There (is) an Undeniable Nexus Between Islamic Doctrine and Terrorism Committed by Muslims

No one I know believes that all Muslims are terrorists; however anyone with a good knowledge of Islam can not help to come to the conclusion that the terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, that we see in the world today, is legitimized in Islamic scripture; it is also false that there are "There was no justification in the Koran" for Islamic terrorism", there are also other holy books of Islam that has the same fiery language. As Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, has written in his book, he first thought he would be prosecuting a terrorists that was using some bastardized version of Islam to justify his terrorism. However as he studied the Koran and other Islamic holy books, he discovered the opposite.

"As I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims. The Blind Sheikh, the jury was allowed to learn, was not a fringe lunatic; he was a globally renowned scholar of sharia whose influence over a spate of international jihadist organizations was based on his doctorate from al-Azhar University, the world’s most influential center of Islamic thought. And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award. Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind". http://www.terrorismanalysts.c....

Further most of the Muslim refugees coming to European countries are men; "About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women. http://time.com/4122186/syrian...  It is also true that only half are from Syria. It would surely make sense to put a temporary hold on Muslim refugees coming into the US until Homeland Security and/or the FBI can properly vet them (the FBI was said they have no basis to vet most of the refugees). While the registering of Muslim US citizens would be highly problematic, a hold on new refugees and closer scrutiny of those already here is well within the scope and authority given to a US President from the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" (this is what President Carter used to stop Iranians from entering the country during the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981). It should also be noted that all refugees are asked their religion as it is a major component of refugee status when coming to the US.

Finally it should be noted that President Obama has instructed DHS not to use social media to vet Muslim immigrants and/or refugees seeking visas; this is rationalized by the President saying social media is more based on religious beliefs and believes that "actions" are the only thing that counts as far as vetting Muslim, not the posting of violent Islamic extremism or a disdain for America and Democracy for fear of a "civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations"" with the Muslim community at large. http://abcnews.go.com/US/secre...

Politico and the Political Left has Fabricated a Political Assassination Against Ben Carson

Politico and the political left has fabricated a political assassination against Ben Carson. First the Politico says Carson’s campaign had admitted he "fabricated" a "full scholarship" from West Point. When Carson pointed out that there was no such admission, they had to change their heading. All Ben Carson ever said was he met with General Westmorland and was offered a "full scholarship," but decided not to apply. He is equally clear in stating that he chose NOT to do so because he wanted to go to medical school instead. Politico than goes on about there was no record that he applied?? Well of course there was no record he applied because as he said, he didn't apply.  Further Policito pushes the point that Carson never applied to West Point so he never was offered a scholarship even though Carson said he was told he would get a scholarship IF he applied. He is very clear on that point. Still Politico keeps the spin going by claiming there is no record that Ben Carson was offered a full scholarship, ignoring the fact that all candidates generally know going in, that West Point  gives all cadets a full scholarship if they are accepted, as West Point is paid for by American taxpayers (something a 17 YO from Detroit may not have known at the time so it surely would have sounded like an offer of a scholarship); graduates of West Point must serve 5 years of active service as a condition for their free education. Carson never said he applied to West Point; he said he was offered a scholarship (apparently he did not know at the time that no one pays tuition for West Point), but never applied; you will notice that none of the media making the accusation actually shows the statement printed in his book, because the accusations are false.

As someone posted on a blog I follow,  "..if I had a conversation with General Westmoreland and he basically said look..I like you, I've heard good things about you from your SAI (Sergeant at Arms) and you have great grades--if you want to go to the (West Point) I can make that happen...(meaning he would sponsor the appointment; all cadet applicants are sponsored by a political figure or high ranking military officer)--then I would have no issues with someone claiming they had a scholarship opportunity to West Point even if I never applied or took the physical ... Civilians use the wrong terminology all they time when it comes to military stuff. It may be technically incorrect but the substance of the statement is easy enough to understand. Its not emphatically deceptive in any subjective context.  This is akin to saying you were looking into joining the army because they offer to pay for your education, but decided not to go; and someone later accuse you of fabricating the story, saying you are lying because you never applied to join the Army.


The final fabricated issue was, according to Gen Wesmorland's secretary, the meeting with Ben Carson did not happen on Memorial Day 1969 as Ben Carson said, however Westmorland's secretary confirmed Westmoreland was in Detroit 3 months earlier than  Memorial Day 1969 and had a meeting that was exactly as Ben Carson described; is it beyond belief that Ben Carson recalling a meeting 30 years before, might be off on the date by a couple of months. This is nothing more than a racists attempted character assassination by the left that has absolutely no basis..(it's interesting that all this information is contained within the Politico article, but is spun in a way that makes if look like Ben Carson has been

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qml1VFg1

Obama; "(Gun Violence) is something we should politicize."

Before we delve into the left politicizing gun violence, lets look at the facts behind violent crime itself. Over the last 20 years, the American people have certainly showed a great deal of responsibility as violent crime has been reduced by nearly 50% while ownership has and continues to explode.

Any poll, data, study or graph by the anti-gun zealots must be consistent with this fact, and pretty much always fail in this respect; polls can be rigged, studies depend on the data used and graph's are  dependent on the data used. The only independent and reliable data available for violent crimes and homicide rates comes from the FBI UCR totals and end result tells us the 1) Violent crimes and homicide rates have been falling for over 20 years  2)  The number of guns owned by the citizenry have no relationship to violent crime. Mythbusting Gun Ownership Decline in US

What is interesting about fact #2 is there does seem to be a disconnect between guns bought and guns owned. As you see below, gun manufacturers show guns sold have increased every year; the NCIC background checks for gun sales have increased every year, yet the gun ownership graph shows ownership decreasing (and it's not like guns are a commensurable product). The reason is the elephant in the room. While data for gun sales and NCIC are from verifiable sources, gun ownership data  come from telephone polls; these polls have become notoriously inaccurate, add to that the widely accepted fact most people are hesitant to talk about their gun ownership, any result would be guaranteed inaccurate; most likely exceedingly low. The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

 The other facts are those cities with the most strict gun laws tend to have the highest rate of violent crime; especially gun crimes. The whole anti-gun movement is propaganda by liberals and Democrats that have created a strawman to use politically; in this case the Democrats want the citizenry to believe gun crime crimes are approaching an epidemic, when they actually maxed out on the 70's and have been steadily falling ever since. The truth is Democrats have a horrible record with crimes in the cities they run, a fact that is consistently ignored by the main street media; black on black crime in these Democrat run cities are the only instances where violent crime is on the rise.

 


po·lit·i·cize 1. to give a political character or bias to: to politicize a religious debate.

There was a time when to politicize a tragedy was considered almost a morale sin; the idea that one would take human pain and give it a political spin or bias in order to further a political agenda, without regard for the victim(s), was an anathema. Well no more, not since President Obama. The first indication that politicizing human tragedy was now blatantly acceptable to President Obama, started when his former White House Chief of Staff (and currently mayor of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel stated publicly the White House world view,"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."  Then President then confirmed that blatantly politicizing human tragedy would be his standard course, when he spoke on limiting gun ownership , “Of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere, will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”  Obama; Gun Control Politicizing Not Politics


What the President is saying,  when he says mass murder should be politicized, is to infer that the victims are a faceless collective and the Democrats have the right to declare mass murder as a for and against issue; in other words one can declare ownership of the high ground saying we are the only party that is against mass shootings. One way this is done to is insinuate that their policies will stop mass shootings, while other parties either do nothing or make it worse.  Unfortunately the Democrats, and liberals are on the wrong side of the Gun Safety argument, considering violent crime has decreased near 50% in the last 20 years while gun possession has significantly increased; US Gun Homocide Study However the Democrats have pushed a lie on the American people that violent crime is an epidemic, so if you want this to stop, they need to votes for Democrats. However when one has only to look at cities they have their gun-control policies, and one sees rampant and out of control crime,  the same cities (Chicago being the most obvious) have the strictest gun laws in the country. Harvard Study; Gun Control is Counterproductive


Then you have Hillary Clinton harping on the less guns less crimes myth saying she is for Australian style gun confiscation;  leading the NRA to rightfully exclaim, "This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Friday. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people." Hillary Clinton Calls for Gun Confiscation ; The Democrats are so sure of themselves, that they have politisized this myth of a gun violence epidemic, that you have the likes of California  Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom pushing  a anti-gun initiative for background checks for ammunition, to try and up his popularity to win the upcoming Governors election. (As an prime example of the politicizing of gun violence, it's worth noting that a similar bill "SB-53" was co-sponsored by California State Senator Leland Yee; the bill died in the Assembly about the time Yee was indited for gun smuggling. You can't make this stuff up).  This  pushed by Newsom, would cost tens of millions of dollars and generate reams of useless data, as once in the hands of the purchaser there is no way to traceit, even if it was used for illegal purposes.. But more important, it politicizes recent mass shootings and continues to push the myth of a gun violence epidemic; when the real culprits are a handful of sociopathic terrorists, that plan these monstrous acts for months or even years.  These terrorists that came before all passed the background checks the Democrats are pushing and waited the appropriate waiting periods to buy guns and ammo.

"Those policies, from background checks to “assault weapon” bans, to magazine restrictions, are the abstract ideas and concepts...Where these ideas/concepts continually fail in the real world is when they are forced to go beyond fuzzy “feel good” concepts into actual language in legislation, and people get to see the details… and the concrete liberties that would be lost for vague promises of “safety” that have never materialized when a gun control bill passes." Gun Control Supporters Losing Culture War

In regards to large capacity their is no evidence that they are any deadlier simply changing a larger number of low capacity magazines (something that can be easily be done in less than 5 seconds). In a recent press conference the Washington DC Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, blamed high-capacity magazines for DC's high murder rate, “Multiple of our cases have high-capacity magazines and multiple rounds fired making the shots more lethal,” However, COP Lanier was stymied when it was revealed that the Washington DC Police Dept does not keep records on the capacity of the magazines with the firearms that are seized. Scapegoat Alert! D.C. Murders Increase, Police Chief Blames Large Capacity Magazines It's just more smoke coming from liberals trying to divert responsibility from their failed leadership.


So, as we look at the anti-gun zealots, we see a manufactured crisis, egged on by the left, politicizing the rise in  a very narrowly defined type of mass shootings, (ignoring the slaughter of black on black crime in many urban cities) that involved a sociopath usually targeting schools and churches. However these mass shootings were so limited in number, that even an increase does not rise to anything close to an epidemic. As I quoted in my last posting US Enjoying Lowest Crime Rate in Decades ; "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000 So the so called sharp rise in Mass shootings is 10 more shootings a year than before 16.4 vs 6.4 previously; hardly enough to call for wholesale gun restrictions that regardless, would have no affect on these extremely limited type of shootings.

As a final caveat it would be dishonest to presume that all those calling out for more gun restrictions are politically motivated. While this may be the case with most politicians, the majority honestly feel that more guns equals more violent crimes, and this seems to be the totality of their world view.  Gun control advocates are utopians. Their perspective is that, if guns are no longer readily available, violence will evaporate. But there are so many guns in circulation that it would take decades to reduce their availability — unless legislators adopt the police-state policy of sending cops door-to-door to confiscate firearms. California Lawmakers Train Sights on Gun Ownership

US Enjoying the Lowest Violent Crime Rate in Decades

The left continues to use the false narrative that we are having a gun crime epidemic and something needs to be done right now. The truth of the matter that violent crimes have been falling for the last 20 years. Yes there has been spikes in urban cities run by Democrats, but over all "Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and s@x crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades". http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

 The liberal mantra is, to reduce the "epidemic" of gun crime,s there is a need to reduce the number of guns. But the facts show that violent crime numbers have continued to fall as the number of guns has significantly increased; IOW, rather than having an epidemic of violent crime, we are enjoying a drop in crime that has not been seen since the the 1930-1940s and to a level not seen since the end of the 19th century.





But that hasn't stopped the left rigging their studies try to demonize guns. One of my favorite has been passed around recently after the Oregon shooting; that armed citizens have never stopped a mass shooting. Two liberal magazine web sites www.thenation.com  and  www.rawstory.com  floated two stories written by a supposed combat veteran and Navy SEAL, that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns is a fantasy. However it appears neither publication vetted the guy who turned out to be a complete fraud. Further, when one looks at the argument that armed citizens haven't stopped any mass shootings, it quickly becomes obvious that it is base the false premise that someone is documenting mass shootings that didn't happen. In other words, mass shootings either happened or they don't, one can only speculate whether the actions of an armed citizen stopped a mass killing or not. Here is one of the many lists where armed citizens stopped violent crimes (or maybe thwarted a mass shooting).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The fact there has been a considerable rise in mass shootings, but it's really a false argument because it fails to address how few there have been to begin with. "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...  So we are talking about an average of 10 additional mass shootings a year; and for this you want to take tens or hundreds of millions of guns from law abiding citizens. IOW this demonisation of guns from the anti-gun lobby (and it's followers) is not about public safety, it's about liberal social engineering to fit their agenda. But they keep repeating this false narrative over and over, hoping that will make people believe it. And why not? It's the same tactic used by liberals/fascists/Marxists and other collectivists all through modern history.

The Right to Bear Arms, Gun Laws and Mental Illness

Once again a cowardly psychotic killer takes a gun(s) to a gun-free zone and does the unthinkable. So what is the answer? Well, it should be noted that where the more stringent gun laws are, the more gun violence occurs. In Chicago, the city with arguably the strictest anti-ownership/anti-carry gun laws in the nation, they are approaching a new record this year (bucking the national trend downward) with already more than 2,000 shooting injuries and near 400 deaths. President Obama says it’s clearly a political issue, and Hillary Clinton wants another assault-weapon ban even though the first had no effect on gun crime at all; according to the FBI, there are five times more people killed with knives. The only demonstrational response that has worked has been to eliminate most gun-free zones and allow more citizens to carry firearms. But the anti-gun lobby doesn’t really care about public safety, they just want to eliminate gun ownership. Contrary to the anti-gun lobby, more law abiding citizens than ever are buying guns, which has resulted is the demonisation of the NRA as the cause; but  the NRA did nothing than their usual advocacy of gun safety and legal possession. Most citizens, even if they don't own a firearm, are comfortable in the fact they would be able to buy one if needed. The increase of gun sales was simply a reaction to Obama pushing for more restrictions on gun sales, showing President Obama may be the best thing that has ever come along for gun manufacturers.

Most of these mass, more accurately called "'rampage killers', tend to follow a definite pattern, what he called a "program for murder and suicide." The shooter, almost always a young man, enters an area filled with many people. He is heavily armed. He may begin by targeting a few specific victims, but he soon moves on to "indiscriminate killings where just killing people is the prime aim." He typically has no plan for escape and kills himself or is killed by police". What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them We have also seen a trend that these rampage killers are on psychotropic drugs, showing a connection between mass killings and mental illness. Now certainly the vast majority of those with mental illness, or on mood stabilizing drugs are not violent, many of which live a unassuming normal life aided by these mood stabilizing drugs.

But, there has been a disturbing trend that school psychologist tend to diagnose the condition de jour, causing parents to demand request psychotropic drugs from their doctor.

The mother of the shooter Oregon Jr College stated that her son had Asbergers Syndrome (AS), a disability related to Autism. However if one has even a cursory understanding of AS, one would know that such a diagnoses was extremely unlikely. AS is also defined as a non-verbal learning disability, a child with AS would have inability to understand  non-verbal communication, such as body language or tone; a condition that results in a lack of eye contact. AS kids also have a very limited understanding of the world around them, and will become anxious if familiar routines are not followed and can be overwhelmed by sensory stimulation, sometimes called an AS meltdown. Further, AS kids tend to be internally motivated (rather than trying to fit in or receive praise). This leads AS kids with a lack of understanding social norms. And while an AS kid is capable of anger, it is usually directed at an individual an not something so removed as organized religion.

The age of the Oregon shooter shows that he was diagnosed with the condition de jour in the 1990's; every 15 years or so a different developmental disorder becomes the most commonly diagnosed disorder (the end result these diagnoses result in rampant over-medication). In the 1980's it was ADD and later ADHD (these two alone account for most the over-medication, often prescribed simply to control the child's behavior and not treat a disorder), in the 1990/2000's it was Asperger's Syndrome/ Autism Spectrum, and now since it appeared in the DSM-5, (The official list of recognized disorders) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, or DMDD. While the shooters true disorder has not been released, the suspect did go by the online name "Lithium Love", and was reported to have been institutionalized for not taking his medication. Lithium is a powerful psychotropic mood stabilizer, most commonly used to treat Bipolar Disorder, a condition defined by extreme mood shifts. Bipolar Disorder can sometimes lead to related condition called Dysphoric Mania, where a person will experience depression and mania at the same time. This a full-blown psychosis ,where individuals  lose the ability to determine the difference between what is real and not real, they have visual and audio hallucinations, which can lead to extreme behaviors, such as paranoia, suicidal and/or homicidal tendencies, rage, extreme violence and/or a lashing out at imagined enemies. Progression of Psychosis in Bipolar Disorder

 "Mass shooters aim to tell a story through their actions. They create a narrative about how the world has forced them to act, and then must persuade themselves to believe it. The final step is crafting the story for others and telling it through spoken warnings beforehand, taunting words to victims or manifestos created for public airing." What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them


There is not one gun restriction the anti-gun lobby has ever been proposed that can or will stop rampage killers or even gun crimes in general. The fact the laws that have been implemented tend to be a one size fits all in what is a multi-faceted that rarely resulted in any reduction in these crimes makes one wonders why the anti-gun lobby keeps demanding the same failed restrictions hoping for different result. Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship The only policies that have been shown to work in the real world is to arm the citizenry. Rampage killers, like other sociopaths, know enough to stay clear of locations were the targets may be armed. The result of  of doing away with these gun-free zones, will probably result in the citizenry stopping more gun crimes, instead it will result in criminals going elsewhere where they feel safe; but if a rampage killer does attack a group where one or more is armed, at the very least there will be some ability to stop the carnage.

So what is the answer? It's important to know that these rampage killer meticulously plan their attacks; often study previous rampage killings in great detail. Further they see a great rational in what they have planned. They often have paranoid delusions and see themselves as a victim of an unjust society.  The  Oregon rampage shooter posted “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight. To these rampage killers they often see the killings as a means to an end, and that end is to garner the largest audience possible. So the rampage killer of his act will try and out do previous mass killers to create more notoriety himself. And while fame is a objective by itself, the rampage killer wants everyone to know why he did what he did, his life story and grievances; so in many was mass media is as much to blame for this phenomena and anything else. The answer is to mitigate the audience; which means media needs to tone down their reporting. First law enforcement should shut down all social media attached to the suspect; the media should hold back the killers name and photo; the press already does this with juvenile suspects, so it could certainly do the same for rampage killers. Give all the attention to the victims and survivors, and be indifferent to the shooter. Report on the victims life stories, but not how they died; and praise the heroics of the survivors. Do not release any information on the shooters rational for the shooting (ie manifest); it generally won't make sense to the average citizen anyway. Hopefully, when those contemplating a rampage shooting, sees how little a shooter is reported on, and how their grievances are ignored they will pursue other avenues to place themselves in the limelight. 

US Complains Russia Bombs CIA Trained al Qaeda Forces

The White House has complained that Russia bombed the al Qaeda forces the US has been training to fight Assad. US Complains As Russia Bombs Its Terrorists

Yes the US/CIA has been training al Qaeda aligned jihadists (Div 30 mercenaries) to fight against Syria and ISIL, the problem being these so called "moderate" Syrian rebels are almost all affiliated with al Qaeda. $500 million has been spent for this training (supposedly for a 5000 Syrian Rebel fighters), which has resulted in massive desertions, leaving a total "4 or 5" still fighting in Syria. The most recent graduating class of 54 Div 30 fighters, promptly handed over all their US supplied weaponry to al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria Isn't al Qaeda our enemy? Didn't they hijack and crash 4 commercial airlines, brought down the Twin Trade Towers and killed 3000 Americans? Can you imagine if President Obama would have campaigned on training al Qaeda to fight against Syria? I don't get it

..

Is Pope Francis Moving the World Toward Fasicsm?

Pope Francis lived under  Perónism in Argentina during his early life and talk of Liberation Theology in his later life. Perónism was a fascists personality cult, which like most fascists states provided numerous benefits for those collectively defined as the "workers"; ie  100% employment, universal healthcare, good wages and vacations. Of course it is fascism, meaning an alliance where government and corporations tend to blur together, and the market is controlled and redistribution of wealth; with Perónism redistribution leaned heavily toward the workers, which he used as a voting block to keep himself in office.

"(Juan) Perón and his administration resorted to organized violence and dictatorial rule. Perón showed contempt for any opponents, and regularly characterized them as traitors and agents of foreign powers. Perón maintained the institutions of democratic rule, but subverted freedoms through such actions as nationalizing the broadcasting system, centralizing the unions under his control, and monopolizing the supply of newspaper print. At times, Perón also resorted to tactics such as illegally imprisoning opposition politicians and journalists.  Wikipedia-Peronism

Latin American Liberation Theology (LT) was a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s and 1960s. Gustavo Gutiérrez is credited one of the principal founders of liberation theology in Latin America; "According to Gutiérrez true “liberation” has three main dimensions: First, it involves political and social liberation, the elimination of the immediate causes of poverty and injustice. Second, liberation involves the emancipation of the poor, the marginalised, the downtrodden and the oppressed from all “those things that limit their capacity to develop themselves freely and in dignity”. Third, liberation theology involves liberation from selfishness and sin, a re-establishment of a relationship with God and with other people. Gustavo Gutiérrez /

LT is supposed to be based on the original Christians that dedicated their lives to helping the sick and poor. The purpose of LT is to alleviate the poor of their suffering, primarily through activism, controlled economies and redistribution (aka social justice). LT is heavily influenced by Marxists doctrine and viewing the poor as a collective; LT is anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois (middle class), anti-consumerist, advocating a single workers class (proletariat).  After the fall of the Soviet Union, evidence was turned over that showed LT was developed by the Soviet Union in order to align the Catholic Church with communism. principles. Former Soviet Spy We Created Liberation Theology 
 
Pope John Paul ll viewed LT, with it's collective salvation as too political and diverging to far from the individual relationship and salvation that is the core of Christianity; preferring orthopraxy (ethical and liturgical conduct), in the absence of faith or grace. Through Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, John Paul's explained that main enemy of the church was modern secularism and that liberation theology is part of this secularism. "All human activity", John Paul has said, "must have reference to the ultimate meaning of life, which is eternal salvation. While seeking to concentrate their efforts on life here and now, modern people have forgotten this essential truth." The Retreat Of Liberation 
 Theology" 

FOIA Docs Show CIA Stood by as Arms Shipments from Benghazi Enabled the Rise of ISIS

 Note: most this information comes from the ultra-left Salon.com

If the Middle East explodes into full scale war, the fact that Iran has been delayed creating their nuclear weapon will be lost on the 100,000's that will be wounded or killed. Thanks to Obama, the Middle East is devolving into a quagmire. First Hillary Clinton took out Gaddafi (much like Bush took out Hussien) with no apparent long range strategy. Today Libya is a quagmire of rebel factions fighting for control as ISIS is making their own inroads into the country. It has now been confirmed through FOIA documents that show "how the CIA stood by as arms shipments from Libya enabled the rise of ISIS...weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria...

The Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the State Department and CIA facilities in Benghazi at the same time that the flow of weapons stopped." This dispersal of weapons is what led to the birth of ISIS. “[w]estern countries, the Gulf states, and Turkey are supporting rebel efforts against the Assad regime in a proxy war, putting them on the same side as, if not working together with, the terrorists now overrunning Iraq".

The conclusion of the final House report is clear: “From the Annex in Benghazi, the CIA was collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria.” Long story short: The CIA was watching closely as our allies transferred weapons to Syrian rebels. Then after the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi 9.11.2012, Hillary Clinton and her US State Department launched into damage control, using the YouTube video as a red herring to cover the CIA program in Benghazi. Another interesting fact is the US State Department publicly apologized to Egypt on Egyptian radio and TV, for the YouTube anti-Islam video prior to the demonstration in Cairo; it's almost as though the State Department meant to draw attention to the video, which would make sense if they received advanced notice of the attack and needed to spark a demonstration that could be used as a subterfuge to divert attention from the Benghazi gun running operation by the CIA..

AQI was pushed out of Iraq as a result of Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (While AQI formed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq, they remained a Sunni insurgency in Iraq, until western forces contracted and trained them to join Syrian rebels fighting against Syria). AQI at this point was in disarray with few military bases in Iraq. When the US pulled out of Iraq (2011) a civil war ensued in Iraq resulting in AQI reforming and made significant head way in Iraq. It was at this point that AQI was armed and trained by western forces to fight along side the Syrian rebels. When the US stopped it's military assault on Syria (a truce brokered by Putin to rid Syria of it's chemical weapons) , AQI, along with other Sunni insurgency fighters became ISIL; (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) or simply IS (for Islamic State). This was something that was completely overlooked and underestimated by the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton (remember a “JV” Terrorist Group?) until they discovered they had created a monster..

So the primary causes of ISIS was western countries arming Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to fight along with Syrian rebels; The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq.
Salon.com

So NATO inadvertently creates ISIS while trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. And now Iran will be pumping money and arms to Syria and those ISIS forces moving against Saudi Arabia (while some ISIS forces are attacking Syria, like Syria ISIS is Sunni, and their primary enemy is Shia; ie Saudi Arabia). It's just the continuing proxy wars between the US/NATO and Russia/Syria using the Sunnis and Shias. But Iran may not have it's nuclear bomb yet, so all is good. Right?

I'ts Time for Democrats to Come Clean on Their Racsim

Democrats want the country to forget is they are the cause of all the civil unrest in the country. The Blackman's psyche was all but destroyed during the more than 100 years of slavery by the Democrats, and the result of that damage continues through today. Under the Democrats Blacks were bought as slaves; oppressed, beaten, raped, work to death and even murdered with impunity, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this.The usual Democrat response when confronted with this, is it's just history and has no bearing on today; really? Why don't you ask the Black-man if  being enslaved 150 years ago still matters.

After a bloody civil war the Northern armies, lead by the Republicans, finally defeated the Democrats, but the Democrats were not willing to end the oppression of the Black man. During times of reconstruction, the Democrats created new rules to oppress Black. Jim Crow laws (enforced by the KKK) were meant to put Blacks in their "place," resulting in voter suppression and discrimination in all areas of the society, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. The Democrats were also the craftsman of segregation, pushing oppression under the auspices separate but equal; and again yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. This is the stain on the soul of the Democrats; and in some bizzaro world, Democrats seek to demonize conservatives. There is nothing that conservatives have ever done that even comes close to the inhumanity from the Democrats during the years of Slavery and Jim Crow and Segregation. And even now, Blacks have again been segregated in high crime cities run by Democrats.

After years and years the Democrats keep assuring they're the only ones that care about the Black-man, but their station in life continued to deteriorate. There was a hope that the first Black President would finally get them off the merry-go-round of poverty, broken families, high crime and unemployment, that Blacks have endured under the care of the Democrats. But no. Under Obama the Black-man's poverty rate increased along with unemployment; even as the economy started to recover and jobs vacancies started to open up, instead of foster employment for the Black community, Obama is bringing in 100,000s of immigrants, ignoring that these immigrants will take the very jobs that blacks need. Liberals may say subjectively that Republicans are racists because of their speeches and policies, but we know Democrats are racists because we have history and the consequences of their stewardship of the Black-man. And even if Democrats have turned over a new leaf, it does not alleviate them from the responsibility of what they have done; they can not transfer blame to the Republicans and/or try to re-write history to absolve themselves.

There is a fairy tale the Democrats like to tell. They say the southern Dixiecrats joined the Republican party, and that led to the Republicans becoming the racist party that they are. Really!  You have the Republicans with 100 year head start on civil rights, against the Democrats with a 100 year record of slavery and racism. Then in the 60's the Republicans after a 100 years of civil rights promotion, decided to become the most racist political party, in order to capture the southern racists vote. Simultaneously, the Democrats with their 100 year record of racism, decided to become the party of civil rights. What an incredible story! Unfortunately the timeline just doesn't add up. You see the Dixiecrats, ie the States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. They formed in 1948 to try and remove the Truman's name from the ballot in the south and replace it with their own. While this resulted in the Dixiecrats winning Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, but to everyone's surprise Truman won regardless. The Dixicrats were dissolved and it's members filtered back into the still very still very racist Democrat party of the South. Now jump seven years, and the Democrats say that the Dixiecarts became the racist Republican party. The other issue, besides the Dixicrats having dissolved their party 7 years earlier, is that while the Southern states did begin to vote for Republican presidential candidates, it would be several decades before the Southern Democrat's hold on the state houses would be wrested away by the Republicans, and the South was finally free of Democrat racism.    

It's no wonder that Blacks are angry and lashing out at the representatives of the status quo; the police. But it is the Democrats that control the status quo in these cities, but instead of taking responsibility, they demonize the police who are only doing what they are ordered to do by the Democrats! The Democrats will never be able to undo the damage they have done to the Black-man; there is no "re-start"  with this. Today the Democrats keep ripping of the scab of racism and blaming it on the Republicans, who really have nothing to do with it. And the Black-man will never raise up out of their current station in life, until the Democrats start treating the Black-man as equals instead of a voting block.

Beware the 'Gun-free Zone"

One of the most dangerous places, where your chance of getting murdered by a cowardly stranger is the highest, is a "gun free zone." The anti-gun zealots paradigm continues to be framed by false hysterics and not in reality. The facts are the FBI continues to tell us gun crimes are at a 50 year low (while gun ownership has increased 1/3) with one caveat; black on black crime in many urban areas has been on the rise over the last 4-5 years (During the time Obama has been President and paling around with Al Sharpton). There is a little hope however, while Chicago is rated dead last in allowing gun ownership and using federal laws and to arrest and imprison criminals that commit gun crimes, Detroit with it's new Republican mayor has instituted a plan that arms more citizens while working with the Federal DOJ in prosecuting and giving stiff sentences to gun toting criminals; the first year, car jackings were reduced by almost 32%. Detroit to Crackdown on Gun Crimes

This is the same tactic pioneered by the state of Virginia's Republican legislature; there over the last 7years, gun sales increased 100% while gun crimes dropped almost 30%. So the choice is elect leaders that institute symbolic feel good, "common-sense measures" that punish law abiding citizens or those that institute measures that punish criminals and decrease gun crimes. Virgina Gun Crime Drops Again as Firearm Sales Soar

We have the laws to arrest and prosecute criminal gun violations, we simply need to use them. Further it is not the the number of guns in law abiding citizens hands that is the problem as it has become well known that restricting gun ownership and high capacity magazines and/or registering gun owners have never led to a reduction in criminal activity. But the left refuses to admit this is the case, as usual they rely on their emotional attachment to their world view to dictate their reality; but the reality is states with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun crimes..What is apparent is the anti-gun zealots have no real interest in public safety, they simply have an anti-gun agenda, and really don't care whether it has a positive affect on the citizenry safety or not.

Recently the Chief of Police of Washington DC blamed large capacity magazine for the high murder rate, however she had to facts to back that up because her police Department doesn't keep any records of such information, but did the media call her on it? No.

Treaty With Iran Will Fund Terrorism

Ayatollah Khamenei said from the beginning of the treaty talks that he would trade a suspension of Iran's nuclear program (and only the Nuclear program) for the immediate end to all sanctions see Iran Treaty a Subterfuge That is what he said 20 months ago and that is in the treaty he signed. “Even after this deal, our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change"...“Whether the deal is approved or disapproved, we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon,”..."America is still the Great Satan".

When John Kerry gave the US a preview of the treaty he talked about keeping sanctions on Iran from funding terrorism, lifting of sanctions would only occur after Iran has demonstrated they are holding up their end of the bargain and the US/UN will have inspectors in Iran that will be able to monitor Iran's Nuclear program and military bases. Ayatollah Khamenei said none of that was true, and the White house responded that Khamenei was just posturing to his base; as if the Supreme Ruler for life, that dictates what the people are supposed to think about everything, needs a base. Of course what we now know is all the lies and posturing were coming from John Kerry and the White House. The UN monitors will be forbidden from inspection any Iranian military base.

The immediate lifting of the sanctions means at least some of the $150 billion in Iranian assets and the $50 billion signing bonus, will be used to fund terrorist groups (this has been admitted by the White House) such as Hezbollah and Hamas, Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Assad government in Syria. So expect the middle east to explode in new violence, while John Kerry waits for his Nobel Peace prize (and possibly a Presidential bid) and President Obama leaves our allies to fend for themselves and as he walks away, doting on his legacy.

Iran Deal a Subterfuge

The nuclear arms deal with Iran appears to be the product of an Iranian plan, resulting in removal of international sanctions, while still allowing Iran to sponsor terrorism in the middle east. It is has been reported in 2006 the Iranian top religious and supreme leader  Ayatollah Khamenei, signed a fatwa (a religious and  legal policy pronouncement) against the use of nuclear weapons. While many question the existence of such a fatwa, if it is true (or even if it not), than all the fear over Iran building nuclear weapons, was engineered by Iran solely for the purpose to access $150 billion of their money blocked by sanctions and the $50 billion signing bonus offered by the US

"Even after this deal, our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change. We don’t have any negotiations or deal with the U.S. on different issues (other than nuclear) in the world." Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei

Mexican Government Importing Most US Guns Used by Cartels

This should not come as any surprise, but the US has been exporting tens of thousands of military grade M4s to the military and police in Mexico. Mexican authorities are purchasing the firearms through a program called "direct commercial sales", where they order the firearms directly from the US manufacturer and only need the request signed off by the US State Department (aka ex Sec of State Hillary Clinton 2009-2013), unfortunately about a quarter or more of these guns are ending up in the hands of the cartels. One of driving forces behind this transfer of weapons to the cartels is since 2007, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers have defected to the cartels "and I think it's safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them." In 2006 Mexico bought about 2500 rifles, however since the end of the Fast and Furious program, Mexico has upped the purchase by almost a factor of 10; 18,700 in 2009 (the State Department estimates 26% of these rifles ended up in the hands of the cartels or other "unfavorable" results). "The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."" Since 2010 "the State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves", but if we use 20,000 as an average, Mexico has imported about 100,000 M4's in the last 5 years. Legal US Gun Sales to Mexico Arming Cartels
 
This also seems to undermine the entire Straw Purchase complaint and investigation that was the impetus for the failed debacle that was Fast and Furious. Sure, there have been those that buy guns in the US and smuggle them into Mexico, but due to the relative small numbers, most of those where offered for purchase to civilians, not the cartel. Further Fast and Furious threw a monkey wrench into investigating the the Mexican Straw Purchase smuggling, when the DOJ encouraged FFL dealers to sell guns to suspected smugglers. This greatly increased the amount of firearms that were being smuggled into Mexico (as most the dealers would not normally sell to the suspected Straw Purchase, smugglers but did so at the behest of Eric Holder and the DOJ) so some of them ended up in the hands of the cartels. But again the mother load of US firearms in Mexico were legally imported by the Mexican Army and Police and it is these firearms that have been arming the cartels.

So, the next time you hear complaints about US guns in the hands of the cartels (as from the Mexican or US President) it's worth remembering that vast majority (in 2009, Mexico had become one of the world's largest purchasers of U.S. guns through direct commercial sales) were imported by the Mexican Government themselves, who are so inept and corrupt, that they can't keep the guns out of the hands of the cartels..
 

The RFRA; Indiana, Colorado and the Left's War on Religion

Indiana was the 20th state in 20 years that has enacted their version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Arkansas will be the 21st. The RFRA was signed into Federal law by President Bill Clinton and for the last 20 years 20 states have been enacting their own version. The primary purpose of the RFRA was to address government from infringing on religious rights with a presumption of innocence on religious 1st amendment grounds; the question now does that include conflicts between government declarations of protected classes and religious beliefs. So far the business that have refused a service to LGBT, has only been their participating in wedding ceremonies that directly conflict with their Christian or Muslim religious beliefs; yes Muslim business have also been sued, but the press has completely ignored them; the idea that these business otherwise refuse to service LGBT has been a media lie. It is also interesting that the Bible is replete with examples of Christians and Jews that were martyred because they would not bend to laws that were contrary to their religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is like freedom of speech, once the impeding of the free exercise begins, it is no longer an inalienable right, but a right regulated by government; and the two are mutually exclusive.

Another point I see regarding the Indiana case is the left is using a poorly worded new law to say; 1) every conservative in Indiana is a homophobic 2) This is the reason you need to vote for Democrats. The truth is you would probably have to search far and wide in Indiana for a business that is so devoted to their religious beliefs that they would deny service of any kind; the reporter in Walkerton, Ind checked pretty much every restaurant within a 20 mile radius before she found Memories Pizza. And even then the owner never said they would deny any service. The owner, answering a question from the reporter about catering to a gay wedding said, while they have never been ask to cater a wedding of any kind, she could not involve her business in a wedding ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs. The owner further said she has nothing against homosexuals and would never dream of denying them service, it's the nature of a wedding ceremony that's the issue.

The same can be said for Azucar Bakery in Denver when it refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages on them. What was not widely reported is In 2012, a homosexual couple sued another Colorado Bakery after the owner refused to make a cake to celebrate their marriage."In point of fact, however, Phillips (owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop) had made it clear that he was happy to serve homosexuals, and he agreed to make the couple other baked goods, but he said his Christian beliefs prohibited him from making a cake for the gay wedding. “I told David and Charlie when they came in that I would sell them cookies and brownies and birthday cakes and shower cakes. I just don’t do the same-sex wedding cake,” he said. The incident at the Azucar bakery was in response to this prior case, as homosexual activist Bill Jack tracked down another Christian bakery and requested two Wedding cakes that were derogatory to the owner of Azucar Bakery's religious beliefs;

“I requested two cakes, each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin — Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin — Leviticus 18:22,’” Jack said.On the second cake I requested on one page, “God loves sinners,” and on the facing page, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.” I also requested a decoration of two groomsmen holding hands with a cross in the background with a ghostbusters symbol over it to illustrate that such a union is unacceptable biblically."

Christian activist Bill Jack has denounced a decision by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, which found Azucar Bakery in Denver not guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake adorned with Bible quotes condemning sodomy. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act “is being used to censor Christian business owners’ free speech and is being used to coerce them to participate in events that violate their consciences,” Jack complained. An administrative law judge ruled against him, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission agreed.

So we are not talking about some wide spread homophobia; these incidents were carefully orchestrated to attack the religious beliefs of a very few devoutly religious restaurateurs for political purposes.

The Wall Between Church and State Spoke Only of Federalism

Some liberal talking points extol how founding fathers would stand against conservative contemporary issues, which remains pointless conjecture. Unlike the liberals of today our founding fathers were pragmatists and did not adhere to any one political agenda; as a matter of fact they just about defined cognitive dissonance. For one Jefferson has a abolitionists yet owned (and bedded) slaves. Jefferson also spoke of glowing of native American culture, but savagely drove Indians west and said of those that resisted  "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". Jefferson was also so devoted to Christianity he wrote his own deist version of the New Testament.

The letters written by Jefferson were generally a discussion of Federalism, not a demonisation of religion; the protections from government in the original Bill of Rights only pertained to the Federal government not the states;  it was believed that the states could create whatever government or religion it wanted as long as it recognized and respected federal authority. What the first Amendment protections addressed was "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", IOW a prohibition from  Federal government creating a national religion. If a state wanted to establish a religion as part of their government process they would have been free to do so; the idea being no one would be trapped or force to endure what you believed to be a tyrannical state, as you could simply move to another, but that was not the fact if the Federal government established a religion. Today, because of the 14th Amendment all states must adhere to these Federal prohibitions, but that was not the case when the Constitution was written. The Federal Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in was convened in 1787, but the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1886, 60 years after Jefferson died.

"Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions ofthe national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns,
 such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury BaptistAssociation".

John T. McGreevy, "Thinking on One's Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928-1960," Journal of American History, Vol. 84 (June 1997), pp. 97-131, and Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).

The Biggest Lie of 2014; "Hands up, Don't shoot";

In 2013 the biggest lie of the year was, "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." The biggest lie in 2014 has got to be, "Hands up, don't shoot." From the very beginning the Ferguson narrative that a seasoned veteran police officer murdered a unarmed suspect that was surrendering simply didn't pass the smell test. This narrative was first perpetrated by several questionable witnesses and soon after the autopsy results put  "Hands up, don't shoot" in a very questionable light; predictably however the main street media ran with the story and police Officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department became ground zero for police violence against blacks. This also attracted the likes of  race-baiter  Al Sharpton, who continues to monetarily profit by stoking the fires of racism and black vicitimism. Well the DOJ report is in and it categorically refutes the  "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative, placing Michael Brown as instigator and controller of his own destiny. The left then adds insult to injury by claiming blacks have a right to the false narrative because of the discrimination they have experienced at the hands of the police; that it is the fault of the police that the false narrative was embraced. It would seem that the police internal affairs have enough trouble trying to investigating what might be real claims of police misconduct, then have to defend themselves from imaginary police conduct.

 "According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway," the inquiry states, "Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground...There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,'' the report concludes. DOJ Ferguson Inquiry; Another interesting point is the majority of honest witnesses that testified to the truth had been constantly threatened to lie and maintain the falsehood of the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative. Ferguson Grand Jury Witnesses often Cited Fear in Testifying.  But this is certainly no surprise to anyone. The left, in league with the main street media has made an art form out of fabricating narratives and stoking the fires of racial unrest. Who can forget the New York Times describing George Zimmerman a white Hispanic, in order to make the Trayvon Martin shooting a black/white issue; and NBC alters a 911 audio tape to make it sound like George Zimmerman was a racists. It's no great secret that a large percentage of American blacks have been relegated to live in isolated black identified neighborhoods that offer more violence, weaker schools and fewer jobs than  whites of the same economic class; and this is where black cognitive dissidence  comes in. Democrats have continually given blacks nothing more then lip service, keeping them marginalized by maintaining their victim mentality and taking for granted the black voting block while they turn their attention to Unions and court liberal rich political donors.

The big lie from the left is how the police discriminate against blacks and due to institutional racism the black man can not succeed in America today. While racism has not disappeared, the police still go where the crimes are being committed and socioeconomic reality of blacks is they commit more crimes than whites. It is not racism that holds the black community down, it is the result of the systematic destruction of the black family and the left passing off black crime as acceptable civil disobedience (not to mention the misogyny of gangster rap) . Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. It's much easier to blame the cops than to face the reality that progressive social engineering with the black community has been a disaster.

 If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police...Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger  Dangerous Distortions of Cops Shooting Blacks. Instead the left continues to forward the "Hands up, don't shoot" fallacy; that young unarmed black men are being routinely murdered by the police, when the fact is it's a very rare occurrence; in a country of 300 million people, one might be surprised to learn that the number of (ruled) justifiable killings by police (which is the vast majority) is usually less than 400. So, considering the social and racial damage done,  the attempted coercion of witnesses to lie and the fact that the powers that be knew it was a false narrative, "Hands up, don't shoot" is certainly the leading candidate for the biggest lie of 2014.

Climate Change Models Faulty Due to "Confirmation Bias"

In a blog, a Man Made Climate Change zealot bemoaned the fact that,  "It's so sad that science isn't allowed to say "proven" after being 99% certain for 34 years without achieving the climate action needed to SAVE THE PLANET." editorial-march-1-2015-

Previously I wrote: The argument has never been about whether man is affecting the atmosphere; of course he has. For hundreds of years it has been observed that smoke from coal fires have raised the temperatures in London, by creating a warming blanket in the atmosphere. The question is what is the extent of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC)? Most of the 97% consensus studies didn't even contact the scientists and were based on very faulty criteria. We already know that predictions of MMCC by zealots like Al Gore were incredibly overstated; and most the climate computer models are not that less fantastic. The truth is no one knows. The only way to calculate the extent that man is affecting Climate Change is by the very computer studies that have been churning out faulty information for the past 10 years or so. What we do know is carbon credits are a scam designed solely to raise taxes and rationalize global governance. While “People tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their world view,” Governments have also used science to justify oppression and tyranny. And so it goes..

This was my response to the zealot..

It isn't science's job to save the planet or make the world believe anything. Science is also not a democratic process were the majority rules; it should be noted that the most spectacular scientific discoveries were believed by a small minority before they became generally accepted. Further, Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) has shown itself to be a political movement verging on religious dogma, which is often defined as "confirmation bias". "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs".

Further as I said before, while climate change is accepted science, as is MMCC to a lesser degree, there is absolutely no consensus on to what degree man is affecting the climate. As a matter of fact, the corner stone of MMCC, the raising levels of man created C02 causing global warming, has been called into question. For 18 years there has been no substantial global warming, even though C02 levels have continued to rise. It seems all the climate change computer models were based on the relationship between rising C02 levels and the raising global temperatures of the 1990's and the models have simply not been able explain the pause in global warming while C02 is still on the rise. But rather than question their global warming dogma, they have created other unsubstantiated theories to explain it without putting their theories into question (like the disproved theory that planet heat was hiding deep in the ocean; yes, ignoring physics by saying hot water sank below colder water). Another obvious example of confirmation bias. It isn't the point that science is not allowed to say "proven"; the point is that saying anything is proven is not science (in other words to wish science could declare a theory proven is wishing for the end to science); it's usually a political entity looking for a rationalization for oppression and tyranny.

Boycott Liam Neeson's "Run All Night"

Liam Neeson plays a ex-CIA agent that is continually using his "very particular skill set" in the movies, making good his threat,  "I will look for you, I will find you and I will kill you;" usually with guns a blazing. In other words in the real world, the  Liam Neeson character is a psychotic killer, looking to kill other psychotic killers, all in the name of entertainment, for which he gets paid millions of dollars ($20 million for his latest move Taken 3). So what does Liam Nelson think of America's Constitution?  "There’s too many fucking guns out there! ..Especially in America. I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a fucking disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools’." What are you talking about Liam? Gun violence in the US has been on the decline; by 50% in the last 20 years. Further, while certainly a tragedy, children being killed by guns in the US is an aberration; the real culprit is the court system's failure to aggressively enforce the current gun laws that already exist both state and federally. 

So does Liam Neeson  take any responsibility for the effect that his extreme violence in movies has had on society? No he simply chooses to ignore numerous studies show that children exposed to repeated violence can become desensitized to violence? "After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie theaters when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drinking pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the Coliseum."  Are We Conditioning Our Children to Commit Murder?


Liam Neeson's arrogant self serving response speaks volumes of his hubris,  A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it's fantasy. It's in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn't mean they're all going to go out and go, 'Yeah, let's get a gun!  Sorry, Neeson but study after study says you are wrong and you are just rationalizing away any responsibility you have for the gun violence you portray with moral abandonment in your movies. Liam-Neeson-launches-expletive

To illustrate this, eOne Movies created a map to provide a handy rundown of all the countries and the number killed, just in case you were wondering like. There’s even a method key, for a more detailed insight into his characters’ murderous ways.

 http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/liam-neeson-kill-map-1688438-Sep2014/

 Gun Maker, PARA USA (whom supplied the guns for Taken 3) I think summed it up quite nicely,  “comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties."

I will admit that I have enjoyed Liam Neeson's movies, but I have suddenly lost all interest in seeing them. It is obvious that America Exceptionalism is totally lost on someone that was raised in another country.  American Exceptionalism is not about a people believing their country superior, contrary to the President Obama once again misstating and then apologizing for an American world view he continually demonstrates he simply doesn't understand; unlike any other country, America was originated with the concept of self rule, individual rights and freedom (that makes America the exception to every other country, better by American standards, but certainly not superior). And just because someone is rich and famous, it doesn't give him opinions any more weight than any other non-American that thinks their worldview is superior (just ask Piers Morgan). It needs to be shown that if you come to America and talk trash about our liberties, it's going to cost you.

California Blocks All New Gun Sales with Microstamping Mandate

As of Jan 1, 2015 no Handgun Manufacturer will be allowed to sell any new model handgun in California; the reason being the new Microstamping mandate and the fact that no handgun manufacturer in the US uses the technology. While I'm sure that those that against the lawful ownership of handguns are cheering with delight, the end result is new and safer guns will not be available in California Microstamping is a process where identifying characters are engraved on the head  of the firing pin of a handgun, with the hope that it will leave an impression on the primer of a casing, so law enforcement can identify a handgun that was used in a crime. While the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) originally showed interest in the technology,  they now express concern over the "hasty implementation" as  "peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds". California Police Chiefs Association Calls for Firearms Microstamping Study

To date, Glock, Ruger, Smith and Wesson have already said they will not sell new handguns guns in California rather than invest in what is was deemed a faulty technology in 2007 that can be defeated by criminal in seconds (It should be noted that Law enforcement is exempted from the mandate as they are constantly upgrading their officers firearms, which these days are about 80% Glock; apparently civilians don't rank high enough to be able to purchase newer and safer firearms) and there has also been limited research and/or development of the technology. The only reason Microstamping has become mandatory is the patent has run out, while gun manufactures and law enforcement have serious reservations, the California Legislators apparently do not. Further even though that patent has run out, the proprietary machinery owned by the developer, NanoMark of Seattle, Washington, makes it still the only company from which the Microstamping technology can be purchased. "Two trade groups, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against what the groups perceive as an attempt to ban semi-automatic handguns in the state." The court issued a decision on May 21, 2014 that denied NSSF and SAAMI’s preliminary injunction request to stop the state from enforcing the new law. The court found that they failed to establish a reasonable probability that they will success on the merits of their case." However this was before the largest firearm manufactures declared they are not going to build a faulty system into their pistols and have been resigned to the fact that they will not be able to serve the California market with their new and often safer handguns; this may result in another attempt to force an injunction. Now this does not mean that Californians will not be able to purchase handguns, there are hundreds of models on California's Department of Justice (DOJ) gun list, it's just new models that have been made illegal by this law.

Finally it is worth noting that California has dozens of gun safety laws that the legislature simply refuses to fund. Included is a law that allows the California DOJ to track down gun owners that made legal purchases of handguns or assault rifles, but have since become ineligible from owning them due to mental illness or a criminal conviction. Unfortunately of the 20,000 illegal gun owners on the list, with some 40,000  illegally possessed firearms in California, only about 2000 have had their firearms confiscated; and around 3,000 are added to the list every year. California Unable to Disarm 19,700 felons and Mentally Ill People 

ISIS Soldiers Are Not Looking For a Job

 President Obama has been preaching, the cause of ISIS terrorism is poverty and the lack of jobs in the middle east.  The problem with this naivete is western non-secular solutions will not work in the collective religious societies of Eastern Islam.  A Muslims life is to worship and humble their self before god; it is a life of service, charity and austerity. Islam simply doesn't fit the consumer/capitalism mold. In the United States poverty and unemployment often leads to criminal behavior, but in Islam, poverty (or austere living) is more often than not a choice, so as not be distracted by unnecessary possessions that get between man and his God (this is also an early Christian belief).In other words Muslims don't join ISIS becasue they are looking for a well paying job with good benifits.

In a society that is dedicated to the worship of god, community and service, everyone has his place and there is always something to do; each according to their ability, each according to their contribution.*  Unemployment and poverty simply do not have the same meaning in eastern Islam as it does in the west. And it is liberty, freedom of thought, consumerism and western education that, in a Christian context, are the four horsemen of the apocalypses of Islam. Islam is a religion the decided itself from the 13th century that science (discovering the structure of the natural world without divine regulation) was an anathema that needed to be fought so Islam can survive. To suggest the same as an answer to radical Jihad, is much the same as offering Americans another chance at British tyranny.

* There are two of these clever sayings that are meant to define Communists. The first (which I used to describe Islam) describes the Communists Dictatorship for the purposes of re-education, which places a priority on collectivism and working for the benefit of the state (in the case of Islam it is to the benefit of Allah); "each according to their ability, each according to their contribution. Once the re-education has been successful and the second revolution has occurred that frees the people from the yoke of the oppressive dictatorship and collectivism, the people will  finally be free to enjoy life on their individualists terms; a paradise described as "each according to their ability; each according to their needs". This might explain why the left has been the constant apologists for Islam, despite the carnage being waged by radical Islamic.

Violent Extremisim is Islam

Why does President Obama refuse to relent and admit that what the President describes as violent extremism in the world (that is operating in the "name" of Islam), is actually radical Islam (aka radical Jihad)? The most obvious answer is the President is an apologist to the west (particularly in the US) for Islam, continuing what has been called his war on reality. Does one really believe that President Obama did not know the importance of the French "Freedom of Speech" march, where the US was conspicuously absent?  Instead we have a President who view on free speech seems more in line with Muslim clerics than the first Amendment. Remarking to the video tape that was wrongfully blamed on the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya in  Benghazi, Jay Carney said,“Obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. Obama Speech on Paris Attacks This compared to British cleric Anjem Choudary “Muslims love the Messenger Muhammad (saw) more than their parents, children and even themselves!” “Why don’t people understand?...Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!” Free Speech Doesn't Extend to the Prophets of Allah Even the Pope has entered the subect of free speech "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others...They are provocateurs...There is a limit." Vatican: Pope's Charlie Hebdo Comments do not Justify Attack. Certainly Jay Carney and the Pope qualified their remarks, but freedom of speech can not be qualified by who it will offended.  The only qualification to free speech is speech or actions created for the principal purpose of creating the same unnecessary, immediate and catastrophic fear and/or panic. In other words freedom of speech is the qualification; no ifs, ands or buts.

Yes the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but radical Islam has been an integral part of Islam since the beginning.  Perhaps a bigger question, where is the out cry from the billions of peaceful Muslims after Jihadists violence has lead to death and dismemberment throughout the world?  Certainly the large majority of the billion (plus) Muslims in the world are attracted to that part of Islam that preaches the peaceful devotion to their god Allah through the five bases of the Islamic faith: shahada (confession of faith), salat (prayer), zakat (almsgiving), sawm (fasting, especially during the month of Ramadan), and hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). But once one moves beyond the basic observance of Islam, the more radical one becomes. While the majority of Muslims do not agree with the violence of radical Jihad, they still recognize it is a legitimate aspect of Islam, and as the very meaning of Muslim is to "submit", they are hesitant to speak out against it.

 The origins of Islam was to bring warring tribes together under a single belief system, hence one is also faced with the fiery writings of Mohammad, the Koran and Sharia law that define a strict code of conduct and punishments for violating these codes; and since these behaviors and punishments come from 1000 year old documents, they reflect the misogyny and barbarity of the time.

"Islam’s success may also have been due to its ability to transcend nations and races, its provision of a common language and its moral code which provided a great advance over tribal culture, assisting commercial relations, trade and trust between traders. In addition its monetary and accounting systems and legal code were useful in adjudicating financial contracts and disputes. This expansion in trade, as well as the open intellectual environment of early Islam, gave rise to the wealth of its civilization.

The Abbasid dynasty, which ruled from Baghdad from 750 to 1258, provided the peak of Islamic civilization. In the 9th century the collective sayings and interpretations of the early caliphs were recorded in the hadith. The Abbasid’s greatest achievements were in the area of philosophy, science and mathematics, in which they led the world. They studied, preserved and translated the Greek classics. The Muslim world is justifiably proud of its achievements in this regard. Muslim scholars provided major contributions to mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, physics and medicine. This was a civilization that surpassed all others in its prosperity and achievement.

In the pre-enlightenment of the 13th Century, the theologians of the Catholic church (ie St Thomas Aquinas)  began to write about how human beings have the natural capacity to discover knowledge about the world without divine revelation; in other words god works through individuals just as it works through the church. This was a time when Islam had reached it's peak This planted the seeds for the eventual acceptance of scientific thought, however Islam was conspicuously absent.

"Muslim scholars argue that Quran urges quest for knowledge of nature by observation, and this inspired the development of scientific method by Muslims. However in the 12th century when Muslim philosophers began to suggest that truth itself may be revealed by empirical observation as well as from the Quran, there was a religious crackdown, the gate of ijtihad was closed and scientific research largely ceased in the Muslim world. It was eventually pursued in Europe, but not without resistance from religious authorities there. The start or the 13th century saw the beginning of the relative decline of Islamic civilization. This decline was not caused by outside forces. It was not caused by a lack of dedication to Islam. It was caused by Islam itself. This is because rejection of science and scientific method was rejection of what was to later become the main driving force in industrial prosperity.

Scientific research in the Muslim world declined and the intellectual environment became inhospitable to the open and honest exchange of ideas. The craft guilds, which also existed in Europe, may have been more successful under Islam in preserving their monopolies, excluding competition and product improvement. Craftsmen were granted higher status than merchants, and were able to restrict the idea of free competition. There was a feeling in the Muslim world that improvement was unnecessary, except perhaps in the technology of warfare. Gradually all the advancements known to the Muslim world passed to Europe, where the knowledge was eventually utilized to greater effect. Prosperity and the rise and fall of Islam

In other words while the minions of Allah want to live a loving and peaceful life, it is the clerics that enforce the strict code of behavior that is intrinsic  to Islam that are driving radical Jihad.  This was exactly what Egyptian President  Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was talking about in his speech to called for a "religious revolution" in which Muslim clerics and IMAMs take the lead in rethinking the direction Islam has taken recently.

 "I am referring here to the religious clerics. … It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Islamic world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!..."That thinking — I am not saying 'religion' but 'thinking' — that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It's antagonizing the entire world! ... All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective...Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Egypt's President Urges Muslim Clerics to End Violent Islamic Ideology, Lead Peaceful 'Religious Revolution' in Groundbreaking Speech