Archive for November 2015
There are some very interesting implications of the way progressive Democrats handle the shooting incidents and the way they handle other aspects of human behavior. Progressive Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders rebel against the idea that the only way for citizens to protect themselves from gun violence is to carry guns themselves.
Of course, they, like the liberal Hollywood movie stars who speak out against gun violence, are complete hypocrites. They want one set of rules for themselves and another set for everyone else. The obvious proof of this is that these people, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and all other well known anti-gun Progressives insist that carrying guns is not a solution, yet they themselves would not step out of their cars or homes without a bodyguard standing close by toting a loaded handgun. And Hollywood movie stars who occasionally jump on the anti-gun ownership bandwagon have made millions in films that glorify gun violence.
Female-centric groups, such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Everytown for Gun Safety, are portrayed by sympathetic mainstream media and promotional websites as grassroots organizations comprised of safety-focused “caring, concerned moms.” Led by a former Democrat operative, these wise nurturers march, boycott, and demand “common sense solutions” to the ubiquitous “epidemic of gun violence” and “mass shootings.” This sisterhood predictably has expanded to include liberal celebrities and politicians. Julianne Moore, she of the “#not one more” tweets, is recruiting other Hollywood actresses of great intellect to the cause. Gabby Giffords and, of course, Hillary, who has just embraced the cause out of political desperation, are also vying to become the preeminent anti-gun Valkyrie.
What are these “common sense solutions?” The amorphous mantra encompasses any and all impediments to legal carry and gun ownership. The Moms boycott and bully businesses into imposing, through store policy, greater restrictions than those enacted by citizen vote
If we truly care about this—if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience—then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.
– President Barrack Hussein Obama
November 28, 2015
Is President Obama advocating confiscation of all firearms from the citizens of the United States?
Has President Obama declared war on the fastest growing demographic of gun (weapons of war) ownership – women?
Every firearm is a potential weapon of war.
And more women are turning to firearm ownership to get on the self-preservation side of “when seconds count and the police are minutes away” situations.
Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of rich radical leftist Democrats that the appearance of a firearm determines whether or not it is suitable for war. Their end game is to deny every citizen of the United States his or her right and his or her duty to self-defense.
COMMON SENSE GUN SAFETY REFORMS = GUN CONFISCATION
Spencer Stone, one of the American heroes who stopped a terrorist on August 21 on a French train, and Chris Mintz, a student at Oregon’s Umpqua College, were unarmed and seriously wounded while fighting armed madmen. Wouldn’t you prefer pinning medals on heroes who have a better chance of avoiding injury because they were armed?
Your “routine” response, as you called it, to the Oct. 1 mass shooting at Umpqua College was no surprise. We know you don’t trust law-abiding Americans with guns. We know that the “common sense” gun control you routinely demand, but never define, would disarm law-abiding gun owners as much as possible. That’s why you routinely praise countries whose citizens can’t lawfully arm themselves. James Madison knew better:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist 46
Mr. President, you ridiculed us in 2008 as “bitter” Americans who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them.”
We’re definitely sick of being “beaten down” and “betrayed by government.” We definitely have antipathy towards criminals with guns.
Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson
By John Hawkins
A gunman singled out Christians, telling them they would see God in “one second,” during a rampage at an Oregon college Thursday that left at least nine innocent people dead and several more wounded, survivors and authorities said.
“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN. — The New York Post
Liberals are delighted when there’s a mass shooting because as Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Of course, they’d deny they feel that way, but before the blood even cools on the floor after a mass shooting, liberals are always working en masse to take advantage of the situation. After the shooting in Oregon, Barack Obama immediately took to the airwaves to declare that, “This is something that should be politicized.“
…and that’s what it is: pure politics because inevitably, nothing liberals ever seem to suggest would make mass shootings happen less frequently. In all fairness, that’s because what liberals really want is total gun confiscation, but taking that position would cement the Democrat Party out of power for a generation.
Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.
There shouldn’t be any argument over who the “true Muslim” is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this – one of the last chapters of the Quran – the true believer “strives and fights with their wealth and persons” while the hypocrites are those who “sit at home,” refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.
In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.
After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them ‘apostates’ and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.
The prophet of Islam’s most faithful followers and even his own family soon turned on each other as well. There were four caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third caliph was murdered by those allied with the son of the first caliph. The fourth caliph was murdered in the midst of a conflict with the fifth caliph, who began a 100-year dynasty of excess and debauchery that was brought to an end in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle (who was not even a Muslim).
Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.
Muslim apologists, who like to say that is impossible for today’s terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims, would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima’s followers and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad explicitly held up both his favorite daughter and his favorite wife as model Muslim women, yet they were invoked respectively by each side in the violent civil war that followed his death. Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about?
Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.
Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death – pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.
By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa. Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.
There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of God as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Quran most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit. In the absence of true infidels, they will even turn on each other.
The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith, as well as the aforementioned “hypocrites” (Muslims who don’t act like Muslims). In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Quran travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.
From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in “peaceful Islam” have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists. By any objective measure, the “Religion of Peace” has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known. In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power – and even then…
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s questioning of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards exposes the depravity and dishonesty of her organization.
Richards and her colleagues act like cornered criminal defendants whose only defense is to dissemble and counterattack their accusers, for the truth is not in them.
Planned Parenthood piously holds itself out as a benevolent, quasi-sacred entity, selflessly devoted to improving women’s health. It has consistently denied critics’ claims that it performs no mammograms, but at the hearing, Richards unremorsefully conceded the charge and pretended she never said otherwise. And it’s not just about mammograms. Americans United for Life has shown that under Richards’ leadership, there has been a marked decrease in cancer screening and breast health services while there has been an increase in abortion.
Though Planned Parenthood peddles the misleading statistic that abortion only constitutes 3 percent of its health services, Richards indifferently confessed that abortion generates 86 percent of its revenue, excluding federal subsidies.
Our kids deserve the best. On many college campuses, they are not allowed to carry guns to protect themselves. If that’s the best, I think our state legislators should share in the best. Whether students can carry guns on campuses is often decided by campus officials, but state law is the ultimate decider. That’s why I think state legislatures should be declared “gun-free zones,” and their security guards and metal detectors should be withdrawn.
If a nut or a radical Muslim comes and starts shooting legislators, one by one, taking his time because he knows no one is armed, then legislators may call the police, just like students on campuses can during a massacre. If it’s good enough for the students, it’s certainly good enough for state legislators. Referendums should be passed requiring legislators to be stripped of their security protection unless and until they pass a law allowing students to carry guns on campuses.
Of course, this can be effected in others ways. In states that have referenda and initiatives (currently 26), one could simply directly support an initiative that would require guns to be legal on campuses.
By Bob Unruh
Just as Planned Parenthood’s president was being grilled Tuesday (September 29, 2015) by members of Congress about undercover videos revealing the organization’s body-parts trade, a new forensic analysis undercut claims that the videos had been manipulated and were misleading.
The analysis found the “recording are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation.”
The report was delivered to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which hired Coalfire Systems Inc. to analyze the “raw video and audio data files” that have been creating havoc for America’s largest abortion provider.
The videos were made by the Center for Medical Progress, which was supported by several pro-life organizations. Over a period of many months, CMP set up a fake company that negotiated with Planned Parenthood executives for the sale of the body parts of aborted babies, which are used in research.
I hope that no one is surprised that Obama took this opportunity again to attack guns, the gun industry, and those of us who are fans of the Second Amendment. This is what a community organizing career politician does. For liberals like Obama, virtually everything is political, or must be made so. Because political problems require political solutions, and thus, when something is politicized, those in favor of empowering and growing government get to do what they do best: give speeches, call for legislation, and attempt to stir up the electorate in their favor.
Prior to the murderous rampage by Chris Harper Mercer at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, liberals across America must have decided that after the next mass shooting in the U.S., “time to politicize” was going to be one of the themes of their talking points. Prior to Obama’s speech on the Umpqua massacre, where he declared “this is something we should politicize,” in the largest newspaper in my home state of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, liberal columnist Jay Bookman (at about 3:30 in the afternoon on the day of the shooting) posted an online piece titled, Another mass shooting at college? Hell yes we should ‘politicize it.’
Liberals wouldn’t do this if it hadn’t worked for them in the past. In spite of being on the wrong side of virtually every moral issue