so hard not to represent themselves as radicals, then why are they engaged in proliferation of radicalism, as radicals? Of course truth and honesty are also their enemies, so it figures they would try to represent their real cause as harmless.

My friend, Pepp, recently reminded me of a scripture I think also apples here.

1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

I thought ACT explained Islamists’ rationale very well. Just being seen at events is an attempt to normalize the very type of people who mean us harm.

This is all part of the greater problem I have tried, very hard, to write about. That is they are opportunists, in the same form of other radicals in our country. And they seek to extort every opportunity they can find. It is what they do.

Dear Jeh Johnson

You bitch and moan about the Russian hacking threat while saying nothing about countless death threats to electors around the country. Or all the assassination threats aimed at Trump, or the hyperbolic fake stories on Islamophobia, or the cop-hating agenda. Very selective outrage.

Jeh, you’re colder and more calculated than a Russian bear. Who needs a Russian threat when we got you? There’s a bear in the woods alright, closer to home than we’re told.

RightRing | Bullright

Denial of sanctuary cities

Tim Kaine told CNN’s Chris Cumo on the morning program that:

“When Donald Trump kind of goes after these phantom sanctuary cities and talks about how bad they are, basically what he’s going after is police chiefs,” Kaine said.

“Instead, what you need to do is work with the community to protect and serve them and let (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) do their job.”

“Phantom sanctuary cities,” really? We know they exist and they are proud.

But we know the problem is police, and local government officials, obstruct ICE from doing their jobs. They don’t notify them in a timely way. They don’t work with ICE. They refuse to cooperate and they are proud of defying the Federal government

So his spin is BS on steroids. The local authorities in sanctuary cities do not inform ICE. They do not message them until after the fact when they release someone. So ICE has to go out spending thousands of man hours trying to hunt them down, if they can even find them. What would you expect from Hillary’s campaign but lies?

Excerpts from CNN:

More than 200 state and local jurisdictions have policies that call for not honoring ICE detention requests, the agency’s director, Sarah Saldana, told Congress last year.

These jurisdictions rejected more than 17,000 ICE requests to gain custody of immigrants in the 19 months ending September, 2015.

The sanctuary movement is said to have grown out of efforts by churches in the 1980s to provide sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing violence at home amid reluctance by the federal government to grant them refugee status.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/politics/sanctuary-cities-donald-trump/index.html

So they blame sanctruary cities on churches, did you catch that? Yep, the churches demanded they ignore and defy the law to aid illegal immigrants’ agenda.And they always listen to churches or clergy. See how this works? They cannot even be honest about their own responsibility and actions.

Now Tim Kaine, a devout Jesuit, comes along and calls them “phantom sanctuary cities”. We all know they exist and, more importantly, so do illegal aliens know it. That’s Hillary Clinton’s official campaign calling them “phantom” sanctuary cities. I guess the pains and trouble they cause are just phantom pains too. She should have to explain and defend that. But I forgot we don’t have a free press anymore.

Word police, DHS, Jeh Johnson and speech p/c

DHS report before Orlando massacre: Political correctness needed to fight Islamic terrorism

Washington Times

A report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council released days before the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, Florida, stressed the importance of combating extremism by avoiding terms that might offend Muslims. A HSAC subcommittee first created by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2015 published its report on June 9. Some instructions found in the report include:…

More

The Daily Caller reports:

The report urges DHS officials to “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

For example, the report says the DHS should be “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’”

The report acknowledges that, “There is a disagreement among scholars, government officials, and activists about the right lexicon to use around the issues of violent extremism.”

Nevertheless, the report states, “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”

“We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and words. Tone and word choice matter,” the report states.

Read more

It says that they should not use words like Sharia, Jihad, Takfir and refrain from using religiously charged terms. But the President of Islam defense goes to the prayer breakfast and lectures about Crusades and criticizes Christians.

The report advocates using and promoting gender diversity to youth. But avoid those things and terms that may be charged or problematic toward Muslims or Islam. Though any opportunity they get to critiize Christians or speak ill of them is acceptable.

For instance when they promote abortion and same-sex marriage, those are not divisive, religiously charged or problematic terms. My disgust meter registered a new high. Talking derogatorily about and marginalizing Christians is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged.

I bet that would have some effect on Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Thanks for Trump endorsement, Mitt

Romney did his planned, debut 2016 speech about Trump.It was claimed he would eviscerate Trump in his national speech covered live on all the news channels.

Whatever he said and his motives, it read like something else. It was a reminder of Romney’s failures — a reminder of RNC failures. Maybe he should have paid more attention to the optics. It was what Romney does, he makes big speeches to convey his specious thoughts about something. It’s what he did in 2012. Romney makes a speech to address this or that. But of course, the one thing he didn’t address was Obama’s record. And he failed to tap into the people’s sentiments about it all. (we were wrong)

Considering who Romney is what he did in 2012, it should read more as endorsement for Trump. So it was Mitt raising his finger and pointing it, at us as usual. In condescending elitist character he lectured us on how we should vote. He called Trump names and attacked his character, sometthing he could not do to Obama. I have no respect for Romney. He acted the political hack that he is.

So in view of that and his harsh criticism for Trump, I take that as a compliment. Sorry Romney, you as the loser don’t get to decide who the nominee is or is not. You should be the last person to decide that. But his elite arrogance never ends. Though the performance gave away his motives. It’s fair to attack his motives or speculate wildly about them. It’s nothing compared to the speculation he did on Trump. Speculate freely and often.

Romney’s Mitt the Hit — “scathing indictment?” Please.
Romney out!

RightRing | Bullright

No credible, specific threat

Obama comes out to tell us they know of no specific, credible threat to the US. And that means that something probably will happen in the near future.

Baghdad Barry has a track record of being wrong. It usually shows shortly after his statements. Plus, he is going on vacation to Hawaii which takes the likelihood of an event up another couple points.

We do know of a specific, credible threat to the US. Its name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Muslims’ Moral Equivalency Problem

How dark are the channels Islamists have constructed of moral equivalence with the Jews to oppressed Muslims? (or anyone else with racial or historical grievances) Muslims are the world-wide object of hatred and bigotry if you follow their apologists’ narrative. Just listen to them. It’s a natural exercise in revision and propaganda.

Once in a while it does pay to venture out and see what their unleashed Islam-peacism movement says, unabashedly. Of course, it is very easy to see through their rhetoric, even easier to poke plenty of holes where it conflicts with reality. But their writing is a sophistry without comparison, unless you go back to Hitler’s rise. Yes, the very thing they hail as the example of their own fascist oppression used a similar approach in its propaganda. They are determined to apply the Nazi example with the Jews to their current situation. A search for Muslims are the new Jews will set one on the path. They make a moral equivalence of Muslims with Jews’ Holocaust and Nazi persecution.

Though there is a moral equivalence of the Obama administration to the Islamists — be it with ISIS terrorists or the wider radical Islamist faction. Sure we are lectured almost daily about blaming all Muslims for what Islamists do. The anti-semetic, Jewish parallel is a canard for all practical purposes. Victimization? You don’t see it. This is a hollow, desperate comparison in search of victims. Rather, a percentage of Muslims victimize the world on behalf of Islam. Does it really matter that there is a percentage that are not complicit in their barbarianism?

I mentioned the reluctance and refusal of the rest of the Muslims to combat or contain the radicals before. It is left to the world to sort out, and the expense of dealing with it is very real. It sucks the urgency out of governments worldwide. That offends me and it should offend any other red-blooded, freedom-loving American. So Islam rightly offends me. I make no apologies. It doesn’t matter that I am a Christian, or weather one happens to be any other faith. Jews were legitimate victims not terrorists.

I am reluctant to make comparisons to the Holocaust. Many pro-lifers for years have drawn abortion parallels to the Holocaust. They may have good reasons, however, I consider the Nazi/Jew case sort of sacred . Not saying I don’t use Hitler or the Third Reich analogies with current examples. I frown on using “Holocaust” (terminology) much except on WWII. Overuse could desensitize the term. I say that to say it is offensive to me seeing and hearing Islamist bandy this terminology around applied to their current struggles.(whatever the hell they, or their apologists, think those are right now) On two grounds it is offensive. The portrayal of Muslims as victims worldwide and the Hitler, fascism comparison.

Now then, these apologists frame it as an oppressed Islam that is only reactionary to what the US (or the West) are doing. Though I’d like to know how we are the inspiration for the Caliphate?(scratch that thought, I’ve heard their rationale and it didn’t sell me but it does sell to Muslims.) This mantra gets it backwards: we are forced to react to what a strain of Islam has done (perfected) for decades. It is just as clever in semantics as it is in their parallel to the Jewish antisemitism and the Holocaust. It singles out Western governments as being complicit in the very terrorism they are fighting for life from. And yes, they blame us for it while calling (us) the real terrorists. We are the terrorists, not Muslims. It has a circular logic flavor to it. It’s an attempt to use a faulty perception to construct a faulty reality. They add as their buttress argument, as Obama does, that Christians had persecutions. Christians also had a reformation which they completely dismiss. Islam is having no reformation unless to turn humanity back to the eighth century.

They compare it to civil rights and racism. According to this rhetoric, we are “prejudice apologizers” for pointing out that being Muslim is not a race? Nor is being Christian a race. It is only a descriptor. See when we try to force fit these labels and canards, we screw up the logic of the underlining point.

But since they make the Nazi parallel, how much help were they fighting the Jewish Holocaust in WWII? Notice how they distance Muslims and Islam from ISIS or the Caliphate while their arguments, and blame, add fuel to the fire ISIS runs on. So their apologetic is not far from being sympatheticy for ISIS, or supporting its agenda. Yet their answer to everything we “bigots” suggest is that you are playing right into the hands of ISIS. Everything becomes “a recruiting tool” for ISIS. Gitmo, Gitmo detainees, war on terror, on and on. Our opposition to it is a recruitment tool.

Here is the ultimate problem with all this. What is actually on the menu of Islamists is to bring the same culture to our shores that is playing out in the Middle East. And to make it mainstream, politically, which is not all that far from the Left’s M/O. In essence, it seeks to turn our country into a battlefield – a war zone. But there is a common misunderstanding about that agenda. Many will point out that it needs some power or the force of government to be effective. No, it only needs immunity from governmental force to be very effective. And that is exactly what many are hell bent on giving them. Whether in ignorance or knowingly, it doesn’t really matter.

So as they tell us we are giving the terrorists recruitment tools, it is ridiculous. But they are giving Islamists exactly what they want and need, practically an invitation. ISIS and Islamists recruit no matter what and will use our weaknesses against as their chief tool.

I get so sick of all this rhetoric that we are somehow aiding ISIS by taking a tough stand. Indeed, the only thing that will be effective and that they understand is force. But we have to be willing to stand behind it, unlike our weak-kneed apologist-in-chief who sympathizes with Islam every chance he gets. Can you say “recruitment tool?” He sympathizes with ISIS whether he knows it or not — some think he knows exactly what he is doing.

If Muslims or their sympathetic political allies are worried about bias against Muslims, then they have to look also at the context of violence in beheadings and hatred by the Islamic radical communities, both here and abroad. Then tell us there is no justification for our suspicions and concerns. But as to religious hate crimes, it is more prevalent toward Jews than Muslims. Then look at Christian cleansings carried out throughout the Middle East and in Africa. No one seems concerned at a national level by those alarming atrocities, yet we are to worry about head scarfs, hijabs, and prayer considerations for Muslims. When an event like an Oklahoma beheading is carried out in the workplace by a radical Muslim, it is labeled a workplace violence incident, giving a false victim status aura to the perpetrator. Is that rational? Is that a hate crime committed by a radical Muslim? But we are to worry about Muslims’ sensitivities. Who else can carry out an attack like that without some backlash?

Of course the problem is that Islamic radicals have declared and waged war on us. Does the fact that they are a religion really make that much difference? Why should they be treated differently because it happens to be a religious sect that is waging the war via terrorism? But they are asking us to treat them differently because they are religiously motivated.

How then do they contort that into religious persecution on a parallel with Jews? How do they perceive Muslims and Islam as victims that need the world’s help to prevent their extermination? And of all places, to make that charge about the US just because we call for scrutiny and screening the very people who declared war on us, already attacked us multiple times, and want to destroy us. That is the outrageous case they are making. If Muslims have such great sensitivities about all this, then where is their outrage, concern and criticism for what radical Muslims are doing? Oh, right, they are afraid to speak out for fear of being targeted. Right. Christians around the world are suffering persecution and we are supposed to be preoccupied with Muslim sensitivities and non-persecution of Muslims right here in the USA.

A related article: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/182608/islamophobia-anti-semitism

RightRing | Bullright

A message for Muslims: beware

So let me offend Muslims a little bit and say we should use a little psyops on them. (apply a little reverse psychology) It may sound provocative to some people.

We can start with one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. Joel has something to say about just such a situation as we are going through. People of Judah were down and things were bad. Joel felt judgement had come upon them.

Joel 1:2-4

2 Hear this, you elders;
listen, all who live in the land.
Has anything like this ever happened in your days
or in the days of your forefathers?
3 Tell it to your children,
and let your children tell it to their children,
and their children to the next generation.
4 What the locust swarm has left
the great locusts have eaten;
what the great locusts have left
the young locusts have eaten;
what the young locusts have left
other locusts have eaten.

Joel 2:6-7

6 At the sight of them, nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale.
7 They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.

They were depressed at the prospects all around them. They were no doubt wondering if God was with them? The answer came in the second half of chapter two.

Joel 2:25’I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten — the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm— my great army that I sent among you. (26) “You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed. (27) Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.

(28)’And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”

The point is we often debate the cause of bad things, but there is also judgment. Yet God is capable of restoring us to greater blessings for going through them. When we call on Him and pray, He hears. He can turn to good that which is done to us.

We tend to personalize it seeing circumstances as punishment feeling judgment has come, that God has removed his protection. But He will restore even bless us.

2 Chronicles 7:13″If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

So I have to wonder about the terrorism, as bad and evil as it all is? I’m thinking how God can restore us and greatly bless us for going through it. Then I wonder how great those blessings might be for what we are going through now?

Do hihadis and Islamists realize, with what they are doing, that God can and will bless us in the end? God will restore His people, and take them to greater heights. We can have faith in that. That’s the message I hear.

That should give Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists pause to know(or think) we will be restored. We will be blessed in spite of all they do. Now maybe that is the best message that could be sent to them. Just proclaim what is going to happen. That might be the best campaign we could have. It will also build a confidence among God’s people in anticipation of what is to come. Plus, it would be better than any propaganda we could employ. God repaid to his people what the locusts had eaten. God has a salvation plan, Christ.

RightRing | Bullright

The invasion crisis, not a humanity crisis

The perennial “refugee” sympathizer squatting in the White House has certainly gotten the information updates. He chooses to ignore them like all the other pertinent briefings he may get from our intelligence. But most of Americans are aware of what is going on in all the countries these so-called refugees fled to. Face it, if there is one issue O-bastid is interested in other than the Climate Change one, it is the plight of the refugees he so closely identifies with. So at least they are on his attention radar — which neither Putin nor ISIS can really claim.

Still what Americans have seen unfold across Europe where refugees have invaded is not a pretty picture. And there looks to be no end in sight, especially for the places they already infiltrated. But we know it is not just Syrians, as it is not just refugees either. They are just fleeing from many places and many of them are the young males. A portion are more closely associated with the Caliphate, ISIS and Islam than they are with democracy or anything like it.

Have people learned their lesson on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to Democracy and peace? Sure, people may have but our illustrious ‘stuck in ideological mud’ leaders have not. It could be unfolding right in front of them — as it is — and they would deny and ignore any ulterior motives to Islamic transients. What better way to spread a global Caliphate than exporting hoards of thousands, millions from the region infected with it? Of course that would be doing just what they have done all along: ignoring the growing threat to the Western world. It would be just what Obama has done since the inception of the ME crisis, largely spawned and supported by the White House.

Why would he want ours or the world’s attention focused on the crisis now that the consequences became so obvious to the rest of us? He lit the Mid East ablaze, fanned the flames, exported that fire everywhere he could, then stood back and declared ‘what can we really do about it anyway?’ He says things like we cannot send thousands of troops here because what happens when something pops up elsewhere? Do we then send them there too? Yes he would know because he is involved with all those grease fires popping up everywhere. By design he is realizing his dream. He has turmoil everywhere. Funny how he can be involved in the turmoil everywhere and claim that we cannot be everywhere. And use that as an excuse not to respond to it. Does it sound like anything else, like maybe our illegal immigrant crisis? It is not Assad’s mess, it is not Iran’s mess, it is not Russia’s mess, it’s not George Bush’s mess, it is not even ISIS’s mess. It is Obama’s mess.

While the invaders flow through the free world to infect everywhere they descend, we are reaping the product of his policies and his strategies. He’s made the problem so big that we now dare not do anything but watch the world burn with radicalism as he lectures us on Climate Change. What great irony is that? Everyone will be fine if we just cut our emissions, or have our throats slit by Islamic terrorists hell bent on taking over the world and enforcing their global Caliphate. Do numbers, of them, really matter when we have seen the sinister effects from just tens of thousands of them? But then Obama doesn’t seem to care that it is growing as fast as the flames can spread it. Rather he has more respect for ISIS than he has for us. His only mission seems to be not putting it out.

But, as typical, Obama lectures us on what the Statue of Liberty says.
Well, what it does not say is:

Bring me your your rebellious insurgents and ideological warriors to wreck our peace, justice, prosperity, and undermine our Republic. Give me your suicide bombers and jihadists. Come here to take over not assimilate.

There is no country too far out of reach of the Climate Caliphate, for Obama, and there is no country or place worth saving from Islamic radicalism or their Caliphate.

RightRing | Bullright

Black Lives Matter seek debate forum

Washington Post reports on the BLM appeal to both parties for a debate style forum:

“The lessons of history are clear, and instructive for us right now. It is both protest and policy work that will get us the win, and we need every single possible strategy at our disposal in order to see real change,” Packnett [BLM organizer spokesman] said. “So I think we have an opportunity to be creative here in how we engage presidential candidates in the same way that our movement has been creative in how we have protested and created peaceful but necessary disruption around the country.”

Creative, in the same way they protest? Shutting down malls and townhall meetings, blocking traffic, storming police stations, just for a few of their creative efforts.

They since have been told by both Parties that the debate schedules are full and that they should have a townhall forum to showcase their issues. Talks continue but the DNC said it would sponsor such an event. RNC said it would be open to participating.

When they stand on their proud uber-radical protest tactics, disrupting and shouting down any dissent, calling for death to cops, and interrupting anyone’s lives they can, they still want people to support a public forum for their rhetoric. What happens if others, say more rational voices, protest them and their forum? I don’t suppose that is on their agenda.

What is pretty ironic is that they don’t want to debate. Their tactics and strategy oppose that. There is no other perspective but theirs. If you don’t get that then look at those they protested and how they do it. Now they say they want a debate?

First, they should debate themselves on why the cop killing is a common theme endorsed by their platform? But you never hear them address that every time they call for “pigs in a blanket…fry ’em like bacon.” Yet they want to mainstream their organization and expect everyone to respect and embrace their organization. Really?

Of course if you don’t endorse them you’re a de facto target. Dems, in their endless tolerance to all things radical, will not utter a peep to them. As long as they vote between calling for “death to cops,” what’s the problem? And as long as they vote correctly, which is pretty much a given. I suppose Cair will want a debate next. BLM chants death to cops but the DOJ and homeland security see white supremacists and right-wing “racist” groups as the biggest terrorist threat. (next to Global Warming) No public forum for them.

Usurping along the expressway

And it looks like there is a little rubbernecking going on now.

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
–John Adams

John Adams said we are to be “A government of laws, and not of men.”

Is Jeh Johnson more of a Che Guevara?

Congress Calls Out Homeland Security for Punishing ICE Workers Who Enforce the Law as Multiple Lawsuits Pileup

Tim Brown — April 6, 2015 | Freedom Outpost

As multiple lawsuits are pending by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents against the Obama administration, Congress has decided to investigate Homeland Security for potential retaliation against immigration agents who enforce the law.

The Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest drafted a letter last week in which they questioned Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson with regard to retaliation against DHS personnel, who are attempting to uphold their oath by enforcing the nation’s immigration laws against the wishes of the usurper-in-chief.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/congress-calls-out-homeland-security-for-punishing-ice-workers-who-enforce-the-law-as-multiple-lawsuits-pileup/#vfCJ2cb7EP2JtbxZ.99

More from Adams:

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”

“When annual elections end, there slavery begins.”

So we were warned.

See no evil, say no evil

On the Sunday news circuit, HS Secretary Jeh Johnson reminded the public that “if you see something say something.”

Well, just as long as you don’t say that you see Islamic radicalism or terrorism. You are not supposed to see or say that.

Secret agent man does Secret Service

This Secret Service mishap reads something like an episode of Secret Agent Man. We have the fence jumper and now another incident comes to light from Obama’s CDC visit. That on top of the other SS problems in the last couple years.

Okay, we know what happened but now the reaction. One hearing and it is almost unanimous Julia Pierson has to go. I never saw that much consensus for a firing before. Obama seemed to jump on the bandwagon.

“The president concluded that new leadership of that agency was required,” Earnest said.

That is the quickest firing Obama ever did. Funny about that. Think of all the scandals to hit the airwaves, and his promises to fix it, and the faux statements to hold people accountable. Then what happened? This time it’s “wham bam, thank you, mam.” You almost have to hit the slow motion button to see what happened.

Now today her resignation and deep regrets. That is almost predictable.

“I think it’s in the best interest of the Secret Service and the American public if I step down,” Pierson said. “Congress has lost confidence in my ability to run the agency. The media has made it clear that this is what they expected. … It’s painful to leave as the agency is reeling from a significant security breach.”

The resignation might sound boilerplate, but hold on for the DHS response from Secretary Jeh Johnson. Appoint an interim Director, call for a panel (committee) to study it, ask them if broader — agency wide — recommendations (reforms) are needed, and ask them to recommend who the next chief should be. (see his Statement) Say what?

I almost think she’s a scape goat. Now why would I think that? Excerpts from Johnson:

Today, I have also asked the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, aided by this Department’s General Counsel, to assume control and direction of the ongoing inquiry by the Secret Service of the fence jumping incident at the White House on September 19. Deputy Secretary Mayorkas should complete that review and submit findings to me by November 1, 2014.

Finally, I have also determined that scrutiny by a distinguished panel of independent experts of the September 19 incident and related issues concerning the Secret Service is warranted. The Panelists will be named shortly. By December 15, 2014, this panel will submit to me its own assessment and recommendations concerning security of the White House compound. I will also invite the panel to submit to me recommendations for potential new directors of the Secret Service, to include recommendations of individuals who come from outside the Secret Service. I will also request that the panel advise me about whether it believes, given the series of recent events, there should be a review of broader issues concerning the Secret Service.

Can you get all that big-government parsing? What panel is this that will choose who the next director should be? Does the Homeland Secretary not make any of his own decisions? Talk about loading something up with red-tape bureaucracy — not to mention the potential to politicize the process in a side show. What good will come from it? Confidence?

People expressed having no confidence in Pierson’s abilities, but who can have confidence in the process the Sec of Homeland Security laid out? Is this like some old “Get Smart” rerun? I’m waiting to see the shoe-phone ring with recommendations on what to do. Could he load that down with more bureaucracy? And that’s beside what Congress will say or do? Why does it raise even more questions about Johnson than Pierson’s leadership? That’s a Washington-style faith builder. At least it doesn’t revolve around Eric Holder.

RightRing | Bullright