Posted on

Why We Cannot Trust the FBI

The FBI is discounting ISIS’ claim that the Las Vegas attack was jihad. But is the FBI really trustworthy?

The Islamic State says Steven Paddock converted six months ago. He filmed himself killing; jihadis do that and post it online. The attack was meticulously planned, as jihad attacks are, and Paddock likely had an accomplice. Paddock made numerous trips to the Middle East. Over 200 of his foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible “covert terrorism financing.”

Contrary to the ignorant, misinformed and delusional talking heads in the media, ISIS does not take responsibility for events that are not theirs. This has led even the New York Times’ terrorism expert to give credence to ISIS’ claims. The Philippines attack at Resorts World Casino was theirs. And there again, ISIS’ initial claims of responsibility were dismissed.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that “the FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months — and found nothing.”

The Orlando jihadi who opened fire on gay nightclub revelers at the Pulse Nightclub called 911 during the attack and pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. The FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months and found nothing.

The FBI was warned of the Muslim Boston bombers — multiple times — and did nothing. Their inaction led to the Boston Marathon bombings.

And in another case, an FBI translator married the ISIS fighter that she was supposed to be investigating.

The FBI was in on the planning of the jihad attack against the Garland Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas. They did nothing to stop it, not even giving us a warning that my event was targeted by devout Muslims who meant to kill us Charlie Hebdo-style. We killed those jihadis. It was the security team I hired to protect my event that saved numerous lives, nothing the FBI did. We survived despite the FBI.

The FBI was in on the planning of a Boston plot to behead me. They did not warn me or alert my security team. It was a Boston cop who killed one of the Muslims who had attacked the cop on his way to New York.

The ISIS plot to carry out mass shootings in Times Square, the NYC subway, and at music concerts reported yesterday actually took place this past June. All three were arrested months ago, but the FBI had it sealed. What else are they not telling us?

In 2015, ISIS recruiter Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, also known as Mujahid Miski, was communicating with the Garland jihadis in the lead up to the Texas attack. Hassan allegedly traded more than 550 messages with attacker Elton Simpson, from November 2014 up until the day of the May 3, 2015, terror attack. Miski was also in contact with the Boston Muslims plotting to behead me. It has also been alleged that Miski influenced the San Bernardino Muslim mass murderers. Where was the FBI?

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with — because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility — it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

The FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

But we know now they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to a general alert just three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack — one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Daily Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

So I ask you, do you trust anything the FBI is telling us?

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of the Geller Report and author of the already bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

The FBI is discounting ISIS’ claim that the Las Vegas attack was jihad. But is the FBI really trustworthy?

The Islamic State says Steven Paddock converted six months ago. He filmed himself killing; jihadis do that and post it online. The attack was meticulously planned, as jihad attacks are, and Paddock likely had an accomplice. Paddock made numerous trips to the Middle East. Over 200 of his foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible “covert terrorism financing.”

Contrary to the ignorant, misinformed and delusional talking heads in the media, ISIS does not take responsibility for events that are not theirs. This has led even the New York Times’ terrorism expert to give credence to ISIS’ claims. The Philippines attack at Resorts World Casino was theirs. And there again, ISIS’ initial claims of responsibility were dismissed.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that “the FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months — and found nothing.”

The Orlando jihadi who opened fire on gay nightclub revelers at the Pulse Nightclub called 911 during the attack and pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. The FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months and found nothing.

The FBI was warned of the Muslim Boston bombers — multiple times — and did nothing. Their inaction led to the Boston Marathon bombings.

And in another case, an FBI translator married the ISIS fighter that she was supposed to be investigating.

The FBI was in on the planning of the jihad attack against the Garland Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas. They did nothing to stop it, not even giving us a warning that my event was targeted by devout Muslims who meant to kill us Charlie Hebdo-style. We killed those jihadis. It was the security team I hired to protect my event that saved numerous lives, nothing the FBI did. We survived despite the FBI.

The FBI was in on the planning of a Boston plot to behead me. They did not warn me or alert my security team. It was a Boston cop who killed one of the Muslims who had attacked the cop on his way to New York.

The ISIS plot to carry out mass shootings in Times Square, the NYC subway, and at music concerts reported yesterday actually took place this past June. All three were arrested months ago, but the FBI had it sealed. What else are they not telling us?

In 2015, ISIS recruiter Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, also known as Mujahid Miski, was communicating with the Garland jihadis in the lead up to the Texas attack. Hassan allegedly traded more than 550 messages with attacker Elton Simpson, from November 2014 up until the day of the May 3, 2015, terror attack. Miski was also in contact with the Boston Muslims plotting to behead me. It has also been alleged that Miski influenced the San Bernardino Muslim mass murderers. Where was the FBI?

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with — because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility — it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

The FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

But we know now they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to a general alert just three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack — one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Daily Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

So I ask you, do you trust anything the FBI is telling us?

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of the Geller Report and author of the already bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/TYiPDP

Posted on

Obama’s $1.5 billion ego project

There’s a time when excesses build to reach Nero and Caligula levels, and as presidential libraries go, the Obama Library on the South Side of Chicago seems to have hit that tipping point.

The Obama Library is on track to cost $1.5 billion, three times the $500 million it was projected to cost, and quite a bit of that will be borne by taxpayers. Yet it won’t contain … any library materials. It won’t even be hooked up to the National Archives system – on account of it being too cheap to want to pay the six-figure costs of that purpose.

All it will have is online document access, which can be reached from any computer anywhere. There will be nothing special about coming to the Obama library to do any kind of presidential research. What’s more, it’s a great way to cherry-pick which documents can be seen among the Obama papers and which cannot. Is this library really about what libraries are about, which is to say scholarship of the historical record? Not in Obama’s case. He’s probably rather no one remember the details of his many failures in office, which those records could show.

What the $1.5 billion boondoggle will be about is blocking community roads, putting public park space off limits, fundraising for Obama causes, community organizing, shoveling pork for South Side denizens such as basketball courts, and … satisfying President Obama’s gargantuan ego.

Where did anyone get the idea that taxpayers owed ex-presidents this kind of golden parachute? This is Ozymandias-style excess. Or if you want to be much less charitible: Mobuto stuff. Much of the complex itself will be privately funded of course, but taxpayers are certainly going to be paying for millions of it, and there doesn’t seem to be a cap on how much.

Even the private-sector funding is a bit eyebrow-raising. The kind of money this project requires is the kind of money a presidential campaign to the finish requires. That takes fundraising, and small-dollar donors aren’t going to cut it. Big dollar donors might be. But those kind of donors – from Goldman Sachs-style investment banks, Hollywood heavies like Harvey Weinstein, foundation fatcats like George Soros – are going to be asking something in return. And what’s more, if they have already given the money, it’s worth looking at what they got in return. Post presidencies are notorious for bribe cash to flow in in exchange for favors already delivered. And as the Clintons demonstrated so ably, leftist presidencies are historically for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s a time when excesses build to reach Nero and Caligula levels, and as presidential libraries go, the Obama Library on the South Side of Chicago seems to have hit that tipping point.

The Obama Library is on track to cost $1.5 billion, three times the $500 million it was projected to cost, and quite a bit of that will be borne by taxpayers. Yet it won’t contain … any library materials. It won’t even be hooked up to the National Archives system – on account of it being too cheap to want to pay the six-figure costs of that purpose.

All it will have is online document access, which can be reached from any computer anywhere. There will be nothing special about coming to the Obama library to do any kind of presidential research. What’s more, it’s a great way to cherry-pick which documents can be seen among the Obama papers and which cannot. Is this library really about what libraries are about, which is to say scholarship of the historical record? Not in Obama’s case. He’s probably rather no one remember the details of his many failures in office, which those records could show.

What the $1.5 billion boondoggle will be about is blocking community roads, putting public park space off limits, fundraising for Obama causes, community organizing, shoveling pork for South Side denizens such as basketball courts, and … satisfying President Obama’s gargantuan ego.

Where did anyone get the idea that taxpayers owed ex-presidents this kind of golden parachute? This is Ozymandias-style excess. Or if you want to be much less charitible: Mobuto stuff. Much of the complex itself will be privately funded of course, but taxpayers are certainly going to be paying for millions of it, and there doesn’t seem to be a cap on how much.

Even the private-sector funding is a bit eyebrow-raising. The kind of money this project requires is the kind of money a presidential campaign to the finish requires. That takes fundraising, and small-dollar donors aren’t going to cut it. Big dollar donors might be. But those kind of donors – from Goldman Sachs-style investment banks, Hollywood heavies like Harvey Weinstein, foundation fatcats like George Soros – are going to be asking something in return. And what’s more, if they have already given the money, it’s worth looking at what they got in return. Post presidencies are notorious for bribe cash to flow in in exchange for favors already delivered. And as the Clintons demonstrated so ably, leftist presidencies are historically for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1c2jbfc

Posted on

Democratic Senator: No Law Could’ve Stopped Vegas Gunman

In an interview with CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) told host John Dickerson that there was no law that could have prevented Stephen Paddock from carrying out his horrific act in Las Vegas last Sunday.

Feinstein came on in part to discuss the “bump stock” legislation she has proposed which would ban the device Paddock attached to twelve of the guns found in his hotel room. Bump stocks, or bump fire stocks, allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire more rapidly. Asked if any Republicans had come out in support of the bill, Feinstein said no but that a few have expressed “interest.”

“We have Republican interest,” said Feinstein. “I have nobody lined up, we have 38 co-sponsors, they’re all Democratic. We’ve had individuals that have indicated an interest and particularly for a hearing.”

When asked about the NRA saying on Thursday that they supported “additional regulations” on bump fire stocks, Feinstein called it “a step forward” and “appreciated,” but she wanted more than just regulations; she wanted a law passed by Congress that cannot be overridden by the next president.

“Regulations aren’t going to do it. We need a law,” she said. “It can’t be changed by another president. Right now we’re seeing one president change actions … of a president that came before him, and that would happen in this area. And I hope that Americans will step up and say, ‘Enough is enough. Congress, do something.'”

Dickerson then noted the surge in sales of bump stocks, presumably in anticipation of a ban or heightened restrictions, but Feinstein turned the conversation to the enigma of Paddock.

“This is a well-to-do man,” she said. “He wasn’t mentally ill. He wasn’t a criminal. He wasn’t a juvenile. He wasn’t a gang banger. And he was able to buy 40 weapons over a period of time, have 12 bump stocks, line them up, break through two windows in his hotel suite, and take aim at … over a thousand people at a concert. And this was such a cross-section of America that it really struck at every one of us that this could happen to you. And we want to stop it.”

However, when asked if there is any law that could have stopped it, Feinstein admitted that there isn’t.

“Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped it?” asked Dickerson.

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” said Feinstein.

Dickerson said that some pro-Second Amendment advocates believe that the Democrats are calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which Feinstein shot down, saying, “Well, that’s just plain wrong. This is written in clean English, you can take a look at it. I’ll send a copy of it. It’s a two page bill. I’ll send a copy of it to anyone who calls our office, and you can look at it yourself. It does not take anyone’s gun.”

The host then offered “the other side” of the discussion, those calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which Feinstein admitted she agreed with “to a great extent.” She also condemned the “terrible” concealed carry reciprocity bill that some Republicans are pushing. Here’s the exchange (transcript via CBS News):

DICKERSON: From the other side, those who would like to restrict guns in America, who hear a bill targeted as you’ve described it narrowly at this idea – at bump fire stocks – and say, “The only way to stop this kind of situation in America is to ban these kinds of semi-automatic weapons, and weapons that can fire with rapidity, and anything short of that is insufficient.” What do you say to those people?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I agree with them to a great extent. What I don’t – because, as you know, I did the assault weapons legislation in 1993, which was law of the land for 10 years. So I believe, I mean I’ve watched this thing from the Texas bell tower to today, in schools, in businesses, in workplaces. No one appears to be safe anywhere.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask your – get your thoughts on another piece of legislation. The NRA has mentioned, in response to this shooting, they’ve talked about passing the concealed carry reciprocity, which essentially allows somebody who has a concealed carry permit in one state to carry it throughout all other states the way, say, a driver’s license would work. What’s your opinion of that bill which is in the Senate?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, my opinion of that bill is it’s terrible. We want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon around the country? I represent 40 million Californians, and I can say without hesitation Californians do not want concealed carry.

On Thursday, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox surprised gun control advocates by issuing a statement in support of “additional regulations” on bump stocks.

“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved,” they continued. “Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

On Sunday, Cox clarified that while the NRA supports more regulations on bump stocks, it does not support an outright ban.

“We don’t believe that bans have ever worked on anything. What we have said has been very clear — that if something transfers a semiautomatic to function like a fully automatic, then it ought to be regulated differently,” Cox told Fox News Sunday.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r

Posted on

Bernie Sanders Eyes Top Income Tax Rate of 90%!

The Democrats are seriously out of touch.

How seriously? The Onion, which definitely skews liberal, did a spoof story this month headlined: “Americans Are Tired Of The Same Old Pandering And Stale Ideas We’re Going To Keep Offering Them.” The author: “Nancy Pelosi.”

“The frustration is palpable. People are fed up with the status quo. Citizens from all walks of life are sitting around their dinner tables, talking about how they’ve had it with all the usual proposals that, once more, we will be repackaging and spoon-feeding to them in a way that’s entirely transparent and frankly condescending,” the fake Pelosi wrote.

The reason that’s so funny is because it’s so true. Hillary Clinton was horribly out of touch throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, never understanding the anger and frustration among the electorate, which felt that things were most definitely not better than they had been eight years before.

But now, Hillary has vowed that she won’t run again (she’s making even more money doing one-woman shows selling her book of sad excuses, What Happened). And the Democratic Party doesn’t have many rising stars, so that’s left a vacuum that’s been filled by none other than Sen. Bernie Sanders.

At 76 years old, Bernie’s finally on the gravy train. The Socialist now owns three house and he travels the country giving speeches (you know he’s not spending any of his own money to do that). Sure. he’s the guy who lost to the 2016 loser, which makes him a double loser, but right now, he’s all the Democrats have.

If Bernie gets the chance, he’ll make everything free: Health care, colleges, birth control. Forget that Bernie’s plans would add $19 trillion to the debt, as The Hill reported. To the Socialist, it’s far better to be poor in America — and Sanders wants to make sure everyone can achieve that lofty goal.

That’s why the Vermont Democrat backs a top tax rate of 90%. You read that right — 90%.

In an interview with actor Alec Baldwin (who’s not a politician but he plays one on TV), Baldwin asks: “What would be a tax policy you would have sought? You want to raise the highest rate to what?”

Says Bernie: “During [President Dwight] Eisenhower’s period, I think the highest income tax was what, 90% or something like that for the very, very, very wealthy. And these are marginal rates. I mean, that means at the very top, that’s what you’re going to be paying.”

It’s worth noting that while Trump wants to trim the number of tax brackets from seven to just three — 12%, 25% and 33% — during Eisenhower’s time in office there were at least 24 brackets, according to TaxFoundation.org.

VIDEO

To the Democrats, it’s still tax, tax, tax. That oughta’ go over great in 2020.

As The Onion article said: “We now stand at a crossroads. People are angry, disgusted, and hungry for change. The Democratic Party understands these challenges and sees an opportunity to present the American people with a series of rehashed ideas that do nothing to address their concerns. We’re taking stock of our views on trade, criminal justice, economic inequality, and more. Because the time has come to double down on whatever sounds good to those of us in Washington, even though voter research, election results, and the actual words coming from the mouths of our own base tell us it’s not what anyone else wants.”

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r

Posted on

Knowingly exposing others to HIV won’t be a felony in California anymore: ‘Absolutely crazy’

Knowingly exposing others to HIV no longer will be a felony in California starting in 2018, according to a bill California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed Friday.

What else does the bill say?

  • The penalty is lowered to a misdemeanor for knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV or giving blood without telling the blood bank about the infection, the Los Angeles Times reported.
  • The state previously punished offenders with up to eight years in prison, CNN said; maximum jail time now is lowered to six months.

What do supporters of the bill say?

  • State Sen. Scott Wiener (D) and Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D), authors of the bill, said medicine today lets those with HIV live longer and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission, the Times reported.
  • “Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a statement, the paper said. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.”
  • Wiener added that in the past, those possibly infected by HIV may have avoided getting tested so as not to be charged with a felony. Now, with the penalty lowered, he said more people may decide to get tested, the paper reported.
  • “We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener added, the Times said.
  • Bill supporters also said intent to transmit HIV had been required for a felony, but others noted prosecuted cases that involved no physical contact, so it was argued intent was lacking, the paper said.
  • Backers of the legislation also said female prostitutes are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, the Times added, even when HIV isn’t transmitted.

What do opponents of the bill say?

  • Opponents said the bill puts the public at risk.
  • “I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Sen. Joel Anderson (R) argued during a floor debate, the Times said. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”
  • Anderson noted that the answer could be extending tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases, the paper added.
  • Sen. Jeff Stone (R) voted against the bill and took exception to the claim that today’s medicine can nearly eliminate HIV from spreading, CNN said. Stone — who’s also a pharmacist — said three of four Americans on prescription medication don’t comply with doctor’s orders on how to take it.
  • “If you don’t take your AIDS medications and you allow for some virus to duplicate and show a presence, then you are able to transmit that disease to an unknowing partner,” Stone said on the Senate floor, the network noted.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.theblaze.com

Posted on

Dems Losing Control of their Own Mobs as ACLU Shouted Down for Enabling Hitler

In a delightful bit of schadenfreude, the identity politics monsters that the Democrats have created and nurtured are now turning on them as well as their front groups like the ACLU.

It was always inevitable that this would happen as the combination of poorly educated, abysmally misinformed and indoctrinated young people and anti-Trump political activism was just too volatile and unstable a mixture to be used.

Now it has blown up on Democrats as the ANTIFA youth are no longer satisfied with shutting down free speech and punching “Nazis” as they have come to be defined by the media, but have now turned on their masters who in a hilarious twist of fate, now blame the ACLU for enabling Nazis.

That is what this wretched pack of losers who invaded an ACLU sponsored event at William & Mary College claimed when they marched into the auditorium with their signs and proceeded to chant that the radical leftist action arm of the Democrats was as much a part of the problem as the actual small percentage of white supremacists that have been blown out of proportion for the sake of political expediency.

Liberalism has become the new hate speech, you have to shake your head or laugh your ass off at how badly that this plot has backfired on the Democrats.

CHECK THESE FREAKAZOIDS OUT:

VIDEO

The Washington Examiner provides additional detail “Backlash spreads against Black Lives Matter shutting down ACLU free speech event”:

A campus Black Lives Matter protest against an American Civil Liberties Union speaker has provoked an internal debate over free speech on the Left.

Students shouted down an ACLU leader visiting the College of William and Mary in Virginia last week, preventing a discussion about free speech by chanting “liberalism is white supremacy” and “ACLU, you protect Hitler too!” for a full hour.

Outrage spread as video of the college Black Lives Matter chapter’s disruption circulated among shocked scholars, progressive leaders, and alumni.

The demonstration — motivated by the ACLU’s litigation allowing for an August rally including white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va. — reignited progressive concern about students attacking freedoms that past generations of the Left struggled to establish and expand.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote that suspensions would be appropriate. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg called it “embarrassing.”

AND.

The disruption of the ACLU event in Virginia follows the February cancellation of a speech by then-Breitbart columnist Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California at Berkeley after violence and property damage by his opponents and the shouting down in March of political scientist Charles Murray at Middlebury College — each incident attracting significant national debate, with older left-wing scholars such as Noam Chomsky and some members of Berkeley’s pioneering 1960s Free Speech Movement arguing it’s wrong to censor others.

The William and Mary Black Lives Matter chapter did not respond to a request for comment, but remained defiant in the face of growing condemnation Friday, posting a message to Facebook: “The right to free speech is a fundamental human right. However, speech that condones, supports or otherwise fails to explicitly condemn injustice must be directly confronted.”

The inimitable Tucker Carlson offers up his two cents on the revenge of the dipshits in a conversation with one of the more articulate spokesmen of Black Lives Matter.

VIDEO

The left is going to have to do something to rid themselves of these fanatics before they themselves and up being the ones getting marched to the guillotines of the so-called revolution.

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

The Humanitarian Hoax of Gun Control

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/11sy9G3

Posted on

Red Alert: Security Analyst Notices Date, Gives Eerie Deadline for NK H-Bomb

Politics

Red Alert: Security Analyst Notices Date, Gives Eerie Deadline for NK H-Bomb

By Davis
on October 9, 2017 at 7:17am

Advertisement – story continues below

Tensions between the United States and North Korea have been increasing dramatically over the past month, and now we could be more step toward the edge of the cliff.

Tuesday, Oct. 10 represents the founding of the “Worker’s Party of Korea,” the party of Kim Jong-Un. There are fears that to celebrate this anniversary, North Korea may detonate a nuclear weapon or fire a missile, The Daily Star reported.

Of top concern to U.S. officials is the possibility that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead on top of a missile by firing it out into the Pacific Ocean — something North Korean officials have threatened to do.

Advertisement – story continues below

The “Juche Bird,” a missile with a nuclear warhead, would represent a major milestone for North Korea, and could be the last straw for the Trump administration.

Robert A. Manning, a security expert from the Atlantic Council think tank, warned that he believes there is a “50/50” chance Kim could detonate, or fire off, something on Tuesday.

“They like fireworks on holidays, and he is in a mad rush to acquire a reliable ICBM and a city-busting H-bomb,” he explained.

Advertisement – story continues below

If this is true, this could mean there are only hours left. North Korea is 12.5 hours ahead of the East Coast, so by noon EST, it will already be Oct. 10 in the rogue nation.

Maybe this is the “calm before the storm” Trump ominously referred to Thursday.

Reuters noted that a Russian lawmaker claimed Friday that North Korea was getting ready to test a long-range missile that might be able to hit the West Coast of the United States.

The U.K. Daily Mail noted that North Korea has a habit of conducting tests of its weapons to correspond with American or North Korean holidays, so the chance of a test happening is quite high.

Advertisement – story continues below

Trump has vowed to do whatever is necessary to stop North Korea from acquiring the ability to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon. If this test happens, we may be looking at a serious conflict with North Korea.

The time for talk is over. The time for action is upon us.

Share this article on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think President Trump should do about North Korea.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE