Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

While you weren’t looking, the Obama administration made sure not to let a crisis go to waste and the SECDEF opened all combat positions in the military to women.

Washington (CNN)All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men — including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

“This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They’ll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

They won’t meet the standards because the current standards are “too high”.  Once the standards are lowered (or men not wanting to be accused of sexism let failures pass) they won’t contribute to the mission because they’ll be – by definition – substandard, and they won’t be able to drive tanks, give orders, or lead infantry soldiers into combat as well as the men currently in those jobs.  Also, the men who come in after the adjusted standards will also be substandard.  The entire military will suffer.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said.

Carter’s historic announcement comes after years-long reviews, and after public push-back from the Marine Corps, which had sought exceptions to keep positions such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support and reconnaissance to men. A Marine Corps study suggests all-male squads are more effective in combat and less likely to be injured than integrated groups.

Carter acknowledged the Marines’ resistance, but said he’d decided to set a policy that covers the full department.

“We are a joint force, and I’ve decided to make a decision that applies to the entire force,” Carter said.

He will never be laying in the street bleeding and needing someone to carry him to safety.

“Moving forward,” Dunford said, “my focus is to lead the full integration of women in a manner that maintains our joint warfighting capability, ensures the health and welfare of our people, and optimizes how we leverage talent across the Joint Force.”

Ah, moving forward – the relentless march of progressivism.  It will not maintain warfighting capability, will not ensure health and welfare, and will not “optimize leveraging talent”.

He acknowledged that “some service members, men and women, have a perception that integration would be pursued at a cost of combat effectiveness.”

And they’re correct.  Combat effectiveness is meaningless to a man who will never face combat and whose world consists of what’s best for the party.

However, Carter said: “The military has long prided itself on being a meritocracy.”

It’s only been a partial meritocracy recently, and now it’s not a meritocracy at all.

Standards will drop, combat effectiveness will fall, the hard scientific biological differences of men and women will be ignored in the name of progressively harming the US and all its institutions, and the military and the US will suffer.

blog us light inf

There’s been so much about this in the last couple days, and I’ve read so many news stories that just to keep some of the running stories, data, info, and editorials/reactions together, I’m going to dump a bunch in one big field day post.

Right now, reporters are going through the home of the terrorists, because while other mass killers have their homes sealed off for weeks while they’re searched, this one has been breached by the media a couple days after the event.

“I don’t know what’s going on,” Deputy Olivia Bozek, a spokesperson for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department told Grasswire by phone. “That is not a cleared crime scene. There’s still an active investigation going on.”

There are reports about a neighbor seeing Arab men going in and out of the house at all hours of the night, but that the neighbor didn’t report it for fear of being called racistAgain, the kind of self-censorship that makes people not believe their own eyes:

A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said.  “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”

And now the media has gone through the house and trashed it digging up anything they want to get their mitts on, meaning that any fingerprints of any other suspects will not be found.

It’s led to some speculation already that the whole investigation is being handled in a shoddy way in order to taint evidence and deflect away from the fact that these terrorists were in fact terrorists.  Mass killers like the killers from Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, had their homes sealed for weeks while authorities went through those homes with fine-toothed combs.  Here we have many reports of other suspects and the crime scene is being destroyed.

The female terrorist, Tashfeen Malik, pledged loyalty to ISIS just before the attack.

And it is terrorism with all the hallmarks of an ISIS attack – the name Tashfeen Malik also has some interesting history discussed at the link.

We’ll also probably never see the video from the terrorists’ GoPro cameras, which were reported widely and then suddenly disappeared.  That’s an odd thing for a police department to report and then turn around and deny.

The idea of this being a directed failure by the FBI; allowing the crime scene to be destroyed might not be too far off the mark.  The political ramifications can be pretty severe, as easily illustrated:

ca san bernadino shooting safe from isis

When the president declares that we’re safe from the junior varsity team after they pull off a successful terrorist attack in a western capitol and then they proceed to pull off one in the US the same day… it makes him look phenomenally incompetent to the low-info people who still think he actually cares about the country, and it makes some of them start questioning why he’d let that happen.

I guess the photoshop offensive of putting ducks on the faces of ISIS fighters didn’t work so well.

The Daily Beast has a piece that gives some timeline, but leaves out a lot of relevant data – some of it not known at the time, some of it due to simple political bias.  It sums up with this:

Other plots have reminded us that we are at war. This one tells us that we are in a war like no other, a war in which a couple drops their baby with grandma, then goes to a holiday party to murder co-workers who not long ago threw them a baby shower.

At war with what exactly?  You better not say at war with jihadis or islamists!

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, (Attorney General) Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

Well, at least her greatest fear isn’t global warming anymore.  Now it’s people who talk bad about muslims.

Of course, you’d best not talk to muslims in any way that might offend them, because then it’s your fault they killed you:

The media response has mostly been the standard leftist response – “ban all guns”, with an emphasis on blaming the NRA for everything.

nra blamed for actions none of its members commit

For example: “Why does the NRA allow guns for terrorists?”  First off, the NRA doesn’t allow anything, because the NRA doesn’t control anything.  The government allows or disallows – and the people allow or disallow the government.

In light of the horrific shooting in San Bernardino, California, that killed at least 14 people, President Barack Obama spoke on Wednesday about the need to reform gun laws.

He also added, “For those who are concerned about terrorism of, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no fly list where people can’t get on planes, but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them.”

There are 700,000 people on the terrorist watch list, and when these people tried to legally purchase guns, they had a success rate of 91%.

“Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” the GAO warned back in 2010.

This situation has a simple solution: Pass a law that stops known and suspected terrorists from buying guns.

I mentioned some of this yesterday, but being suspected of being a terrorist can be as simple as having a name like a terrorist… which happened to former Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy.  It also means that the government has a secret list that you can be added to arbitrarily and have your rights taken away with no explanation.

Even if one were to ignore the ramifications of basically making a right that “shall not be infringed” into one that is constantly and totally infringed, it’s worth looking at “would it have helped?”  In the case of the two San Bernadino terrorists, they weren’t on watch lists.  They weren’t on no-fly lists.  The proposed change would have done nothing to stop them.

Much like laws proposed after Dylan Roof killed people in a church in South Carolina after buying a gun illegally – he lied on the form 4473 (the background check) – and the FBI didn’t do their job and catch it – there’s nothing that any of these new laws would do to change things.  Stopping 700,000 people on a secret watch list from exercising a constitutional right without any kind of due process or oversight is not only abhorrent, but also it wouldn’t have even worked.

Of course, the point is to push for greater and greater rules for confiscation and disarming the American public.  As long as the US citizenry is armed, the worst oppression of the left are stymied.

And it is the same thing every time, because it’s the only chance the left has:

For as long as Obama and co. can conflate the question “Do you want more gun control?” with “Are you upset about what just happened?” they are able to win the day. But, once the two are separated, they lose – and badly. Why did we hear the same calls throughout yesterday’s saga, regardless of the forthcoming facts? Because, to the zealots and the bores, a mass-shooting news-cycle does not represent a source of perpetually changing information, but a static propaganda battle to be fought and won. It was only a matter of time before fortune put his hostages out on parade.

Among other things, the media’s mass shooting count is mostly bullshit.  Interestingly, numbers I heard yesterday from a right-leaning source that took leftist data and compiled it differently found that while the US dwarfed most European nations in mass shootings, with the US at roughly 330 since 2001 and individual European nations far behind it, if you combined most European nations to represent a much more similar population 500 million for the whole EU (though I think they took most populous nations instead), you get a much less crazy sounding US at 330 and EU at 360.

On the flipside of the coin, one of the other issues that has been brought up is the problem of lack of enforcement of existing laws.  The gang violence half of killings in the US comes in no small part from people with clean records becoming straw purchasers and buying guns illegally for someone else (again lying on the 4473) – a crime that is rarely prosecuted.

…data from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent — or 76,000 — were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally.

“If the prosecution of people lying on forms is really a priority for the president, then all he has to do is say, ‘I want my federal law enforcement officials to prosecute these kinds of cases,'” former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Fox News. “Obviously there is a different level of priority given to these type of crimes in this administration compared with other administrations.”

Could just enforce the laws.  That would slowly make a difference in the day-to-day violence in the country.

But for a final piece from the media, rather than some reasoned comments, let’s go to what usually happens after a mass shooting – idiots masquerading as experts and making the public stupider:

It’s downright moronic the whole time he’s talking, but the worst is around the 1:30 mark.  Shorter version here.

“Manufacturers are allowed to build them that way with what’s called a bullet button and it’s just a – you take the tip of a button – a bullet and you press a button and it turns your semi-automatic legal weapon into an illegal assault weapon.”

This is so absurdly wrong, and would’ve taken three seconds to learn about.

In normal states, you can press the mag release button with your finger to drop the magazine from the firearm:

ar mag release button

But California has a patchwork of ridiculous gun laws.  Without wading into them much, among them are limits on what firearms can have detachable magazines; as detachable magazines count as a “feature” towards being an illegal “assault” weapon to the state of CA.  Magazines that have to be removed with a tool don’t count as detachable, so a manufacturer solution was to come up with a mag release button that requires a tool… in this case, using a bullet as a tool to remove it.

bullet button armalite

Then you could have mostly the same rifle in California, even though you couldn’t change magazines quickly.  It has nothing at all to do with changing a rifle from semi-auto to full-auto.

But it sure has something to do with the media being stupid.

Saw this ad by Colion Noir today.  Rather timely with regards to the San Bernadino terrorist attack, and a rebuttal to all those who are calling for disarmament of American citizens based on the illogical tyranny of a spurious list.

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

– William S. Burroughs

It’s from the Duffelblog, a comedy/parody military news site, so it is a made up story, but it’s also pretty much true.  For those who missed the setup, read here about Sgt Maj LeHew discussing the failures of trying to put women into combat roles.  Basically they found out that water is wet, despite trying their damnedest to find the opposite under political pressure.

QUANTICO, Va. — Sgt. Maj. Justin LeHew was notified this week that he will receive an other than honorable discharge from the Marine Corps, sources report, after LeHew recently ruined his career by releasing negative study results instead of destroying them.

LeHew, the Sergeant Major of Marine Corps Training and Education Command, made the career ending move last month, by publicly releasing the methodology and results of a study that found gender-integrated infantry units performed worse than all male ones.

In his publicly-visible Facebook post, LeHew said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus was “way off base” in his comments on women in the infantry, also adding that he was “unfair to women who participated in the study.” Since his remarks, LeHew has been “unavailable for comment,” reportedly chained in the basement of the Commandant’s home, sources say.

“His mistake was announcing facts,” Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper (Ret.) said. “When faced with facts contrary to what the military and Congress wants, the facts must be changed. It’s standard procedure.”

Van Riper was speaking from experience. In 2002 he was the opposing general in the 2002 Millennium Challenge, where he led an inferior foe to victory against American forces. The exercise was started over with rule changes to ensure Van Riper could not win again.

The Millenium Challenge is worth reading about at their link.  While the quotes attributed to Van Riper are made up for humor purposes in the story… the story of the Millenium Challenge is not.

Not all negative results are supressed. A study found that despite an Army Optimism Program, 52 percent of soldiers had low morale. The Army took quick action to solve this problem by lowering the threshold of what it considered an unhappy soldier. Now only 9 percent of soldiers have low morale.

That would be funnier were it not for being basically what’s been done with (as one example) employment numbers by the Obama administration.  Redefine someone who’s unemployed as “no longer participating in the labor force” and then you don’t count them as unemployed.

Via AEI, a study from the Arab Center for Research and Policy studies:

ISIS poll syria 1511

…a disturbing subset of 13% of Syrian refugees say their view of ISIS is “positive” or “positive to some extent.”

Yeah, I’d say that’s disturbing.  That’s 1 out of 8 admitting they have a positive view of ISIS.  I’d wonder what the actual numbers are, because the poll may well be tainted by skepticism of the pollster.  Saying “yes, I like ISIS” to a pollster you don’t know could be an easy way to get your house hit by a drone strike, so I suspect the numbers are probably lower than reality.

On the other hand, an important nuance of this is that there may also be some in the “positive to some extent” category who hate Assad more than they do ISIS, or who loathe Sykes-Picot and the effects of it enough that they don’t mind ISIS breaking down borders.  They could also be the kind of people who think that ISIS is justified in their terrorist attacks, like US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Either way, 1 out of 8 admitting to positive views of the Islamic State should be a warning to any nation opposed to the Islamic State that it’s unwise to bring in swarms of Syrian refugees.

That’s yet another example of why so many people in the US are opposed to importing Syrian “refugees”.

The Democrats have taken this opportunity to use it to push their favorite agenda – disarming the American people.

Via HotAir:

It looks like Senate Democrats are going to try to attach a new gun law onto the Republican bill trying to do more oversight on Syrian refugee entry into the U.S. Washington Examinerreports Democrats may try to slip that in the refugee bill next week.

The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of Nov. 30. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to decide whether he’ll allow it.

Of course.  They never stop.

The Democrat idea is that anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list should be disallowed from owning a gun.  Which sounds great, until you consider that it’s depriving someone of their Constitutional rights with no recourse, no trial, no conviction, and no knowledge of what’s happened or why.

The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

You don’t get told you’re on the list and if you’re a person of normal means you can’t get off the list.

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list in 2004 and it took him a month to get off the list – and that’s as one of the most connected, influential people in the US at the time.

U.S. Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government’s secret “no-fly” list. …

“That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list — it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list,” said Reginald T. Shuford, senior ACLU counsel. “Someone of Senator Kennedy’s stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He had to call three times himself.”

A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays. After the first few incidents, his staff called the Transportation Security Administration, which maintains the no-fly list. But even after those discussions about getting his name removed, the senator was stopped again, according to Kennedy spokesman David Smith. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finally called to apologize about the mix-up, and the delays stopped in early April, Smith said.

“If his name got on the list in error, is that happening to other citizens and are they experiencing such difficulty in resolving the problem?” Smith said.

Good luck to the average citizen if they find the secret system has secretly chosen them for targeting:

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists…

This is an issue where the Democrats can scream that anyone opposed to their “common sense gun control” scheme is supporting terrorism, when really we’re just opposed to the idea of a totally unaccountable secret government system that disarms the citizenry with no recourse… which is exactly what they’re asking for.

And of course, as is pointed out at the Federalist, the government could already stop terrorists from buying firearms legally:

All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorist certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm.

But this isn’t about going after terrorists (as one example, otherwise the Tsarnaev brothers would’ve been kicked out of the country after Russia warned us about them being terrorists), this is about going after you.

Can the states reject them?  Judge says legally “no”, and says if you offer any services or welfare to anyone, you have to offer it to everyone – including aliens and refugees.

The Judge also points out that last time Obama tried to dump “refugees” on states, he’s been held up in courts.  Problem with that is that the illegal aliens from those groups – the imported teenager “children” swarms from Central America – are still here, and the longer they stay, the harder it is to remove them.  Since the 1960s or so when Ted Kennedy was part of a movement to create chain migration – the idea of working with “families” in a touchy-feely way that was intended to garner sympathy and import Democrat voters – the immigration system hasn’t been about what’s good for the country, it’s been about what’s good for Democrats who have been able to manipulate the laws over and over.

The 50,000 interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan that actively helped US forces there aren’t being helped along, in part because Democrats know they’re not going to vote for Democrats (either legally after they get citizenship or illegally when given bus rides from polling place to polling place by ACORN).

The answer to this whole mess from governors is to do exactly what the left has been doing in illegal alien sanctuary cities.  Illegal alien sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, have ignored federal immigration law and have left their citizens at the mercy of illegal aliens who’ve killed American citizens.  Most recently in San Fran was the case of Kathryn Steinle, murdered by an illegal alien criminal who’d been deported multiple times and the city wouldn’t turn in for deportation.  In 2008, again in San Fran, an illegal alien criminal was released by the city and allowed to murder a father and his two sons.

All of those actions by cities are violations of immigration law.  If cities ignore and violate federal law in order to allow citizens to be murdered, it stands to reason that states could just as easily ignore the same federal laws in order to protect citizens from murder.

Since yesterday, over half of US governors are refusing resettlement of Syrian “refugees”.

A drumbeat of opposition against allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. intensified Monday as more than half the country’s governors, citing security concerns, said they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees into their states following the Paris attacks, which President Obama said “would be a betrayal of our values.” …

By late Monday, states refusing Syrian refugees included Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

It’s not a “betrayal of our values” to the US to refuse refugees who we view as security concerns.  It’s not a betrayal of US values to refuse entrance to actual immigrants we view as security concerns.  It is denying Obama his ability to ship future Democrat voters and ideological opponents to the US into the US in order to further “fundamentally change” the US and destabilize and balkanize the US.  But as Jim Quinn is fond of saying “we have elected the enemy”.  If you keep in mind that Obama’s ideology is to weaken the nation, suddenly it all makes sense.

The US has a long history of refusing admission to people that are antithetical to US interests.  The Wikipedia entry is biased, but the historical point is still made:

Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”[34] This is essentially a political test,[35] though it “should be construed … in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience.”[36] The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: “Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution.”[37] Even still, the ideological requirement is “nebulous”;[38] it begs the questions of what the “basic form of government of the United States” is and what the key “principles of the Constitution” are to which the applicant must subscribe.

Like I said, biased – the last sentence gives it away.  The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, and key principles include the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself plus the Bill of Rights.

The US has restricted entry to communists, anarchists, polygamists, and other classes that are viewed as antithetical to US interests, security, culture, etc.  In short, you don’t invite people in who you don’t want in.

There’s been a major discussion in recent years of how Islam isn’t just a religion, but is also a political, governmental, and social system that’s outlined by the Koran.  Sharia law, which many muslims favor, comes directly from the Koran.  Sharia law is antithetical to the Constitution.  And when you look at populations who support it:

pew muslim research sharia lawWhy would you want to import people from countries whose populations believe in eradicating your rights, liberties, and system of government and replacing it with a rigid, violent, authoritarian patriarchal theocracy?

Answer for Obama and Valerie Jarrett and his crew is “fundamental change” of the country that they set out to bring low in order to make things “more fair” for the world by making the US a third world country… but for anyone else who lives here who isn’t an ideological leftist?

That objection to bringing in refugees is just considering the cultural shift that will harm the nation slowly, rather than immediate security concerns of bringing in radicals.

Another quick note on “radical” vs “moderate” muslims as a crybully activist interrupts a forum that wasn’t actually discussing Islam in order to say how discussing something peripheral to Islam is islamophobic:

Ted Cruz is discussing offering up a bill that will curtail importation of Syrian refugees into the US.  His main reason is security concerns.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has struck back at President Obama’s implication that his rejection of Syrian refugees is “shameful,” telling CNN he will be introducing legislation banning Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.

“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash in Charleston, S.C., on Monday.

“I have to say particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”

Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.

“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz responded.

“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”

The US blocked active communists from entry.  If you were forced to be a member of the party in order to eat, it wasn’t held against you.  If you were a member of the party because you chose to be, you were blocked.  If you supported communism, you were blocked.  If you lived in an oppressive nation where membership was mandatory in order to get your bread ration, the US understood that you lived in an oppressive nation that forced you to either join or starve.

“When I hear folks say that, ‘Maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims,’ when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” Obama said.

Maybe we should just admit the refugees who are peaceful and fleeing conflict and who are not avowed members of a political/religious sect that demands an authoritarian theocracy that executes gays for the crime of living.  Maybe we should have some kind of test to see who’s actually willing to commit to wanting to support US principles and is seeking freedom from oppression and not admit the people who are members of that same political/religious sect that demands authoritarian theocracy and is sworn to eradicate the Jews and convert everyone else to their ideology by the sword.

Maybe we could say and do that in response to his “shame on you for not agreeing with my intentionally destructive plan” garbage.

Keep in mind that we don’t keep tabs on who’s in the country once they get here.

A Syrian refugee relocated to Louisiana has already gone missing, but the group accommodating them isn’t taking responsibility.

WBRZ reports:

WBRZ has learned Catholic Charities helped the refugee who settled in Baton Rouge, but said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don’t know where the refugee went since they don’t track them.

“We’re at the receiving end,” Chad Aguillard, executive director of Catholic Charities, says. “We receive them, we welcome them into our community and help them resettle. There has been a lot of commotion and fear with Syrians. The fear is justified, but we have to check that against reality.”

This has been the case for a while.  Regionally infamous Lutheran charities that pull federal subsidies have been resettling Somalis in Minnesota for decades, including terrorists with links to al Shabaab and Al Qaeda.

I’ll just let a couple of the reader comments from the American Mirror story finish this out:

Oh, we don’t track them, we just bring them in and hand them over to you! Then we walk around with fkking halos over our heads as if we actually did something and then you all have to figure out how to live with them while they start destroying your once-wonderful country. You’re welcome!

refugees tsarnaev boston bombers