Wednesday, November 25, 2015

"Low IQ" is the New Muslim Terrorist Defense

Forget airborne PTSD, no job or poverty. Here's a great new terrorist defense. Imran Khawaja was an ISIS Jihadist on trial in Pakistan who liked guns and severed heads. Non-Muslim severed heads.
In one section of footage, played before a hushed court, Mr Altman said Khawaja could be seen picking up severed heads from the back of a flatbed truck and saying: 'Heads. Kuffar (non-Muslims). Disgusting.'
Khawaja, who has close ties to 'executioner' Jihadi John, faked his own death to sneak back into the UK and is now facing years behind bars. 
Khawaja, who also had the nicknames 'Barbie,' Imz,' 'Iron, and 'Cashew,' was a senior member of terrorist group Rayat Al Taweed (The Banner of Divine Unity).
'Following his departure, during messaging with his sister over different messaging platforms, Khawaja made it clear that he was in Syria for Jihad, that this was the path he had chosen, and that he wished to die as a martyr', said Mr Altman.Khawaja told his sister, Azmeena, that he had travelled to the Middle East 'for Allah...first.'
'He told her he had no time to waste; that he knew Islam and Jihad 'is my way' and he could not sit and argue with his family 'who don't practice dis deen (religion).'
He later added: 'Jihad will remain fresh and green as long as raindrops fall from the sky.'
His lawyer's defense? Stupidity.
In his defence Henry Blaxland QC said the jihadi 'poster boy' had a low IQ - the lowest 12% of the population.

So what does that actually mean?
The UK IQ average is 100. Henry doesn't specify his client's IQ, but it's probably in the low 80s. But that doesn't mean much since a number of Muslim countries have average IQ scores around that.

Works For Me......

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Dear Leftist: No one is 'giving in to fear and hatred' so you can put a sock in it!

I've stood many times where this very picture was taken. It breaks my heart to see this nessesary

Narrative Killing Time.
by Dan Calabrese
Before we go any farther in the current discussions about ISIS and how to fight them, we need to take a quick pause and destroy a rising narrative on the left. It’s the one where they lecture you not to “give in to fear.”
The premise here is that people who should be proceeding with compassion and love have become so frightened of being attacked by terrorists that they’ve embraced hatred of Muslims, and as a result they’re not only having bloodthirsty fantasies about bombing Ahmed and Abu, but they’re also turning cold and hard-hearted toward the plight of innocent women and children.
All because they’re irrationally afraid.
This has led to some of the most condescending and vomit-inducing lectures from everyone from left-wing politicians to media figures to people on social media who somehow manage to get their screeds widely shared. The best/worst example I’ve seen comes from a fellow named Dave Hogg, a Detroit-area sportswriter and self-identifies on Facebook as “very liberal” and “atheist.
"Is that a guarantee that no ISIS members will get onto US soil? No, it isn't. One might get through as a refugee, and they might move to your state and something bad might happen. There's almost certainly a better chance that you'll get hit by a meteor. You're certainly more likely to get killed by an American on a rampage than an refugee...."
So we have two choices. The first choice is to let ISIS win. We give in to fear and we choose to stand with the people who argue that Islam is our true enemy. We don't gain in that scenario, and we certainly don't get safer. We simply widen the split between Islam and the West, we hand away the moral high ground and we make the world a more dangerous place.
The other choice is to stand with humanity and live up to the words on that statue in New York."
So let's consider his argument: Because you personally are statistically very unlikely to be the victim of a terrorist attack - which is no doubt true - everything you're demanding be done to prevent the next attack is irrational. Hey. Someone might get through and "something bad might happen," but it probably won't happen to you, so stop worrying about it.
The premise of his entire argument is that those demanding stronger action to prevent an influx of terrorists into the United States are being driven solely by personal fear. They don't just think a terrorist might kill someone. They think a terrorist might kill them. And if they realize they're more likely to be killed by an asteroid or whatever, they'll just relax about it.
Let's consider that. If this premise is true, why would anyone have been horrified about what happened in Paris? It wasn't you, after all! What do you care?
Questioning the importation of 10,000 or more Syrian refugees is not about fear, and it's certainly not about people thinking that they personally and specifically will be killed. It's also not about hating or refusing to care about the refugees. It's about taking seriously the idea that these threats are real and that it's horrible when anyone has to suffer as the victim of one of them. Maybe very liberal atheists like Dave Hogg are gellin' like Magellan so long as it's not them getting riddled with bullets in a concert hall. 
I do not want this to happen to any more people. Yes, I understand that it's impossible to prevent all evil before it happens, but many such attacks are thwarted because people take seriously their duty to try. That duty often involves making some difficult moral choices. Yes, there are people who have done nothing wrong and need help, and we would like to help them. But as we consider how to help them, might it be necessary to eliminate or modify certain options so as not to put our own nation at unnecessary risk? To listen to some people on the left, you'd think any consideration at all about the well-being of our own people represents a complete capitulation to hatred and evil.
For just about every way you can be killed, we do what we can to lessen that risk. Not because of fear. Not because of hatred. Just because it would be nice if people were not killed.
So wanting to do whatever we can to prevent a terrorist attack is not about "giving in to fear." It's about recognizing that a threat exists in the form of people determined to kill the innocent, and not wanting to just bend over and take it as some sort of preferable alternative to "fear." That is about the dopiest narrative the left has ever come up with, and it needs to be destroyed. Today.
Then we can get serious about making ISIS fear us, which is what we should have been doing all along.

Monday, November 23, 2015

The Unwritten Law

"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right." - Marcus Tullius Cicero 

Trump Is Right: CNN Reported on American Muslims Celebrating 9/11

The Spectacle Blog
So the newest controversy?
That Donald Trump said he saw clips of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11. His critics pounced. But whatever he may have seen or not seen in New Jersey, CNN reported here that Muslims in New York City celebrated 9/11 — in 2009.
The clip, found on YouTube, is dated from 2009 and was apparently broadcast in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood shooting that involved U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan, an American Muslim whose actions were celebrated by a group called “Revolution Muslim.”
The CNN segment was anchored by Anderson Cooper, with the report filed by CNN investigative reporter Drew Griffin. The focus of the story is the 96th Street Mosque, identified as “right in the heart of New York.” The report was titled “Homegrown Hate.” Griffin speaks to the Imam, who says Islam is about peace. But right outside the Mosque are Muslims — American Muslims “born and raised” in the United States — preaching hatred of the U.S. Saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified. Griffin captures all of this on camera, with members of the group professing their love for Osama bin Laden.
The FBI is monitoring them, reports Griffin — thus illustrating exactly Trump’s point today of surveillance of Mosques is hardly extreme. As the media makes yet another “firestorm” over Trump’s remarks on Muslims in America and the celebration of 9/11 by Muslims in America, CNN makes clear that yes, indeed, it happens. And was in fact happening in that report right in “the heart of New York.”

A Good Monday Morning

Friday, November 20, 2015

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Obama Vows to Ramp Up U.S. Pillow Fight Against ISIS

Plans to Use Two Pillows Instead of One

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter 
Under pressure at home and abroad to wage a more robust war against the Islamic State, Obama administration officials said Thursday that the U.S. is prepared to expand its “rules of engagement” in the fight after the extremist group’s horrific attacks in Paris.
Top national security advisers to President Obama said the U.S.-led coalition is increasing airstrikes against fuel trucks and other “high value” targets of the terrorist organization in Syria and Iraq. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said attacks on fuel conveys reflect “changed tactics.”
White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said surveillance flights by coalition partners have provided the U.S. with intelligence to bomb oil infrastructure of the Islamic State, also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS.
“We’ve increased the targeting of ISIL oil infrastructure in recent days with great success in targeting trucks that were carrying oil that brings significant amounts of revenue to ISIL......”

So while the Russians and French are taking out communication facilities, headquarters and training camps in order to chop off the head of the snake, Obama plans to use the might of the U.S. Air Force and Navy to bomb oil barrels and TRUCKS.  While your at it Barry, why not drop a few 1000 pounders and murder a couple of goat herds while your at it. Yeah, that will show um! 

The Kvetch and the Syrian Refugee Debate:

"If you've watched President Obama's various speeches and press conferences over the past few days, you can be forgiven for coming away with the distinct impression that he doesn't like you. ...

If you doubt any portion of his current refugee policy, you're 'hysterical.' Never mind that a recent poll showed 13 percent of Syrian refugees declaring a 'positive' or 'somewhat positive' view of ISIS, or that at least one of the Paris attackers apparently arrived in France posing as a refugee. Never mind the 26 charges of terrorism brought up against foreign-born individuals in the U.S. in the past year, as Sen. Jeff Sessions documented this week, or the fact that in October, FBI Director James Comey testified that our current system likely can't effectively vet Syrian refugees.

More importantly, never mind the fact that opposition to current refugee protocols doesn't necessarily translate into opposition to helping refugees altogether; had Obama led with an acknowledgment of the system's weaknesses and showed genuine concern towards fixing them, we might be in a different situation today. As it is, a new Bloomberg poll shows 53 percent of Americans opposing the current settlement plan."
— Heather Wilhelm, RealClearPolitics

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Obama Plans to Drop Veto Hammer On Syrian Refugee Bill

In a statement of administration policy, the White House made it clear Obama has plans to veto the House Republican Syrian refugee bill (aka, H.R. 4038 – American SAFE Act of 2015).
"The Administration's highest priority is to ensure the safety and security of the American people. That is why refugees of all nationalities, including Syrians and Iraqis, considered for admission to the United States undergo the most rigorous and thorough security screening of anyone admitted into the United States. This legislation would introduce unnecessary and impractical requirements that would unacceptably hamper our efforts to assist some of the most vulnerable people in the world, many of whom are victims of terrorism, and would undermine our partners in the Middle East and Europe in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis....."
Any intelligent person's knows common sense and security trump one's compassion. It's obvious Barack Obama is neither interested in a secure citizenry or doing what's right for America. We are being led by a fool down a foolish road paved with the asinine actions of his making. All great civilizations fall not because of it's citizens, but because of it's leaders.   

The Most Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video You Will Ever See.

"Obama's own policy decisions -- allowing Assad to convert peaceful demonstrations into an increasingly ugly civil war, refusing to declare safe havens and no fly zones -- were instrumental in creating the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama's decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn. For him to try and use a derisory and symbolic program to allow 10,000 refugees into the United States in order to posture as more caring than those evil Jacksonian rednecks out in the benighted sticks is one of the most cynical, cold-blooded, and nastily divisive moves an American President has made in a long time. ... "
To think that conspicuous moral posturing and holy posing over a symbolic refugee quota could turn President Obama from the goat to the hero of the Syrian crisis is absurd. Wringing your hands while Syria turns into a hell on earth, and then taking a token number of refugees, can be called many things, but decent and wise are not among them. You don't have to be a xenophobe or a racist or even a Republican to reject this President's leadership on Syria policy. All you need for that is common sense and a moral compass."  — Walter Russell Mead, Bard College Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities