Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Hate Group

Women’s March Co-Founder Tamika Mallory is Portraying Criminal Activity as “Gun Violence”

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
July 13, 2017

We all know The Women’s March, which has put Dana Loesch and the NRA in its crosshairs, will do and say anything to advance the gun control agenda. But one of their co-founders is masquerading her personal connection to criminal behavior as a tragic brush with gun violence.

Tamika Mallory frequently cites the shooting death of her son’s father, Jason Ryans, when she speaks on a national level in support of gun control.

An article in the NY Daily News titled Tamika Mallory, who lost son’s father to fatal shooting 12 years ago, takes gun control fight personally attempts to pull at readers’ heartstrings:

Yet, she is, first and foremost, a mother made into a single mother by a gunshot — the one that claimed the life of her son’s father, Jason Ryans. It was 12 years ago, but she still weeps when she recalls the moment her mother called her that day as she drove home from work.

“It was a flash before my eyes. I managed to pull the car over. I realized I was indeed a real single mom, and that my son would never know his father,” she said.

“Over the years, there were so many times when my son has yearned for a father,” she continued. “He needed a male when he was winning games, accomplishing goals … even when he was confused. That’s the most painful part.”

In an article featuring The Ones to Watch during Black History Month 2017, Black America Web wrote:

Tamika Mallory entered the social justice arena in a heartbreaking way. She has firsthand experience with the scourge of gun violence. The New York City native, now 36, lost her son’s father, Jason Ryans, to gun violence. Her son was a toddler at the time.

On her Wikipedia page, the death of her son’s father is again referenced in conjunction with her activism with gun control:

Mallory is a single mother to her son Tarique. Sixteen years ago, her son’s father, Jason Ryans, was shot and killed. Mallory explains that her experience with NAN taught her to react to this tragedy with activism. Her son is now 18 and an active member of NAN.

In an article on PopSugar titled Why a Women’s March Cofounder Says Every Feminist Should Care About Gun Control, guest writer Chelsea Handler referenced Mallory’s drive to “change the policy and discussion around guns” since Ryans’ death:

Mallory is just getting started. Her next project, #NRA2DOJ, will take her to Washington on July 14 to protest the NRA. The effort is a direct response to a viral — and frankly, despicable — marketing campaign from the gun rights advocacy group, but gun control has been an issue close to Mallory’s heart for a long time. She’s been active in changing the policy and discussion around guns since the death of her son’s father by shooting in 2001, and this new project seeks to bring even more national attention to an issue which has reached a crisis point.

But after a friend pointed out a lack of elaboration of the incident, I started noticing that Mallory never expands on Ryans’ death, only referencing it as her personal connection to gun violence and the contributing drive behind her push for gun control.

So why does Mallory fail to elaborate on the “gun violence” that caused Ryans’ death? 

Well, the answer to what lead to his death lies with how Ryans chose to live his life.

In 2001, police said Jason Ryans and the men who beat and shot him were known to be dealing drugs in the Wilkes-Barre, PA. area.

According to an arrest affidavit, Ryans was beaten after Kenny Watson of Mocanaqua and James Watson of Wilkes-Barre discovered two guns and a safe containing seven pounds of marijuana had been stolen from the home Ryans was sharing with Kenny Watson and his girlfriend Tiffany Greco.

Kenny had given his girlfriend two handguns – an H&R .22 caliber and a .380 semi-automatic pistol – to hold for safe keeping after they discovered the missing safe when they returned from the Bronx for Easter (April 15, 2001). Greco told police she had placed both firearms in her bedroom dresser.

Both guns were discovered missing on April 17, 2001, and when Kenny and James Watson, along with their friend Mike Robinson, found the stolen .22 caliber in Ryans’ coat, they began to beat him for stealing it.

At some point during the beating, Ryans pulled out the other stolen gun and James Watson grabbed a steak knife. James stabbed Ryans in the hands, causing him to drop the .380.

James called his girlfriend Jennifer Lynn Barr and told her to come home from work, then instructed her to drive him in a white Ford Explorer to lead a caravan to a “hospital far away”. Transporting a badly beaten and “cut up” Jason Ryans were Kenny Watson and his nephew Rodney Watson, who followed Barr in Greco’s maroon Ford Explorer.

But when Barr passed the Tyler Memorial Hospital on Route 6 near Tunkhannock, James informed her they weren’t taking Ryans to a hospital and instructed her to pull into a secluded area near Camptown where police say she observed Ryans smoking something and holding a vehicle ashtray when he exited the Explorer.

At that point, Kenny, James, Robinson, and Ryans walked into the woods and James ordered Kenny to slit Ryans’ throat. When Kenny told James he couldn’t, police say James shot Ryans – once in the chest, twice in the head – before fleeing the area.

In 2011, a jury convicted James Watson of Ryans’ murder. His brother Kenny Watson was acquitted of murder and kidnapping charges, but was convicted on several charges relating to Ryans’ death.

Now that you know the whole story, what do you think?

When an individual who is known by police to be “dealing drugs in the Wilkes-Barre area” steals guns and possibly seven pounds of marijuana from another known drug dealer, does the ensuing retaliation and subsequent murder fit the mold of “the scourge of gun violence”?

Ryans most certainly didn’t deserve to die, but would the policy changes Mallory aims to make have altered the outcome of her son’s father’s life and prevented his death?

Drugs are illegal.
Possession of an unlawful controlled substance is illegal.
Possession of an unlawful controlled substance with the intent to distribute is illegal.
Distribution of an unlawful controlled substance is illegal.
Theft is illegal.
Theft of a firearm is illegal.
Unlawful carry of a firearm is illegal.
Assault and battery are illegal.
Assault with a deadly weapon is illegal.
Kidnapping is illegal.
Homicide is illegal.
Murder is illegal.

If a person chooses to break the law, they are committing a crime and are, therefore, a criminal. You can add 1,000 more laws, but criminals don’t care – whether they’re breaking 1 law or 1,000 laws –  they’re going to commit that crime.

So let’s get real here: it appears that not only was the father of Tamika Mallory’s son a known drug dealer, he also allegedly stole firearms and possibly seven pounds of (illegal) drugs from his (fellow drug dealer) friends. That’s upsetting, because while there are many very real, extremely sad stories of individuals losing their lives to gun violence, James Ryans’ is not one of them – and by continuing to align him with thousands of innocent victims, Mallory is devaluing the truth.

If Ms. Mallory truly wants to “bring even more national attention to an issue which has reached a crisis point”, perhaps she should focus on the criminal use of drugs, robbery, stricter sentencing for repeat offenders and felons in possession of a firearm, or consider using another example of gun violence that more appropriately fits her agenda.

ATF Considers ‘Repealing and Replacing’ Firearm Regulations

with one comment

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
July 11, 2017

Over the last few months, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) met with numerous groups – gun rights groups, gun control groups and law enforcement officials – to determine what firearm regulations the department could do away with.

The meetings were a direct result of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, which focused on regulatory reform in order to“alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.”

According to The Trace, a leftist news site, each organization was asked to consider the following questions:

  • What impact current regulations have on gun-violence prevention.
  • What regulations need to be ‘repealed, replaced, or modified.’
  • What regulations are outdated.

Although many are wondering what the discussions entailed, a spokesperson for the ATF declined to provide any additional details.

“Engaging in open dialogue with these professionals allows us to better understand the industries we regulate and clarify our processes and programs,” the spokesperson told The Trace.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomes the discussion with the ATF.

“It is a unique opportunity to work with an administration that wants to advance the contributions of the firearms and ammunition industries to our national, state and local economies. These are discussions that would allow industry members to continue to grow their businesses and create new jobs,” Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel, said in a statement. “It is refreshing to have an administration that looks at government relations from the point of view of business and not from the point of view of a government bureaucrat.”

House rejects proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terrorist groups

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 14, 2017

Choosing denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the motivating ideology of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us. That’s just asking to be defeated.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison.

Yes, you are. And there is a reason for that: 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001. No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction. So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?

Ellison added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.”

No. The free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws. The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition.

The amendment would have required the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.

“House rejects controversial study of Islam,” by Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, Politico, July 13, 2017:

The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.

More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated [sic] the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.

Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”…

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.

“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”

The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of though that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines….

 

Martin Luther King Jr’s Niece Alveda King: “Let’s Pray for America to End Abortion”

with one comment

By Alveda King
LifeNews.com
July 14, 2017

Celebrities — you either have to love them, hate them, or don’t care one way or the other. One interesting truth about “celebrity” men and women is that abortions have affected many of them.

I could also include cases of men celebrities, because some of them have post-abortion testimonies as well. We’ll save that one for part two.

I include myself in the mix because I became post-abortive in 1970 and was still hiding my pain in deep denial back then.

Yes, even celebrities and civil rights activists like me have had abortions. Thank goodness people are talking more about abortions these days.

At Civil Rights for the Unborn we uncover the injustice of abortion. Abortion isn’t a civil right; it’s a crime against humanity. At Priests for Life we work hard to end abortion. See Silent No More Awareness and Rachel’s Vineyard and find out why men and women truly regret our abortions.

Also, please read this compelling account about celebrity abortions by Kevin Burke, co-founder of Rachel’s Vineyard. Also read Recall Abortion by Priests for Life Executive Director Janet Morana. After reading one or both please ask yourself these questions:

1. Why must a woman choose between health, safety, and security or abortion?

2. How can taking an innocent life save a life?

3. Does the truth really matter?

“Have I now become your enemy because I am telling you the truth?” — Galatians 4:16 NLT

Let’s pray for America to end abortion and return to God.

LifeNews.com Note: Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King is a leading pro-life voice who formerly had two abortions before having a faith conversion and she now is a speaker for and representative of the educational outreach of Priests for Life and the Silent No More network.

New York Times Op-Ed on Charlie Gard Backs Infanticide

with one comment

By Michael Cook
LifeNews.com
July 14, 2017

The case of dying English baby Charlie Gard shows how much public opinion about life and death issues is swayed by emotion rather than thoughtful deliberation.

Charlie was born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. This condition is so rare that there are probably only a dozen children in the world who are affected. The child cannot breathe on his own, cannot move and is probably profoundly intellectually disabled.

His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, understand that their son will probably only live a short time, but want to give him every chance. They have found a professor of neurology in United States, identified only as “Dr I” in court documents, who is offering an experimental treatment which has given them a smidgen of hope. Even Dr I agrees that the probability is very low. The UK’s National Health Service will not consider paying for this, so the parents have resorted to crowd-funding. With donations from tens of thousands of people, they have raised £1.3 million.

But Great Ormond Hospital, where Charlie is being cared for, backed by the UK government, will not let the baby go to the United States. The doctors argue that it is Charlie’s best interests to die soon and in the hospital.

There are several issues in this case which make it impossible for the public, journalists and bioethicists to reach an easy conclusion. Is Charlie suffering? Should his expected quality of life determine whether he is kept alive? What are his “best interests”? Who makes the decision on whether to seek experimental treatment, the parents or the doctors? Can doctors in the NHS be trusted?

By and large, the media, especially in the United States, are giving very sympathetic coverage to the parents’ case. This is expressed very touchingly on their GoFundMe page:

We just CAN’T let our baby die when there is something that might help him! We won’t give up on him because he has a rare disease. He deserves a chance and he deserves a life as much as anyone else.

It’s not just a conservative/progressive, right/left issue. On the side of Charlie’s parents are Pope Francis and President Trump, but also – amazingly — the world’s leading utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, and a like-mind colleague, Oxford’s Julian Savulescu. The latter argue from a cost-benefit perspective:

It is a value judgement (not a scientific judgement) whether the pain of three months of intensive care (minimised by sedation and analgesia) [in the US] is worth taking to gather more information about the prospect of improvement with experimental therapy.

This is an issue on which there is reasonable disagreement. Many doctors and ethicists believe it is not, some doctors (such as Dr I, and now six other experts) and some ethicists believe it is worth taking this chance, even if it is a slim one.

In the face of such reasonable disagreement, we believe that we should accede to the wishes of the parents and err on the side of a chance of life. The alternative is certain death.

Now let’s take a look at a controversy at the other end of life. Noel Conway, a 67-year-old former university lecturer with motor neurone disease fears being entombed in his own body and is requesting permission for assisted suicide or euthanasia, both of which are illegal in the English legal system. His condition is incurable and he will probably die within the year. Yet coverage of his case in the British media has been very sympathetic.

How can the media support an infant fighting to live and also support an adult with considerably better “quality of life” who wants to die? Charlie Gard should be allowed to live as long as possible even though he has terrible “quality of life”, but Noel Conway should be allowed to die as soon as possible even though he has relatively good “quality of life”. “Support life at all costs” and “support death at all costs!” are contradictory theories.

The media just doesn’t have the patience or the intellectual wherewithal to puzzle their way through complex cases like these. Instead it reacts according to gut feel. And then, to heap contradiction upon contradiction, they criticise opponents of same-sex marriage and transgender rights for irrational arguments based on “repugnance”.

Just to demonstrate how impoverished is the elite media’s reasoning about life and death issues, consider an op-ed published in the New York Times this week. Without mentioning the Charlie Gard controversy, it was obviously an oblique commentary on it. In it a father remembered cradling his newly born son as he died painfully from the effects of Trisomy 18, another rare genetic condition. To heighten the emotional impact, it was written in the second person. The author argues “Shouldn’t we be allowed the swift humane option afforded the owners of dogs, a lethal dose of a painkiller?” And in his shocking conclusion, he tells himself, “You should have killed your baby.”

In other words, at the same time as the Pope and Peter Singer were united in arguing for Charlie’s right to live, the New York Times was supporting infanticide.

In any case the op-ed’s relevance to the debate is questionable. The incident may have taken place as long as 30 years ago, not last week. Palliative care has improved astronomically since then. And despite the father’s obvious anguish, he is not your average Joe. He is a professional philosopher whose main interest is showing that humans are not morally superior to non-human life forms, and possibly not to robots either.

But none of that seemed relevant to the New York Times editorial team. The op-ed was powerfully emotional and that was all that mattered.

Quality journalism helps people to think. Yellow journalism ignores the facts and puts a blowtorch to their emotions. And that, at least in the right-to-die debate, is where the New York Times has sunk to.

LifeNews Note: Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet where this story appeared.

Sansour Wants Jihad? Give Her Jihad

with one comment

By William L. Gensert
American Thinker
July 13, 20117

Linda Sarsour, a pro-sharia, progressive Islamic activist and former Director of the Arab American Association who also helped organize January’s National Women’s March (the one with the pink vagina hats) recently called for “jihad” against the “tyrant” Donald J. Trump in a speech to the Islamic Society of North America.

Sarsour said, “We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East and the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

She also said in the speech, “When I wake up every morning and remember who is sitting in the White House, I am outraged.”

Wow, she must be tons of fun at a party.

Of course, Sarsour explained how Americans are just too stupid to understand the nuance in her call to jihad.  No, no, no, you silly little American dolts, she wasn’t calling for violence, you don’t understand — it’s Trump who is calling for violence by insisting he serves out the presidential term he was duly elected to serve.  His refusal to resign or commit suicide, or whatever gets him out of office is the real violence here.  I’m afraid that most progressives agree with her.

Well if she wants jihad, I say we give it to her.  We are in a battle for the very soul of the nation.  Accept her declaration as is without being percipient to the underlying threat and we will be well on our way to losing.  It’s not just us who will lose, it’s the entire world — there is no one nation or even group of nations with the moral clarity and bravery to replace America as the last best hope for humanity.

If we accept her call to jihad as nonviolent, then calling for jihad against her personally is not a call to violence either.

There are many good Muslims in America today, who are grateful for the opportunity this nation gives them to live a better life.  Still, it seems to me that some Muslims come to this country and refuse to assimilate (Sarsour says they shouldn’t). They want Americans to change for them and then when people refuse, the get angry and call for jihad.  They want our women in tents and veils with their genitals mutilated, while all LBGTs are thrown to their death from the rooftops.

In short, they want us to obey sharia law.  Sharia gives infidels (anyone not a Muslim) three choices to coexist with Islam (the religion of peace): convert, pay, or die.  If this was their game plan, than they should have never come here.  Yet, the left champions their right to not assimilate and backs their desire to force us to change our nation, our society, and our values to accommodate them.  In other words, liberals think there is nothing wrong the extinguishment of Western civilization as embodied by America.

Sorry, but America is doing just fine the way we are.  It’s not us who need saving, at least not yet.

President Donald Trump gave a speech extolling the value of Western civilization and culture to the world and the entire progressive media and academic enterprise reacted in an apoplectic frenzy.  Yet, Sarsour calls for jihad against our president and of course, those same people are either silent or submissively bend over backward to be apologists for the religion of peace.  That’s the thing with this particular form of apologia (for Islam, of course), it needs morons to follow or good men to not fight back.  Remember, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

One way to look at the left is they are good people who are merely misinformed — but that is wrong. They really do hate America and Americans.  They seem to think that anytime someone brings up Western civilization or the virtues of the Republic of America, it should be followed by an apology or at the very least an opening of veins.  Progressives want power and control, and in order to get it, they are willing to force the nation to commit cultural and national suicide.  This is why they have no problem with Sarsour’s call to violence against the president.  Trump won’t apologize for America.  He stands up for America.  Hence, he must be a racist and a fascist.

Instead of trying to radically transform the nation in the image of Venezuela, proponents of this ideology should simply partake of the real thing and go live in that spectacularly failed socialist experiment.  Maybe they want to lose a few pounds.

One thing I can tell them is they should bring their own toilet paper and a gun because an American in Caracas today is prey, a soon-to-be carcass — hey, people gotta eat.

Barry gave his best effort at achieving the radical transformation of the nation into a socialist paradise.  Then he tried to foist his mini-me, Hillary, on the nation but Americans were smarter than that.  They saw her as an arrogant, entitled, outright criminal masquerading as a politician who nevertheless, was so unlikeable  that “unnamed sources” high in the Clinton campaign have said even her husband didn’t vote for her — but that’s just silly; everyone knows Bill wanted her to win so he could date again.

“Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?” Trump asked — and it’s the right question at the right time.

Critics have labeled the speech “nationalist,” “xenophobic,” and “racist.”  Yet if that were so, then why did the Poles love it — are they nationalistic, xenophobic, and racist as well?  To the left, if a speech is not an expiation of America’s sins or repentant for the country’s success it is nationalistic and racist.

Trump is not overly concerned with decorum.  He is his own man, a man who endeavors to live his life by his own rules and that means he will never accept the role of victim or patsy.  He hits back, and he is not afraid to defend this nation’s way of life and has no problem stooping to the level of his enemies to do so.  As would most Americans until very recently, .

However, conservatives seem to hold themselves to a higher sense of propriety; they will not fight as progressives do.  With progressives — and make no mistake, Sarsour is a progressive in good standing — everything is game, your family, the ones you love, the way you look, even the number of scoops of ice cream you have with your pie ala mode.  Either do as they say or be destroyed.

Once Trump became President, it quickly became apparent to him how he was going to be treated by the very antipathetic liberal polity and media.  He faced an existential choice with regard to his presidency, accept it in passive pajama-boy fashion, probably resulting in a one-term presidency not long remembered and of little note, but paradoxically get better press, or fight and accomplish as much as he could, while keeping as many promises as possible.

Trump understands the time is now to fight back against the outrageous behavior of the left.  Sarsour needs to be called out for exactly what she is: a radical Islamic supremacist intent on taking this country into sharia hell.  Progressives need to be told that Americans love America as the epitome of Western civilization it is.

Calling out people like Sarsour for their commitment to violence and standing up for our nation’s exceptionalism as Trump did in Poland should be the rule for our leaders and not the exception.

“Feminist” Co-Founders of The Women’s March Are Farrakhan’s Anarchist Angels

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
July 13, 2017

The men behind the Women’s March organizers have a dangerous and radical agenda, and they’re being led by none other than Louis Farrakhan, the “father of the modern violent left.”

In her latest NRA video, Dana Loesch urges Women’s March Co-Founders Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez to become real feminists and stand up to the violence of men like Farrakhan with their own clenched fists of truth.

 

Linda Sarsour: The Enemy of the State

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 8, 2017

 

Anni Cyrus exposes Linda Sarsour’s hatred for America and for free society in general.

Virginia: Muslim “obsessed with Islam” tried to join U.S. military to imitate Fort Hood jihad mass murderer

with 2 comments

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 7, 2017

In joining the military, Shivam Patel apparently wanted to become another Nidal Malik Hasan, the Muslim U.S. Army Major who murdered 13 people while screaming “Allahu akbar” at Fort Hood in 2009: he expressed “support for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who fatally shot 13 soldiers in 2009 while serving at Fort Hood in Texas, calling the attack ‘completely justified’ as he believed that Hasan died a martyr and he wanted to become one too.”

Actually, Hasan is still alive.

Patel is a convert to Islam from Hinduism. So yet again a convert to Islam somehow gets the idea that his new, peaceful religion requires him to commit treason and mass murder.

“Indian American Hindu man Shivam Patel arrested for wanting to join ISIS,” New India Times, July 7, 2017:

NEW YORK – An Indian American man, Shivam Patel, 27, of Williamsburg, Virginia, was charged with one count of making materially false statements on applications to join the military as he lied about his trips to China and Jordan on his application to join the U.S. Army and Air Force.

Patel, a Hindu man who converted to Islam a few years ago, said that he wanted to join the “Muslim Army” and commit a peaceful jihad explaining that he went to Jordan to find like-minded people but ended up getting arrested there and deported back to the U.S.

According to The Virginian Pilot, an affidavit unsealed on Thursday in the U.S. District Court said that before going to Jordan, Patel had flown to China in July last year to teach English but instead completely covered up the whole matter saying that he had not been out of the country in seven years except for a family trip to India in 2011-2012….

Patel’s parents told the FBI that he had become “obsessed with Islam” when they found out that he had been captured in Jordan.

After investigators searched Patel’s room and computers, with his parents’ permission, they found evidence that he had researched how to beat a polygraph, had downloaded three copies of an online magazine produced by the Islamic State and had searched for how to join the group, the affidavit said.

The affidavit also stated that Patel had boarded a flight to Chicago on Sept. 2 and spoke with an undercover FBI Task Force Officer that same day while he praised the terrorist attacks that had taken place in Paris, Nice and Orlando and expressed an admiration for Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

He then spoke to a “confidential human source” in Detroit the next day where he expressed a desire to do something “bigger, better and more purposeful,” like dying for Allah.

The Virginian Pilot also reported that Patel had spoken to the source again the day after explaining how he would love to see a holy war between Muslims and non-Muslims and even sang an Islamic State fight song while he recalled making a replica of the group’s flag, which he wanted to replace his neighbor’s American flag with.

On Sept. 6, Patel returned to Williamsburg to apply for job with the military as well as some paramilitary organizations.

He then contacted the source one last time on Sept. 23 to express his support for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who fatally shot 13 soldiers in 2009 while serving at Fort Hood in Texas, calling the attack “completely justified” as he believed that Hasan died a martyr and he wanted to become one too….

Mayhem, Murder and Madness to Hit Kansas July 1st

with one comment

By Steve Sheldon
Townhall
July 1, 2017

If you believe the Left, Kansas is set to implode in a rage of violence and bloodshed starting July 1st when a provision put place by the legislature four years ago goes into effect.

According to Leftist fear mongers, this provision will squelch free speech on campuses everywhere. Students will be afraid to speak due to the threat of violence from fellow students. Teachers will fear giving someone a bad grade because of the sheer violence that will befall them. Professors will no longer find refuge in their offices and are being forced to change their office hours or become unavailable altogether – some have even sought refuge in other states. Others have decided to stop teaching and are seeking alternative pursuits like research. One or two have opted for retirement.

Dark days are ahead for Kansas.

What could bring on such fear?

In 2013, the Kansas legislature passed a law requiring that local municipalities and buildings owned by the state either have adequate security preventing the carrying of guns inside the property or require that citizens be allowed to carry concealed firearms on such properties. It’s a simple concept, either allow citizens to defend themselves, or provide adequate security. These properties were allowed an exemption from concealed carry for four years, giving them enough time to make plans for proper security measures to be installed. Yes, you read that right. They had four years.

Although there is no single place to go for definitive numbers, the grand total of those who have made public announcements about their leaving state universities because of the concealed carry law is around a half-dozen. An article from the Manhattan Mercury, where Kansas State University is located, listed three academic staff and one other employee. At Kansas University, Jacob Dornan made a big splash with his announcement in March. At Wichita State, Deborah Ballard-Reisch announced her resignation blaming concealed carry on campus. That’s a confirmed five out of around 5,800 academic staff in the six state universities – hardly a mass exodus, especially considering several were of retirement age anyway.

Concealed carry on college campuses is allowed in ten states, the longest standing being Utah where students have been allowed to carry since 2004. In thirteen years, there should be plenty of incidents where hostile students confronted others with guns, or situations where the presence of guns has squelched free speech. Or how (insert emotional argument here) has happened. One can search for hours to try and find such incidents and will find nothing of substance. No injuries, no blood in the streets, no students confronting teachers over a bad grade. Nothing. Interestingly enough, there were no mass shootings on campuses that allowed concealed carry either. Hmmmm.

Using the “logic” from the Left, it should be easy to find instances in Kansas where their claims have materialized. Since some municipalities chose not to participate in the exemption, many municipal buildings have allowed concealed carry holders inside state and county owned buildings for the past four years. In that time- frame, there should be plenty of instances where angry confrontational gun owners pointed their pistols at frantic clerks over a driver’s license issue or a property tax problem. Surely, one can find a multitude of instances where these hotheads took their guns out of holsters and threatened innocent government workers. Can you guess how many thousands of times this has happened? Hundreds? Scores? Dozens? A handful? Any? That’s right, zero is the number. At least this author couldn’t find one, if it did happen.

Despite all the fear mongering from the Left, Kansas citizens and students will be safer starting July 1, and the sensational, emotional arguments from Leftists will be found to be without merit…again.

%d bloggers like this: