Most of my readers are pro-American constitutionalist. We know that there are forces that are active against our interests and wish to disarm us. The statists believe that only police should be armed and it is they that are the protectors of the innocent and law abiding. Next time you openly carry, or you are engaging a statist arguing that you should submit your personal weapons to cede your safety to them then remember the following court cases.
The cases I reference, found in a Breitbart article, illustrate that litigated case law is already established to hold the State harmless in protecting you personally from others. They are liable only to ensure they protect you against themselves (i.e., arrest without due process etc). In DeShaney v. Winnebago County and in Moore v. Madigan are illustrative of the fact WE the people are the only ones who can protect ourselves since the law vindicates the States of that responsibility.
I suggest that you read the link to the article above as it is very informative and will help to clarify the legal argument ground in which you stand against those who wish to take that ground out from under you.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Aiding and Abetting a terrorist
Why is it that a self-confessed terrorist recently convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder committed during a terror attack be denied the terrorist label by our own Government? It is not surprising the Government continues to "fog the facts" of Nadal Hassan's true intentions by saying the attack he committed at Ft. Hood as work place violence. The Government has blood on its hands and is complicit in the atrocity committed because the Military Brass and the US Intelligence community knew who and what Hassan was long before he walked into that medical facility at Ft. Hood. The Obama administration continues the grief of the families because even if justice is meted and Hassan is actually put to death those he murdered are being denied the military medals and compensation that goes with it. The Government has the ability to right this travesty and elevate those slain service members from mere victims of their workplace.
During the trial, Hassan openly admitted the killings were motivated by his Islamic religion to wage Jihad against the US. The trial judge did everything possible to keep this terrorist from actually being one in the court room. For instance, in 2010 Hassan was interviewed by mental health experts and that report was denied inclusion into the record because "According to these documents, Hasan told medical health experts in 2010 that he "would still be a martyr" even if he was convicted and executed by the US government.
Hassan wanted to share this report with the Prosecution but the Judge denied it! The Judge also denied prosecution evidence of Hassan early radicalization.
So Hassan continues to be paid his salary and receives the best medical care at our expense. The US Government knew who and what Hassan was. In spite of the fact that Hassan worked every single day of his military career alongside psychiatrists they were clueless about spotting his behavior?
General George Casey, the US Army Chief of Staff said it all when he was quoted shortly after the shooting:
""real tragedy" would be harming the cause of diversity, saying, "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well." Several months later, in a February 2010 interview, Casey said, "Our diversity – not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
Why don't we just drop the word "diversity" and leave the word "cause" because the cause that Hassan was attempting to uphold in his sick and twisted Islamic mind is exactly what the Government is protecting. Aiding and Abetting, pure and simple....
During the trial, Hassan openly admitted the killings were motivated by his Islamic religion to wage Jihad against the US. The trial judge did everything possible to keep this terrorist from actually being one in the court room. For instance, in 2010 Hassan was interviewed by mental health experts and that report was denied inclusion into the record because "According to these documents, Hasan told medical health experts in 2010 that he "would still be a martyr" even if he was convicted and executed by the US government.
Hassan wanted to share this report with the Prosecution but the Judge denied it! The Judge also denied prosecution evidence of Hassan early radicalization.
So Hassan continues to be paid his salary and receives the best medical care at our expense. The US Government knew who and what Hassan was. In spite of the fact that Hassan worked every single day of his military career alongside psychiatrists they were clueless about spotting his behavior?
General George Casey, the US Army Chief of Staff said it all when he was quoted shortly after the shooting:
""real tragedy" would be harming the cause of diversity, saying, "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well." Several months later, in a February 2010 interview, Casey said, "Our diversity – not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
Why don't we just drop the word "diversity" and leave the word "cause" because the cause that Hassan was attempting to uphold in his sick and twisted Islamic mind is exactly what the Government is protecting. Aiding and Abetting, pure and simple....
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Dark Shadows
I awoke this morning, early as usual and set in my normal routine of perusing all of the news that occurred overnight. I find a couple of headlines that catch my attention. My gears start to turn. I sit behind my keyboard and start typing. It starts with my mood and the title reflects it.
Here are some of those headlines:
AP - Military Jury Convicts Soldier in Ft. Hood Attack
WND - Military teaches colonists were extremist
The two articles above were found this morning. Both are linked at the hip as both pertain to the current situation within our military.
The teaching material listed above in the WND article is quite disturbing. Just by writing this article I would be viewed as an extremist. The disturbing trend of teaching our military members to view in this manner is ever increasing. On Page 43 of the student guide it explains "Extremist Ideologies" (subsection D) as:
"As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but the recruit other to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples."
Here we have the military teaching its members how to identify extremists in order to root them out of the military. They compare the colonist and fight for independence from tyrannical rule alongside Confederate states secession because they wanted to retain the right to own slaves.
The military has been infiltrates by extremist is true, but the extremists are now teaching/indoctrinating members into a foreign liberal culture that itself hates America. I am speaking of the Obama culture and those on the left who peddle this claptrap in colleges and grade schools across the country. It has now found its way into military schools. The outcome of the Ft. Hood trial will be telling. Hassan, an Islamic extremists by every description including his own, will probably receive the death penalty because he wants it. The proof in the pudding is will he ever be put to death for his crimes against humanity? Will he be given a quick execution as Timothy McVeigh received upon his request. I doubt it, because McVeigh was given a civil trial and Hassan a military one.
Here are some of those headlines:
AP - Military Jury Convicts Soldier in Ft. Hood Attack
WND - Military teaches colonists were extremist
The two articles above were found this morning. Both are linked at the hip as both pertain to the current situation within our military.
The teaching material listed above in the WND article is quite disturbing. Just by writing this article I would be viewed as an extremist. The disturbing trend of teaching our military members to view in this manner is ever increasing. On Page 43 of the student guide it explains "Extremist Ideologies" (subsection D) as:
"As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but the recruit other to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples."
Here we have the military teaching its members how to identify extremists in order to root them out of the military. They compare the colonist and fight for independence from tyrannical rule alongside Confederate states secession because they wanted to retain the right to own slaves.
The military has been infiltrates by extremist is true, but the extremists are now teaching/indoctrinating members into a foreign liberal culture that itself hates America. I am speaking of the Obama culture and those on the left who peddle this claptrap in colleges and grade schools across the country. It has now found its way into military schools. The outcome of the Ft. Hood trial will be telling. Hassan, an Islamic extremists by every description including his own, will probably receive the death penalty because he wants it. The proof in the pudding is will he ever be put to death for his crimes against humanity? Will he be given a quick execution as Timothy McVeigh received upon his request. I doubt it, because McVeigh was given a civil trial and Hassan a military one.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Anatomy of Democrat emotional arguments
We have known for some time now that the Democrats cannot debate positions that mainstream Americans truly care about on factual substance. The reason they cannot perform along these lines is because the facts get in the way of their deceitful narrative. We have seen this time and time again. We know, for example, that most Americans believe in the fight against terror. The Democrats do not. The problem with the Democrats is the emotion that is connected to terrorism is on the side of the coin that their logic is not. When this occurs then they flail about to find a new strategy and then ultimately they go to the playbook and just change the nomenclature because it, the terminology that currently exists, works against them. A terrorist act is now "an overseas contingency operation". Forever gone is the words "terrorist act" from being spoken by them. The Fort Hood terrorist act too was relabeled/classified as "workplace violence". See the difference.
We have always known that the Democrats blur the lines where ever it helps their positions ideologically. We refer to this as their "playbook" because they can never let a crisis go to waste. The Democrats play on the emotional aspects of their arguments on position instead of the facts. This has worked so successfully that it is ingrained into their DNA. I find it amusing that they actually have to write down this tactic in an actual playbook so they can study it in a "self help" manual.
The gun debate always rages after an emotional incident occurs here. Newton, Columbine, Ft. Hood and of course Travon Martin as just the latest examples of a "crisis too good to go to waste" in promoting the repealing of our 2nd Amendment rights. Travon Martin and the verdict that Zimmerman received after his trial is a prime example of how Democrats cannot rely on facts and go strictly to emotions as they argued racism was involved in the jury decision. When confronted with facts laid out into evidence, Zimmerman was acquitted as he should have been. But, this isn't good enough for them as they immediately went to race, emotions, chocolate covered peanuts, anything else but the fact he was found not guilty. He is guilty by emotional standards and that should be good enough to send him to jail to further their narrative. Remember Benghazi and the lefts insistence that this was not a planned terror attack, but a spontaneous gathering of those who were offended by a video. We know now, as we always have known, that it was an act of terror carried out on 9/11. The Democrats ruined a American filmmakers life to paint a different picture. Hello, it occurred on 9/11 and we are to believe that it is a mere coincidence. Facts.
Getting to the reason of this posting today, there is an 80 playbook that was recently uncovered as a self help guide when discussing gun issues. We know the Democrats want us disarmed and again never letting a crisis go to waste they write down their play on how to defeat those pesky facts that get in the way of logic and truth. Again, go for the emotional argument vs. facts. Change the nomenclature to support the emotion with the audience. For example, "never say gun crime" as the emotional imprint that comes to your audience is "criminal". Always use "gun violence" as the first thing that imprints is gun violence and not the criminal attached to the crisis.
It is an 80 page report but worth the read to show this audience how we need to expose them as the snake oil salesmen that they truly are. How's that for an emotional imprint?
We have always known that the Democrats blur the lines where ever it helps their positions ideologically. We refer to this as their "playbook" because they can never let a crisis go to waste. The Democrats play on the emotional aspects of their arguments on position instead of the facts. This has worked so successfully that it is ingrained into their DNA. I find it amusing that they actually have to write down this tactic in an actual playbook so they can study it in a "self help" manual.
The gun debate always rages after an emotional incident occurs here. Newton, Columbine, Ft. Hood and of course Travon Martin as just the latest examples of a "crisis too good to go to waste" in promoting the repealing of our 2nd Amendment rights. Travon Martin and the verdict that Zimmerman received after his trial is a prime example of how Democrats cannot rely on facts and go strictly to emotions as they argued racism was involved in the jury decision. When confronted with facts laid out into evidence, Zimmerman was acquitted as he should have been. But, this isn't good enough for them as they immediately went to race, emotions, chocolate covered peanuts, anything else but the fact he was found not guilty. He is guilty by emotional standards and that should be good enough to send him to jail to further their narrative. Remember Benghazi and the lefts insistence that this was not a planned terror attack, but a spontaneous gathering of those who were offended by a video. We know now, as we always have known, that it was an act of terror carried out on 9/11. The Democrats ruined a American filmmakers life to paint a different picture. Hello, it occurred on 9/11 and we are to believe that it is a mere coincidence. Facts.
Getting to the reason of this posting today, there is an 80 playbook that was recently uncovered as a self help guide when discussing gun issues. We know the Democrats want us disarmed and again never letting a crisis go to waste they write down their play on how to defeat those pesky facts that get in the way of logic and truth. Again, go for the emotional argument vs. facts. Change the nomenclature to support the emotion with the audience. For example, "never say gun crime" as the emotional imprint that comes to your audience is "criminal". Always use "gun violence" as the first thing that imprints is gun violence and not the criminal attached to the crisis.
It is an 80 page report but worth the read to show this audience how we need to expose them as the snake oil salesmen that they truly are. How's that for an emotional imprint?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The Iron fist of el-Sissi
It is becoming quite apparent that the military in Egypt is intent on doing what this Administration is not capable of -- Destroying the Muslim Brotherhood. As you may recall the Obama Administration was politically aligned, or hitched their wagon to, the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt. This cozy and warm relationship Obama was fostering with the tentacles of terror has disturbed many in this country, not to mention a lot of rank and file citizens across Egypt. We are leaning now, for example, that the terror attack that killed 4 of our diplomats in Bengazi have a link directly to the ousted former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. A few days ago I posted a video of a 12 year old boy who was stopped on the street by a Western Journalist and interviewed about the current situation on the ground in Egypt and was awe struck by the articulate and heady answers he gave that give us here in the US a moment of clarity and pause that the rank and file protesters, including a 12 year old boy, want freedom for their country. They view Islam, or more aptly, radical Islam the like that the Muslim Brotherhood were busy instilling upon their countrymen are treated with contempt that do not coincide with what the average citizens were trying to bring about. The Egyptian military apparently is sided with those wanting change and are engaging radical Islam aggressively with all the might they possess militarily much to the chagrin of Western media outlets who are backing the wrong horse, so to speak, much akin to this Administration. The link above is one example of the kind of "reporting" that we hear in the liberal echo chambers. For instance we learned early from our own liberal President that the war on "terror" is over. The reluctance to even use anything that hints to that word "terror" is forever banned nomenclature. It is now an "overseas contingency operation". This line of thinking is clear by the reporters disgust with the word when he writes:
"Tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters remain camped across Cairo and other Egyptian cities – “terrorists” is the tired but dangerous code word that General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi used about them yesterday."
and
"El-Sisi’s talk of “terrorism” was principally referring to the daily attacks on Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai peninsula, which appear to be more the work of al-Qa’ida affiliates, smugglers and tribal leaders than any involvement by the Brotherhood."
Here the pseudo-journalist blurs the lines giving the reader the impression that the Brotherhood is not involved what-so-ever in terror. We see the same claptrap crap about Israel being the terrorists and the Palestinians as the victims. As stated above, the involvement of the Brotherhood in the Benghazi terror attack is indicative of this involvement. The premise about the intelligence community is that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks the release of the "Blind Sheik" from US custody where he is currently serving a life term for his terror involvement in the first twin tower attacks in Manhattan. The premise is this, the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to kidnap Ambassador Stevens in order to trade him for the Blind Sheik. But, given the propensity of terrorists to kill people, they ended up killing him when they had him in their grasp. The time period before the Benghazi attack and directly after had the Obama Administration (The State Department headed by Hillary Clinton) was in negotiations for his release.
It was similar to the release of the Lockerbie bomber on "humanitarian reasons" to Egypt. To say that the terror attacks occurring across Egypt were loose affiliates to al-Qaeda and not the Brotherhood is patently absurd. Do I really need to remind everyone that the Blind Sheik is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and that the number two al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a similar move, the American (I use that term loosely) attorney that represented the Blind Sheik herself was indicted, prosecuted and convicted of aiding a terrorist organization when she was found to be passing information from the Sheik to his followers overseas to continue the violence against the Egyptian Government. Lynn Steward is described as such:
"Stewart was admitted to the NY State Bar on January 31, 1977 and for much of her career as a lawyer, Stewart represented a number of economically disadvantaged clients as well as more high profile cases. Stewart is a self-described "movement lawyer" who took a wider interest in promoting the general political interests of those she represented, rather than only dealing with the specific charges against them. Stewart defended Weather Underground member David Gilbert, who was found guilty for his role in the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery in which two police officers and a security guard were murdered. In 1991, Stewart was subpoenaed to explain alternative fee arrangements with a gang member who she had been defending on a drug trafficking charge. Stewart refused the subpoena and eventually pleaded guilty to a contempt of court charge, a misdemeanor that would not result in her disbarment. Another high-profile client was Black Panther Willie Holder who hijacked Western Airlines Flight 701 on June 2, 1972, in an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate for the release of Angela Davis."
In 1991, with the help of Eric Holder, Bill Clinton commuted (pardoned) the sentence of fellow Weather Underground member to David Gilber (see above brinks armored car robbery client of Stewart) Linda Sue Evans.
In 2010 Stewart's attorneys tried to take the same tactic that the Lockerbie bomber took to gain release for humanitarian reasons:
"Stewart's breast cancer returned after she was imprisoned. Scheduled for surgery for other problems the week she was sentenced, Stewart instead had to wait eighteen months for that surgery. In the meantime the cancer metastasized to the point that her attending physician called it the worst case he had ever seen. She has received chemotherapy in custody but her condition is feared to be terminal. Human rights activists Dick Gregory and Desmond Tutu publicly endorsed a petition to grant her compassionate release, while conservative commentator Michelle Malkin has advocated that she should die in prison.
On June 25th, 2013, Stewart announced that she had received a letter stating that Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Charles Samuels had denied her request for compassionate release."
She, like the Lockerbie bomber, purports to be "terminal" when in fact she is still alive and kicking behind bars despite her doctor calling her cancer "the worst he has ever seen"!
So when I see that the Egyptian military is taking the fight to the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in order to wipe them from existence, I applaud their deciciveness.
"Tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters remain camped across Cairo and other Egyptian cities – “terrorists” is the tired but dangerous code word that General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi used about them yesterday."
and
"El-Sisi’s talk of “terrorism” was principally referring to the daily attacks on Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai peninsula, which appear to be more the work of al-Qa’ida affiliates, smugglers and tribal leaders than any involvement by the Brotherhood."
Here the pseudo-journalist blurs the lines giving the reader the impression that the Brotherhood is not involved what-so-ever in terror. We see the same claptrap crap about Israel being the terrorists and the Palestinians as the victims. As stated above, the involvement of the Brotherhood in the Benghazi terror attack is indicative of this involvement. The premise about the intelligence community is that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks the release of the "Blind Sheik" from US custody where he is currently serving a life term for his terror involvement in the first twin tower attacks in Manhattan. The premise is this, the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to kidnap Ambassador Stevens in order to trade him for the Blind Sheik. But, given the propensity of terrorists to kill people, they ended up killing him when they had him in their grasp. The time period before the Benghazi attack and directly after had the Obama Administration (The State Department headed by Hillary Clinton) was in negotiations for his release.
It was similar to the release of the Lockerbie bomber on "humanitarian reasons" to Egypt. To say that the terror attacks occurring across Egypt were loose affiliates to al-Qaeda and not the Brotherhood is patently absurd. Do I really need to remind everyone that the Blind Sheik is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and that the number two al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a similar move, the American (I use that term loosely) attorney that represented the Blind Sheik herself was indicted, prosecuted and convicted of aiding a terrorist organization when she was found to be passing information from the Sheik to his followers overseas to continue the violence against the Egyptian Government. Lynn Steward is described as such:
"Stewart was admitted to the NY State Bar on January 31, 1977 and for much of her career as a lawyer, Stewart represented a number of economically disadvantaged clients as well as more high profile cases. Stewart is a self-described "movement lawyer" who took a wider interest in promoting the general political interests of those she represented, rather than only dealing with the specific charges against them. Stewart defended Weather Underground member David Gilbert, who was found guilty for his role in the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery in which two police officers and a security guard were murdered. In 1991, Stewart was subpoenaed to explain alternative fee arrangements with a gang member who she had been defending on a drug trafficking charge. Stewart refused the subpoena and eventually pleaded guilty to a contempt of court charge, a misdemeanor that would not result in her disbarment. Another high-profile client was Black Panther Willie Holder who hijacked Western Airlines Flight 701 on June 2, 1972, in an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate for the release of Angela Davis."
In 1991, with the help of Eric Holder, Bill Clinton commuted (pardoned) the sentence of fellow Weather Underground member to David Gilber (see above brinks armored car robbery client of Stewart) Linda Sue Evans.
In 2010 Stewart's attorneys tried to take the same tactic that the Lockerbie bomber took to gain release for humanitarian reasons:
"Stewart's breast cancer returned after she was imprisoned. Scheduled for surgery for other problems the week she was sentenced, Stewart instead had to wait eighteen months for that surgery. In the meantime the cancer metastasized to the point that her attending physician called it the worst case he had ever seen. She has received chemotherapy in custody but her condition is feared to be terminal. Human rights activists Dick Gregory and Desmond Tutu publicly endorsed a petition to grant her compassionate release, while conservative commentator Michelle Malkin has advocated that she should die in prison.
On June 25th, 2013, Stewart announced that she had received a letter stating that Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Charles Samuels had denied her request for compassionate release."
She, like the Lockerbie bomber, purports to be "terminal" when in fact she is still alive and kicking behind bars despite her doctor calling her cancer "the worst he has ever seen"!
So when I see that the Egyptian military is taking the fight to the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in order to wipe them from existence, I applaud their deciciveness.
Monday, August 19, 2013
The future of Egypt's youth is a little brighter today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)