Monday, December 28, 2015

Are Democrats Embracing Sharia?

As we all know, there is little that the Democrat Party and Republican Party can find to agree on today. The division is so broad that I see no reconciliation between the warring ideologies in my lifetime.

Even where the parties were briefly united on opposing radical Jihadists and their acts of terror, I see a shift towards more acceptance and tolerance of the barbarism of radical Jihadists now beginning on the left.

My view is not based on misguided hyperbole as I will be accused of, but in their acts of defense of Islam after an attack as we saw in San Bernardino and even the open acceptance of largely unvetted “refugees” from Syria in spite of witnessing massive problems in Europe where they were first accepted.

But it doesn’t stop there. No, I am beginning to see Democrats such as Robert B. Reich include supportive comments towards Islamic Sharia in his appeals for donations in support of Democrats I receive in email.

Click image for larger view

As you will note where I highlighted, Reich includes in his email slamming Donald Trump, “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you” as one of three reasons he supplies to oppose Trump and Republicans in general.

Let it first be said that I neither support Trump nor the Republican Party, they have massive problems within their ranks as well.

But, seeing Reich use “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you” as a reason to oppose both is downright scary to me.

For any not aware, Sharia is “the basic Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.”

Those like Reich would not be tolerant of a theological form of governing based on Christianity and the Holy Bible as it would violate our concept of “Separation of Church and State,” governing based upon religious doctrine instead of our constitution.

Yet here we have a prominent Democrat and former Secretary of Labor under the Clinton administration seemingly ready to accept such a religious rule, but from Islam, not Christianity.

Shouldn’t our country also be practicing Separation of Mosque and State since Churches and Synagogues are not permitted to govern over the country?

Especially concerning is where the Left stands on some issues, Homosexual rights, Women’s rights, children’s right and such that are not only largely nonexistent in the Middle East where Sharia is practiced, but goes against nearly all of what Democrats claim to believe in.

Women and young girls are routinely put to death in a brutal manner for what is labeled “dishonoring” the family, like divorcing an abusive husband or being gang raped against their will, often being stoned to death or beheaded.

Young girls not even developed into women are married off to much older and lecherous old men.

Homosexuals are hanged or thrown off of tall buildings to their death.

Human rights as we in the West know them are not practiced by the radicalized Muslims such as we have seen with ISIS, Al Qaeda and other such groups that practice the brutality of Sharia Law.

Yet mixed in with other hyperbolic smears of Republicans from Democrat Reich is “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you?”

Shouldn’t they, who oppose religion in public or adherence to religious doctrine in a secular government, applaud “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you” instead of condemning such a call?

And where is the neutered and spineless Republican to point out this unbelievable call from a Democrat?

I really don’t care if you are left or right, that is your business. But I do care that the world being left for my grandchildren may include their facing the brutal lashes of Sharia one day.

Democrats, you especially should be outraged over this call of Reich’s since Sharia is largely the antithesis of everything you claim to believe in.

And, if you think it is much ado about nothing, just recall that the smallest seed grows into the largest plant in your garden.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Playing Politics With Your Life

In what I can only describe as placing political gain over the safety of American citizens, Democrats have once again shown that nothing matters much to them but political power as they now play political games to score points over actually addressing the problem of terrorism.

From the Hill we read the headline, Dems shift terror debate to guns and the words

“Democrats are seeking to limit the political fallout from the attack in San Bernardino, Calif., by pressing for legislation that would prevent terrorism suspects from buying a gun.”

“Leaders in the party think they have a winning message in pushing legislation that would ban gun sales to people on the federal terror watch list, and have made the bill a focal point of their response to the shooting.”

Simply astonishing that after 14 more innocent people have been gunned down by a couple of radicalized Muslims, Democrats are more worried about political fallout than seeking a way to limit or combat the growing threat of radical terrorists.

Since the attack, I have received several emails from Democrats and supportive groups also promoting this fallacy of relying on the “no-fly list” to block a gun purchase as a means to stop any future carnage.

It’s bunk!

OFA released this nifty image promoting what sounds like an effective means, tugging at your senses saying, “Right now, some people on the No-Fly List -- people suspected of potential terrorist activity -- can legally walk into a store and buy a gun.”

DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent out a plea concluding,

“It's time for us to take action -- action that the vast majority of Americans, including most law-abiding gun owners, support -- and make some commonsense reforms to our nation's gun laws that will keep guns out of dangerous hands. It may not be easy, and it may require the political courage to stand up to well-funded special interests, but it is the morally right thing to do.”

Immediately after Obama’s speech Sunday Dec 6, the White House sent out an email opening with, “Tonight, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office on my top priority as President: Keeping the American people safe.”

As we know, that address supposedly to update the country on the San Bernardino attack focused more on guns and not blaming Islam than anything else.

And that is supposed to “Keep the American people safe?”

It’s difficult to know just where to begin, but let’s begin with the cry of the “no-fly list.”

While on the surface it sounds reasonable and responsible, neither of the two that carried out the San Bernardino attacks were on the no-fly list. Additionally, they did not purchase the guns used themselves, but someone else purchased them and gave them to them. An act that is seen as questionable, if not illegal under California law already.

Not exactly bastions of conservative thought, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted an article on Dec. 7, 2015: Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms and where they write,

“As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.” (emphasis added)

We also have a video of South Carolina Republican, Trey Gowdy grilling Department of Homeland Security official Kelli Ann Burriesci on due process of this no-fly list and not receiving answers.

We also have this same DHS official being questioned on visa waivers and unable to answer a single question.

This does not inspire any sense of security or confidence in this supposed “no-fly list” what with apparently no one seeming to know how someone is placed on it or seeing the headaches someone wrongfully placed on it must go through to be allowed to board an airplane again.

I can only imagine how many innocent people in need of self defense could possibly be denied that right guaranteed them because some bureaucratic snafu wrongfully placed them on this list. The odds of them being gunned down by a stalker, estranged spouse or any criminal might be very likely prior to having their right restored that never should have been taken from them.

As I said, on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but peeling back just the top layer shows the goal is more to score political points than to “Keep the American people safe.”

Also being called for once again is an “Assault Weapons Ban.”

Also pure bunk as such a ban would not have prevented the San Bernardino attacks, evidenced by a rare Geppetto Checkmark from Fact Checker on Sen. Marc Rubio’s claim, “no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws.”

Showing the futility, during the last Assault Weapons Ban, there were 15 Mass Shootings, including the horrific Columbine School shooting.

The ban did nothing of any substance, other than score some political points for Democrats to appear as if they were doing something.

We are also beginning to see more and more attacks using a knife or other sharp instrument, but the outrage has not yet risen to Democrats calling on restrictions for them as did Great Britain after they banned guns and criminals resorted to adding knives to their arsenal.

And even with their gun ban, crime committed with a gun have not gone away as the UK Mirror reports London overtaken as gun crime capital of England and Wales.

The gun is merely an instrument, an inanimate object that does nothing on its own and requires action by a human being to operate.

In the hands of a responsible person, that action can and has saved lives.

In the hands of a bad guy, be they criminal or terrorist, innocent lives are taken as they target primarily “Gun-Free Zones” where they know they will not be facing a good guy with a gun and their deed will be finished before Police arrive.

A lot is said about background checks, but what good is one if HIPAA Laws prevent relevant medical history from being included and a mentally disturbed individual passes such a background check?

I’m not wholly opposed to a background check and patiently waited for the completion of such a check on myself to obtain my Concealed Carry License.

But, some people that should not have been able to purchase a gun under our laws passed the same background check I did.

And, did not Tashfeen Malik, the female terrorist involved in the San Bernardino attack pass not one, but three background checks in order to legally enter the United States on her fiancé visa?

Yes, we do need to do something to curb gang style killings. To stop terrorists before they strike. To cut down on gun crime.

But disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens and placing scoring political points over saving innocent lives is not the answer.

Saturday, December 05, 2015

Sorry Muslims, You Are Not the Victim

As the investigation continues into the heinous shooting this past week in San Bernardino, California, an all too familiar narrative is once again being heard. That being, “Muslims feel a backlash” since the two people that committed the terror attack, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik was both Muslim.

You Muslims in America are not the victims here.

Don’t worry, I’m not launching into a smear of Islam or denigrating your beliefs as some do. But it wasn’t long after the first shooter’s name was made public that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) held a hastily assembled press conference to remind us all, “we are a religion of peace” and “this is not who we are.”

Seeing little if any opposition to ISIS, Al Qaeda and other fanatic groups coming out of the Islamic religion, we don’t know who you are, but in spite of several incidents around the globe where innocent people are slaughtered in the name of Islam, what would you expect us to think?

After the Ft. Hood terrorist attack in November 2009 by radicalized Major Nidal Hasan, that saw him murder 13 innocent soldiers, this blog penned An Open Letter To American Muslims that is just as relevant today as it was 6 years ago.

In spite of all that has occurred over the years, we still hear the same cries from the Muslim community of fearing some phantom backlash and being fearful for their lives.

I really can’t recall any mass shooting that left dozens of Muslims dead in the street or an office building in America.

What I do recall and see today is quick condemnation of both the NRA (National Rifle Association) and law-abiding gun owners in America after every single shooting, even though nearly every mass shooting occurs in a “Gun-Free Zone” where guns are prohibited.

Seeing an opportunity to score some political points in next year’s presidential election, Democrat candidates lined up to condemn the NRA, cry about too many guns in the country and call for another ineffective “Assault Weapons Ban,” ignoring that the last such ban did nothing to curtail mass shootings, 15 occurring during the time of the ban.

Ignored in these call is that California already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, the very laws Democrats now claim they want nationwide.

No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame

Hillary Clinton says “I want people to feel safe” and feels that disarming the general public or making it more difficult for the potential victims to obtain adequate means to defend themselves and their families against the bad guys that just ignore the law is the way to go about it.

I disagree.

It is said that a person’s religion isn’t mentioned unless the shooter is Muslim. Not wholly accurate.

In the recent shooting in Colorado Springs, Robert Lewis Dear, the obviously unhinged shooter there is described as coming from “a hotbed of religious extremism, fueled by clerics who preach holy war” and who “spoke of Jesus and the ‘end times’.”

More so-called “dangerous religious extremists” are found in the very Liberal leaning Slate article, The Terrorists Among Us.

Sorry Muslims, you aren’t the only ones.

Within hours of the shooting by Farook and Malik and them dying in a shoot-out with Police, the editorials began, even before bodies were recovered.

The LA Times gave us Terrorism? Angry worker? Whichever, the carnage came from legal guns.

Not quite as explained in a Wall Street Journal article (behind a paywall) stating,
“While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.”
“The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.”
“Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading.”

On the same day of the shooting, possibly within minutes of Farook and Malik being shot and killed, the LA Times also gave us The U.S. infatuation with guns is bordering on a society-wide suicidal impulse.

The New York Times gave us in their anti-gun rant, The Horror in San Bernardino the ironic claim,
“Amid the chaos were the horrifying and familiar aspects of a mass assault by the latest ‘active shooter’: bodies on gurneys, innocents weeping under desks at the rattle of gunfire, desperate emails for survival, SWAT teams massed at a war zone of civilian casualties. All the familiar terror was back, as a father received a text from his daughter: ‘People shot. In the office waiting for cops. Pray for us’.” (emphasis added)

The irony is that both prayers and guns were being condemned, yet those hunkered down in fear of their lives in this “gun-free zone” were praying for prayers and someone with a gun to arrive and save them.

I saw no shaming of Muslim prayers, not even all of the prayers Syed Farook is said to have been excused frequently from work to offer as per his religious belief.

In fact, other than some of the regular hothead types that few people really pay attention to, I see no mass hysteria or mass calls to deport all Muslims and certainly nothing that would even rise anywhere near to the mass hysteria we all saw over the Confederate flag after another accused “Devout Christian,” Dylann Roof shot down a group of innocent Black people during a Prayer Service at their Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

There are no editorials lambasting Islam as we saw over the Confederate flag.

Neither Muhammad, the Qur’an nor Allah is being Pilloried by any of the national media.

No, just the NRA, law-abiding gun owners and Christian beliefs are.

Sorry Muslims, you are not the victims here.

If you feel we shouldn’t look to your community with a wary eye, then it is long past time for you to join the fight to oust and destroy those hiding among your midst and committing heinous acts of terror in the your name.

You cannot remain ‘neutral’ to the horror that seeps out of your community any longer.

To you gun-grabbers wanting to repeal our second amendment, go to hell. Our second amendment rights are the only thing standing between us and them and we’ll be damned if we will allow you to disarm us and put our families in harm’s way without a fight.

We refuse to become victims.