Finally someone said it

A Ban On Muslims Is An Excellent Security Option

Posted on June 20, 2017 – True Pundit

I adopted two infants from Korea and am the grandson of Italian immigrants — so why would I want to ban Muslims from immigrating to this wonderful, accepting nation? The short answer is that, “Immigration minus assimilation equals segregation and eventually invasion.” Think about it.

Let me get the obvious out of the way. Not all Muslims are terrorists, or support terrorism, but most good Muslims cannot be good Americans and still follow their beliefs.

See more at: http://truepundit.com/a-ban-on-muslims-is-an-excellent-security-option/#sthash.wkjl4Kdy.dpuf

Shadow government up and running

It may still be in the early, trial phase but the shadow government seems to be getting its feet on the ground as fast — or faster — than Trump can get his own administration up and running. Which is all probably their main objective. So here we are.

Loretta Lynch Played This Shocking Role In Setting Up A Coup Against Trump

American Patriot Daily News

The Trump administration has been plagued by leaks from the intelligence community.

Many believe these leaks were intended to destabilize the Trump Presidency and represent a soft coup.

And you won’t believe the role Loretta Lynch played in this plot.

Shortly before leaving office, Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed a directive loosening the rules on the NSA’s ability to share intercepted electronic communications with 16 other federal agencies, as well as their foreign counterparts.

The New York Times reports:

“In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.”

Now some critics are arguing this new order was the driving force behind the leaks that took down National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, is one of those critics.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, he argued that this order created a “shadow government” by expanding the pool of people able to access intercepted communications which would otherwise be classified.

Zero Hedge reports on his remarks:

“There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office.

Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important. They had 8 years, they didn’t do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government. You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump’s position, so it just festers more leaks.

If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn’t they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left.”

Obama supporters within the intelligence community have waged what some believe is a coup against Trump by using cherry-picked leaks to frame the information in the most damaging light possible.

Was this coup ultimately enabled by Loretta Lynch?

At least one expert is saying “yes.”

Original article at http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/loretta-lynch-shocking-role-setting-up-coup-against-trump

But it is not just the shadow government concerns at issue, it also enables the deep state that seems perpetually plotting against Trump. We have a real problem there.

It’s strange(not) that information was a rare commodity in the Obama adminstration. Now they spread information everywhere, leaks abound. No leaks and whistle blowers under Obama. Now, with their loyal allies in the media, they’ve become the angry yet powerful and permanent opposition. That is why the leaks need serious investigation.

All this information flowing, but yet we still do not even know the whereabouts of Obama during the Benghazi attack. How’s that?

Realted: https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/investigation-bring-down-obamas-shadow-government/

Obama’s lease expired

Obama fashioned a new stump speech to campaign for Hillary in which he talks about himself. But he’s campaigning for Hillary, on his questionable approval ratings.

As the mantra goes, his “lease is up” and he is leaving the White house. Boo-hoo. Then he tells people that he is looking around to make sure he didn’t break anything so the Obama’s can get back their deposit.

Well, it is a little hard to compare the White House to the typical lease agreement many people have. But that is what he does. The terms cause the outrage.

It is not the deposit part that got me, it is the idea of him looking around to make sure he didn’t break something. What a metaphor to work with. Rich, “Break something?”

Let’s see what Obama broke. How about the Justice Department for starters? Then the IRS targeted political opponents. He politicized every department in government, even politicized the military. Politics is always in the air in DC, but he took it to new lows.

Nothing was beyond politicization to Obama. In fact, he acted as if that was the cure for everything, just what it needed. Sure, he complained about the politics. Yet he politicized the EPA, the borders, immigration. He expanded the Executive Order and process. He even politicized national security. He made “Global Warming” his ideological agenda. He substituted politics for dialogue. He lied to us about a terrorist attack.

He announced to our enemies what he will not do and downplayed their strategy and threats. He broke our government. Then he ran up the tab and stuck us with the bill. That’s what he did. Now he is making darn sure he didn’t break anything?

How about breaking our healthcare system? But he is not done, just out of time.

So Obama wants his deposit back. Well, we want our place back. But after what he has done, it’s hard to even recognize the place. It has depreciated rather than increased in value. Like Hillary, he used the office for his own personal benefit.

Now he is looking for his security but what about ours? He also broke the public trust and divided the country more than it’s been in modern times. The people want a change election and he is opposing that. We choose our tenant and leaders not him. He wants to get his deposit back and tell us who to lease to. Obama is only worried about his security.

RightRing | Bullright

Russia sees US as security threat

Putin and Russia have listed the US among security threats in a new document that updates its security concerns.

AOL news

A new appraisal names the United States as one of the threats to Russia’s national security for the first time, a sign of how relations with the west have deteriorated in recent years.

The document, “About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation”, was signed by President Vladimir Putin on New Year’s Eve. It replaces a 2009 version, endorsed by then- President Dmitry Medvedev, the current prime minister, which mentioned neither the United States [nor] NATO.

Read: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/02/putin-names-united-states-among-threats-in-new-russian-security/21290723/

I see no mention of the US in connection with the bombing of the Russian plane in 2015. This leads me to wonder if Russia does not have 2 separate reports, one for public consumption and another for government use? It’s hard to believe Russia could be operating from the same document. Meet the new Russia, same as the old Russia.

Well, seeing the Obama administration call Global Warming our biggest security threat is bound to put all kinds of ideas into Putin’s head.

No mention of what Putin’s New Years’ resolution is.

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.

Israel’s cultural stigmatism

Every once in a while — all right more frequent than that — it is time to get out and see what some of the biggest mouthpieces are saying about key events going on outside the beltway-fed silos or mainstream American news cycles.

Whoops, did I just say mainstream America? That should be a typo since what the left’s acolytes increasingly lump into “mainstream” are the radical assertions trickled down from ivory towers on high, cultivated then fertilized further by hotbeds of hatred activists for anyone with opposing views to their uber-centric, neo-Marxist ideology.

Gaza’s kids affected psychologically, physically by lifetime of violence

Al Jazeera asks medical experts about the psychological, physical and generational effects of war on Gaza’s youth
July 31, 2014 | Al Jazeera

Beyond the immediate loss in Gaza — destruction of property, infrastructure, and the deaths of more than 1,600 people, mostly civilians — Israel’s onslaught will have long-term mental and physical effects on the Palestinian children who survived weeks of airstrikes and naval and tank shelling.

Many of them watched as family members were killed and homes, schools and mosques bombarded. Others suffered life-altering injuries. Israel’s military campaign may also affect the unborn, as mothers and fathers struggle with traumatic stress, health experts warn. [more]

I challenge you after reading these clips, to take a look at the link from Al Jazeera to see the academic level of their Leftist diagnosis of the Israel-Palestinian situation, which is the thought they are trying to mainstream. They’ve been somewhat successful at it.

Dr. Jesse Ghannam, clinical professor of psychiatry and global health sciences at the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine:

Psychological impact

Even before the current military offensive, young Gazans bore the mental scars of years under siege and previous episodes of bombardment. After the 2012 war, the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among children in Gaza doubled, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides assistance for Palestinian refugees. Mental health experts fear that the latest bombardment may create detrimental repercussions too difficult for children to overcome.

Palestinian children in Gaza are exposed to more violence in their lifetime than any other people, any other children, anywhere in the world. If you look at children right now who are 10 years old, they’ve been through Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009, the invasion in 2012 and now the invasion and destruction in 2014, in addition to the siege. If you look at the statistics, for example, even before Cast Lead, 80 percent of Palestinian children in Gaza have witnessed some sort of violence against them, a friend or a family member. And now you’re getting to the point where probably close to 99 percent of children in Gaza are being exposed to a level of violence where they have seen family members be killed, murdered, burned alive. There’s nothing like the levels of traumatic exposure that any child in the world has ever been exposed to on a chronic and daily basis. – more Al Jazeera

Here is a llnk from the Salon magazine arguing against the coverage in the NYT of the Israel-Palestine conflict. They blame the Times for getting it wrong by leading people to think it is a matter of various factors and social media that lead Palestinian youth to the violence like the recent attacks on Israelis. They take big issue that this be blamed on anything but Israel. Imagine that, even the Times doesn’t satisfy their anti-Israel appetite.

It may be hard for us to consider that the Times falls short in carrying the Leftists’ water, but this illustrates that dynamic I’m talking about where even the Leftists are not far enough Left to satisfy them. Thus, the whole push to mainstream, further, the narrative of the new Leftist thought. And they will have their way, as they usually do, even if incrementally, driving the Times and other Leftist mouthpieces into their narrative. After all, when they get academia and virtually all their other liberal institutions to drive a point it usually has results.

So just for a flavor of that high-brow prodding toward their “mainstream” view, here is a small sampling:

If not placing the blame on social media and Palestinian youth, defenders of Israel’s policies argue that the cause of the violence goes far back in history, to an inbred, and therefore a historical hatred toward Jews. Such an argument also says therefore that the Occupation is not to blame. Maybe not, but how then to ignore the fact that the very worst of the violence we have seen through the years has been in the West Bank and Gaza, and that it is occurring now? – Salon

 

Then you have from a blogger on the topic, what passes now more for liberal mainstream, an overview of the mainstreaming activism of pro-Palestinian thought.

Mondoweiss

The leftwing movement of criticism of Israel is getting more and more mainstream by the second. Everyone is walking the path; they’re just getting there a little later. The Washington Post, a hotbed of neoconservative ideas for the last 15 years, has another article harshly critical of Israel today, written by an Israeli. And guess what: that article along with yesterday’s article by the two prestige Jewish academics calling for boycott of Israel are the two “most-read” articles on the Post list this morning! –

    See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/washington-unrepairable-society#sthash.zqkR5pXe.dpuf

This feeds into the next topic, the BDS activist movement. As it says, this is increasingly becoming mainstream opinion/thought, at least from leftists. They get louder to drive the narrative and seem to think the more they promote it as such, the more it becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy. Seeing is believing.

Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Tracking ISIS and Terrorists

News on security tools for terrorism

Eric Rush’s blog reports:

Russian Computer Geeks Create Program That Locates ISIS Recruiters’ Social Media Accounts

(RT.com) – A group of Russian computer specialists has teamed up with Muslim scholars to create a computer program that automatically detects social media and other online accounts used by Islamic State terrorists to lure new members into their group.

The project was started by the non-commercial Center for Research of Legitimacy and Political Protest. Its director Yevgeny Venediktov told Izvestia daily that the search for terrorist recruiters will use a program called “Laplace’s Demon” that was developed by the center’s IT specialists in the spring.

Read more at http://instigatornews.com/russian-computer-geeks-create-program-that-locates-isis-recruiters-social-media-accounts/

Well, someone is doing something.

Original source

Introducing the Graham campaign

It seems Graham has got himself a presidential campaign off the ground. No, not Billy or Franklin. Lindsey, ever heard of him? Not Lindsay Lohan. Sure we have, but for being the notorious sidekick to John Juan McCain. A micro-blip on a radar screen.

So he wastes no time going to the same rhetoric famous by another candidate. He’s been running now for a couple weeks and, almost in search of coverage, makes odd statements. Speaking to Chuck Todd, Graham says. See full video interview here.

At 8 minutes in, he goes deftly hypothetical, as if planned, supposing to write the Constitution today. He just happens to have it all thought out, and Todd has to ply Lindsey very little to develop his SNL caliber sketch. (who cares about Hannity & Maddow?)

Todd asks “why is the country [so] polarized?” (will they ask Hillary that question?)

Graham says, “money, and….okay write the Constitution today. I think it’d be a great SNL sketch. You got Philadelphia Hall, you got satellite trucks parked outside. You know Ben Franklin comes outside… (cluckling) I got Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity jump all over… “don’t give in, Ben.” Just think how hard it is in today’s 24/7 news cycle, talk radio, cable television, and money. There is a group telling you to say no to about everything …and to get into politics, look how many pledges people ask you to sign…

Todd: will you sign any?
Graham: nope, nah.
Todd: you’ve signed pledges before…
Graham: I have

Todd: do you regret it?
Graham: Not so much I regret it that I just don’t want to do it this time. You know if you’re not financially independent, you have to get somebody to help you financially. I think a combination of constant media, 24 hours news cycle with money has made it pretty hard to find common ground.

Todd: so that means were doomed?
Graham: No, I think…its a good question…are we? I don’t know.
Todd: I don’t know if media is going to reform. I always say its a two-way street. Politicians play to the media polarization.

Graham: You’re trying to beat each other and you report things maybe too quickly. Let’s look at it this way, I think there is a market for a better way. When I talk to that young guy there, I said “You’re going to have to work a little longer pal. If I’m president, I’m going to ask you to work a little longer. What do people do between 65 and 67? They work two years longer….

I’m making a bet here that you can talk about problem solving in the Republican primary and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that you can openly embrace working with Democrats and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that in a war weary republic you can rally them to keep the fight over there before it comes here. Now, if I lose those bets it doesn’t mean America’s lost, it means that I just fell short. To a young person in politics, listen to what I am doing here, see if it makes sense to you. There is a growing desire by the public at large to stop the BS. I feel it, I sense it and I’m running on the idea if you elect me I’ll do whatever is necessary to defend the nation. I’m running not as a candidate for a single party but for a great nation.

Todd: are you thinking about going third party?
Graham: no, not at all …See at the end of the day, you’re not going to get big thigs done with moderates. There is no hall of fame for moderates. Moderates are nice people but it takes real ideologically purer people, in many ways, to solve hard problems. Did anybody doubt Tip O’Neil’s credentials as a liberal? Did anybody doubt Ronald Reagan’s credentials as a conservative?

Cut/ enough

Bet much? Besides the moderate boilerplate “let’s work together” talk, there was an admission that you cannot get great big things from moderates. You don’t say. So why demonize and attack the same people for holding fast to their principles? I get it, it’s okay when he’s standing up against the Party base. But when they don’t cooperate with him, there’s a problem.

Todd: in 2000 he (John McCain) ran against the Party a little bit harder. [really?]
Graham: Yea but I think, you know, looking back that was sort of an immature campaign. We kind of got off in the ditch a little bit. You know if you want to be the nominee of a party, there’s only so much you can do to run your party down. I love the Republican Party. I believe the conservatism…

Todd: Some conservatives are going to hear what you’re saying and say YOU are trying to run down the Party right now.
Graham: I’m not. I’m actually trying to build it up. Here’s my bet: that Hispanics, if they get over the idea that we don’t like them because we suggest that we don’t, if we could actually get immigration behind us, the Hispanic community is much more aligned with our way of doing business than our Democratic colleagues. I firmly believe that.

Todd: you believe that Hispanics are justified in thinking that the Republican Party doesn’t care about them right now?
Graham: Yes, to some extent I do because just look at the rhetoric. Don’t judge us all by what a few people say. But you have to look at the results…/end

Video

Keep developing those thoughts strategies, Lindsey. You already gave MSM ammo for weeks. None of this is nuclear science but it does show the alignment to McCain, who also is always sucking wind for face time on air. Graham knows you can only beat that party horse so far, you can’t run it into the ground. Are you hiring the same geniuses?

Let’s go back in the time warp machine.

You only have to go back to 2000 in his presidential bid for president when McCain dropped this load of manure on the Republican base calling conservatives agents of intolerance. Now his dear friend Lind-see seems to have the same campaign formula. He makes it sound like he is talking about both sides fairly, but it is directed squarely at conservatives, the intolerant ones. After all, being intolerant on the left is a compliment to them. So the comparison doesn’t work.

February 2000, McCain took to the road and the air under the guise of bashing certain politics.

I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo- Christian values, and I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history. But public — but political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are… corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. [CNN transcript]

While he sounded to be swinging at both sides, the main target of opportunity was the conservative right, particularly evangelicals. Everyone knew it then, and now everyone will again with sidekick Graham on the bandstand. They don’t care that in the process they are offending their base, they think that is smart politics. They don’t care about marginalizing voters and any influence that does not align with them.

Though it is very amusing how Lindsey Graham refers to McCain’s campaign as immature and “in the ditch”, doing almost exactly what John was doing. So Lindsey is going to start in the gutter and work out from there. Enter mainstream media.

So now we have to live through a replay of that intolerant, divide and conquer, playing the media fiddle type of campaigning. Right on cue, it’s media chow time which is the point. It’s McCain 2000 3.0. Graham must think we are really dumb to expect us to play along.

Holy Graham crackers, Batman!

RightRing | Bullright

Murrieta the example

 

A NY Times article made sure to describe Murrieta as “middle-class conservative”.

“Nowhere have the Central American immigrants been met with such tremendous anger as they have here, in this middle-class conservative community about 90 miles southeast of Los Angeles.”

What difference does it make what type of city or town it is? But it says nothing about what type people the illegals are. Who knows? Isn’t it funny how that works? Suddenly the citizens of the community are scrutinized under a microscope instead of the problem.

And racism? It wouldn’t matter who or what nationality they were. But the fact is they are who they are. They could be Canadians, Costa Ricans, Argentineans or Brazilians.(by nationality not race) The same questions and problems would result. But they aren’t.

Murrieta already has a 25% Latino population. So don’t claim the racist crap. If they bussed in white transients from LA, and dumped them off, it would be the same problem and a similar reaction. Then to have the resources of the community left to deal with it is just crazy.

“We didn’t ask for this problem — it was just dumped at our doorstep,” said Mayor Alan Long, who has lived here most of his life and told residents he planned to send a “fat bill” to President Obama. “This is a nationwide problem, and little Murrieta has taken the lead.”

Why is it when they come here, or Mexicans already here, always refer to “our people”? Yet when anyone generalizes who they are, they complain about stereotyping their people. I see TV commercials by Latino organizations talking about expressing the voice and speaking up for “our people”. Really, what about speaking up for Americans? That seems to be frowned on.

A local resident objected saying:

“We came here because they are attacking our people, people just like us,” said Ana Larios, 42, a Mexican immigrant who moved to Murrieta with her children from Los Angeles nearly a decade ago. “I never knew people felt this way until now. It’s shocking and embarrassing.”

Funny, if she didn’t notice anything, it makes the case for the community. Ten years and she didn’t feel it because it isn’t there. Now she wants to imply some sort of racism after admitting that there is none.

I saw a sign somewhere: ‘justice not deportation’. Since when is deportation injustice?

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/influx-of-central-american-migrants-roils-murrieta-calif.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

RightRing | Bullright

Safe Act…give me a break!

It is just possible that government has invented something new, “safe-free zones.”
I’ll name it that and save them the trouble.

What is safe about the SAFE Act?

“To protect” is the idea. But don’t expect your rights to be secured inside.

Safe, safety

Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound. 3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet. 4. Affording protection: a safe place.

Safe-free zones is kind of an oxymoron, but that is the result of Cuomo’s “Safe Act”.  Or you could call them rights-free zones.

Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights.
Safety would be government securing our God-given rights as a priority.

Instead, when they use the word “safe” or safety, it often means “now we are going to limit your rights.” It is not a zero sum game.  Securing rights now means taking away people’s rights. So lawmakers had to use the acronym “SAFE” for gun control. That doesn’t make it so.

 
Enter Governor Cuomo:
NY Governor Cuomo is deliberately using “Safety” as a political device. They should outlaw cars because there people can be killed in cars. No? Maybe you should be prohibited from speech in a movie theater because people have screamed “fire” or created panic. How about we ban some words because they can be used a certain way? (too late…) How about we prohibit assembly because it can turn into a riot?

When did people’s rights become such a threat to government? On the contrary, government has become a threat to our rights. Why should taking away rights make you safer?

But the real crux of the problem is someone who is tasked to preserve and secure our God-given rights, is directly trampling on them. At the very same time he is trying to promote late-term abortion – a gruesome act according to anyone with eyes to see.

Would he regulate and ban scissors because they are used in abortions? I’m serious. Even the pro-life Right is not asking for that. They don’t even blame those vacuums and suction hoses. But Cuomo actually wants to protect and legalize late-term abortions, and even let them choose the means.

So Cuomo is on a mission and the objective is to restrict, limit and destroy our rights. The other is to give even more power to the government, to track people and mine information from them, then use this information in any way they see fit against them.

All that in his agenda under the guise of “Safe”. Know this, you will not be “safe” from the ever-encroaching government or its burgeoning bureaucracy. You are not meant to be. Thus, you will not be safe or secure in your possessions or papers. You’re security and freedom is a disposable commodity to Cuomo and the Left. That “freedom” is a threat to our government and others, in their minds. How else could you explain their actions?

Government’s purpose is apparently not to protect our God-given freedom, but to usurp and abolish it. They have taken that to be their priority in doing so under this “safe act”. The Safe Act is the biggest contradiction and oxymoron I think I have ever seen. The only question for them now is where do they go from here?

Why did they have to name the freedom robbing law the “Safe Act” rather than the Freedom Abolishing Act? Then they could have even used the acronym FAACT. And the fact is they are taking freedom and liberty and burying them as deep as they can, under whatever they can, supposedly to create Safety. Only they could have thought of it.

If Obama calls his signature healthcare takeover an “affordability” act when it drives up costs, then using that standard Cuomo has declared his candidacy.

We know the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What about others?

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How about the Fifth amendment?

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

How about the fourteenth Amendment:

(Sec. 1) – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

WND – “Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#dZHPcmhSYv4hOmGR.99

H/T to Pepp for pointing out that article in a comment on a prior post.

Remember when Hillary and others declared abortions should be safe, legal, rare. “Dr.” Gosnell destroyed her notion as the bologna it is.

…If and ONLY when the government declares it one.

How about a “Give Me a Break Act”, sound too corny?

Right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness now means restricting your second amendment. A government of, by, and for government for the the protection of same.

All the president’s protection

Every time the prez leaves or enters the building, an entire swat team is on the roof.

(nice graphic illustration)

All this must add to the ever-expanding ego of Obama. And he is worried about people having self-protection and guns. The guy with a traveling militia is worried about militias and guns. Go figure.