Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

ABC News managed to acquire a picture of the San Bernadino terrorists as they entered the country:

ca san bernadino terrorists at the airport

Federal officials around the world today are urgently trying to track the backgrounds and contacts of the newly-married parents of a baby girl who killed 14 people in California last week in a suspected ISIS-inspired attack, as a new photograph emerged showing the future terrorists entering the U.S. together for the first time last year.

The image, apparently taken as the couple moved through customs in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on July 27, 2014 and obtained exclusively by ABC News, shows Tashfeen Malik clad in all black looking directly into the camera as the taller Syed Rizwan Farook stands behind her, black bearded and with a blank expression. It is the most recent photograph of the two to be made public.

It’s a subtle bias of the media to describe them as “newly-married parents of a baby girl” as though to humanize them by comparing them to a traditional family; and at the same time to denigrate the traditional family by making these terrorists into a traditional family.

Americans are taught from an early age not to judge a book by it’s cover.  Problem with that is that there are words on the cover, and those words will sometimes give us an indication of what’s inside the book.  You don’t pick up Ann Coulter’s “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)” and expect it to be some kind of treatise on mathematics.  You don’t pick up a Michael Stackpole Battletech novel and expect it to be a collection of poetry based on the Bhagavad Gita.  You don’t pick up “Mein Kampf” and expect to find a bedtime storybook.

Likewise, you don’t look at those two and think “these are people who really want to come to America and embrace American values and assimilate into American culture”.  These are people who look just like they are.

Offhand, the American muslims I’ve known who’ve wanted to integrate into American culture did so in part by acting like and looking like Americans.  One woman I knew also actively wanted to be American so she and her children would be protected by the American legal system against family members who wanted to murder her for not wanting to be shoved into a force marriage.  She rejected the oppressive culture, rejected being stuck in a forced marriage with a man 40 years her senior, and wanted no part of the culture of those two terrorists.  Others I’ve known go out and start shops and businesses emulating American culture in different ways – bringing positives from their culture to US culture – and bringing a traditional mercantile nature while disregarding the conquest-by-the-sword malice on the negative side of their culture that they’ve left behind not just because they personally dislike it but also because it’s bad for business.

That idea of not judging a book by it’s cover, and by not judging at all, is why the neighbors who saw Arab men going in and out of the house at all times of night didn’t bother to report anything.  They didn’t want to judge a book by it’s cover and be judgemental and racist, so they said nothing… and terrorists attacked because out of the goodness of their dumb little hearts, people won’t call a spade a spade.

The official response is that there is no terrorism here and that anyone who speaks bad about Islam or Muslims or the terrorism that seems to follow wherever they go will be punished by the Attorney General.

Lynch addressed the Muslim Advocate’s tenth-anniversary dinner and declared that she is concerned about an “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric . . . that fear is my greatest fear.” Her greatest fear is — not terrorism — but a nonexistent Islamophobic backlash? ISIS has demonstrated that it can bring down passenger jets, strike the heart of a great Western capitol with urban assault teams, and inspire horrible carnage in California. We also know that ISIS has pledged to keep attacking the U.S. and possesses chemical weapons. Yet it’s politically incorrect speech that strikes fear into the heart of our attorney general.

Doesn’t matter what you’re seeing in front of you – if you observe things that happen repeatedly, begin to make a theory about why they happen, and see that theory pan out as things happen again, it doesn’t mean you’re applying scientific reasoning, it means you’re a racist islamophobe who must be punished for badthink.

Lynch of course has decided to backtrack a bit on her “you are all islamophobes fearing people who are only attacking you because of your violent microaggressions at them and because you’re bigoted against them and that’s why they have to kill you and you deserve it” because her reasoning is so far leftist ideologue that it’s plainly absurd to the run-of-the-mill Mametian-brain-dead liberal:

“We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any particular group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action — and that violent action is what we would have to deal with,” Lynch told journalists at Justice Department headquarters. She also urged Americans “not to give into fear” in the wake of the apparent terrorist attack in California. “So, [what] we’re focused on, obviously, is protecting all of the people under the ambit of the Department of Justice.”

Let’s see… in San Bernadino, Muslim terrorists killed more than a dozen people and their organizations and adherents swear to kill more.  Anti-muslim people killed… zero.

Sure, makes sense to go after the people who might say bad things about the people killing them.

“At this point…we’re not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals,” the attorney general said.

Translation: “I will not blame Islamists for this because even though it’s plainly apparent it’s the reason and the terrorists themselves said as much before they went on their murder spree, I am such a leftist that I can only see them as victims of America and so it must always be America to blame.”

They’re terrorists.  Lynch won’t say it, Obama wouldn’t say it (until the FBI called it terrorism).  To their hard leftist view they steadfastly refuse to understand reality because they’re so ideologically brainwashed they can’t.

Newest thing today is that Syed Farook’s mother was a member of a pro-caliphate group:

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.

To the left, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, has been genetically tested against other ducks and is a perfect 100% DNA match for a duck, then you’re a racist Islamaphobe.

Really, though, when a book is titled “Collected Mujahideen Handbook – From Al Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine: How To Wage Jihad, Build Bombs, and Kill The Kafir” and says so on the cover, it’s probably a reasonable inference that it’s not a biography of Beethoven.

There’ve been other examples of the “they had it coming/they deserved it” theme in the last week, but I think this is probably the worst, a hit piece on a terrorism victim written by a woman with the extremely apt last name Stasi:

Stasi: San Bernardino killers were radical, ISIS-loving monsters — but one of their victims was just as bigoted
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, December 5, 2015, 7:57 PM BY Linda Stasi

They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

Basically the whole piece is: “See!  Muslims and Jews and Christians are the same because that horrible Messianic Jew said bad things on facebook!  That’s why he deserved it!”

One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)

Based on the tone of the article and other writings by Ms. Stasi (for those who don’t know, that name is hilarious… it’s like getting lectured by Ms. Gestapo), I suspect the real reason not to write “Syed Rizwan Farooq and Tashfeen Malik” is not because of a concern about adding fame.

The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.

Bonnie and Clyde were robbers who killed people as part of their chosen criminal profession.  They were not terrorists.

bonnie clyde 1967

They probably also won’t get a Hollywood movie glamorizing them… for at least a few years, anyway.

Pam Geller wrote a blog called Atlas Shrugs for years, and now writes with her own name.  She just writes things that aren’t PC.  As far as I know, she’s never killed anyone, but she’s had people try to kill her because they don’t like what she says.

Frau Stasi’s opinion of Geller has been noted in the past.

Geller, like ISIS and al Qaeda, revel in hate and nothing would make any of them happier than to be the catalyst for the killing of hundreds of innocent Americans to prove a point. Geller would be a hero to the hateful. Damn the cost in innocent lives, damn the heartache.

Don’t think for a minute that violence isn’t what she, just like the murderers of ISIS, want. Suppose there was a contest to draw God in defiance of Jewish laws? Would that be free speech or hate speech? What about cartoons of Jesus with his genitals up in the air?

While we have freedom of speech, we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.

Yeah, imagine if it were so bad that taxpayers had to subsidize some kind of offensive art against JesusOr how about this, if a well-known cartoon show drew Jesus offensively?  Oh yeah, that’s right… if you make fun of Christians or Jews (or Buddhists or Shintos or Animists or Sikhs or atheists or Hindus or deists or Zoroastrians or Pastafarians), they don’t go kill you.

If it weren’t for the tyrannical oppressive patriarchal genocidal theocracy that Islam is and demands throughout much of the world, she wouldn’t care.  It’s the nature of the religious/ideological institution that is Islam that brings its critics.  It’s like how rigid dogmatic Catholicism or more extreme Evangelical Christianity brings in the atheists to criticize it.  Difference is, after he made Dogma, Kevin Smith didn’t end up like Theo Van Gogh.

theo van gogh telegraafFrau Stasi continues:

As Americans, we have the right to mock anybody’s God, yes, but except for the vile few like Pamela Geller, and murderous religious fanatics among us, it’s just not what we do or what we celebrate.

Well, except for shit-tons of musicians.  Trent comes to mind immediately.

All that, in the Stasi’s view, makes people who say bad things basically the same as those who do bad things.

Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that. But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway.

The first part of that opening sentence can be translated as “I have a black friend” used as a shield, followed by the predictable racist comment.  She may as well be saying “as bad as those child-rapists were, those kids were also total brats.”

Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.

His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”

Um… he worked in government.  And most people are anti-government, just different parts of it.  And what’s wrong with being anti-theocratic patriarchy?  Or being pro-individual citizen self-defense rights?  Or opposed to killing infants still in the womb?

This is just Stasi making the victim an “other” and a political opponent.  She can’t critically dissect his positions because someone who’s anti-PP is pro-life and is… well, pro-life – and is opposed to abortion on moral grounds that it’s killing innocent people.  Someone who is for the NRA is for self-defense and is for… well, self-defense – which would be protecting oneself and other good people and defending against bad people who actually have to commit attacks against you first.

Ann Coulter is also a NYT best-selling author.  She’s actually much less “hateful” than she is a cultural provocateur.  She trolls.  People with coherent philosophies and arguments have little to fear from her, because most of her schtick is humor and absurdity.  Those with emotional arguments find themselves pulled in, and easily destroyed.  Those with coherent views defuse her joking invective and then it’s just a regular discussion.  Admittedly her humor is hit-or-miss, even for those who often agree with her.

Factoring in the recent baby-parts-for-cash videos showing Planned Parenthood haggling over prices (a practice they defended against “extremists” and then suddenly stopped… which seems like an odd thing to do if it’s completely above board), comments from somebody with a particularly religious objection to abortion condemning Democrats for supporting abortion providers and making taxpayers subsidize abortions seems not very extreme.  (It doesn’t take much to understand the point if one looks at it a different way, either – if a feminist found out that her tax dollars went to fund abortions for culturally sexist parents from the third world who aborted only girl babies, do you suppose she might be upset at the political party that supports that program?)

Thalasinos’ comment on the scheduled for the Million Muslim March isn’t very far out, either.  The Million Muslim March was even condemned by CAIR (who themselves were co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case, and cry “Islamophobia” almost every time they speak).  And considering the Million Muslim March was supposed to take place on 9/11 (intentionally to offend, but whatevs) in 2013 – it shows you Frau Stasi had to go back two years to find something offensive.

Complaining about politicians being bought & paid for and morons is now bigotry?  Complaining that they’re racist against your ethnic group is bigoted?  Stasi better get going after the Black Lives Matter movement and pretty much every ethnic identity with any kind of advocacy group.  Seriously, the Stasi is saying politicians are a protected class that can’t be criticized now without the critic being a bigot?  Bigoted against what?  Politicians?

Considering that the media will go out of its way to find the absolute worst that people they want to demonize say, and that she had to dig back at least two years for the one line… Thalasinos actually sounds pretty sedate, considering the level of stupidity people post on Facebook.

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry. Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs.

Public bigotry against what?  Against politicians, Democrats, jackass Muslim groups that even far a left terrorist-apologist Muslim group condemns?  Bigoted against the Iranian regime supports global terrorism and shot Neda dead in the street?  Against an institution called out for selling baby parts?  I wasn’t aware those are equated with racism and sexism now and meant the victim deserved it.

Damn, Stasi.  Don’t you know?

full retard

Because you just went.

Even if one were to run with Stasi’s blame-the-victim scheisse and assume that one of the victims somehow deserved it because he disagreed verbally with his murderer, what did the other couple dozen people killed or wounded do to deserve it?

Well, that’s because they made fun of his beard.  No, really:

ca san bernadino shooting made fun of beard

Not sure if I’ve seen that kind of media response before, ever.  I don’t remember CNN having a banner like that during Columbine that said “teens were rejected by their peers”, or one during Newtown that said “First-graders called killer a poopie-head”.

The whole crux of this is the “victim had it coming/victim deserved it”, by showing how horribly oppressed that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were, seeing as how people… made fun of him for his beard… and disagreed with him (and Frau Stasi) and posted things on Facebook.

I am reminded of Evan Sayet’s story of a guy who says “I hate my wife”.  Frau Stasi is that guy.

I scrolled through some of Frau Stasi’s other posts and stumbled on this one, which should serve as another example of why to be wary of any calls to use the no-due-process secret terror watchlist for just about anything, least of all removal of citizens’ rights:

Stasi: State Department must list gun-loving NRA as terrorist organization

One terrorist group is responsible for more civilian deaths since December 2012 (the Sandy Hook massacre) than Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Taliban. Yet it is the only nearly-state sponsored terrorist group that is not listed by the U.S. State Department as such.

It is the National Rifle Association and for their unending lobbying that’s kept a lid on gun control we now have 428 times more American deaths by gun than deaths by foreign terrorists.

Easy as that – list it as a terrorist group, disarm those who resist the state.  Now stand by for a further example of “figures lie, liars figure”:

No? Between 2012 and 2015, according to University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, ISIS has murdered approximately 12,138 civilians, Boko Haram,10,092, the Taliban 9,427 and Hamas, 85.

In that time, Americans have murdered or spree killed via gun and assault rifle, 87,423 people in the United States.

nra blamed for actions none of its members commit

To Frau Stasi, the NRA is worse than ISIS.

Let’s check on that 87,423 number of hers.

The CDC says only 11,000 people were murdered with firearms in 2013.  The FBI says about 8,900 in 2012 and about 8,500 were murdered with firearms in 2013.  Interesting that in 2013 there were 687 people murdered with hands and fists and only 285 murdered with rifles – those evil assault murder guns.

Assuming her numbers are correct at 87,500 (rounding up) people murdered with firearms between 2012 and 2015, and with the FBI able to confirm that only 8,900 and 8,500 were murdered with firearms in 2012 and 2013, then that leaves us with about 70,100 murders for 2014 and 2015… so about 35,000 murders a year, roughly the same number of murders as Nigeria.  Let’s say we roll with the CDC’s number and assume 11,000 for 2012 and 2013, that still leaves us with 55,500 murders for 2014 and 2015 – about 28,000 murders per year (rounding up some more in her favor).

The violent crime rate has been dropping for years, and there weren’t 35,000 murders in 2014 or 2015, nor were there 28,000 murders in 2014 or 2015.  Frau Stasi is full of scheisse.

The (FBI) report says that in 2014 the U.S. recorded the fewest murders since 2009.

What she might be lying about are suicide deaths with firearms. Those numbers account for many deaths, but aren’t indicative of anything but suicides.  Japan, with limited firearms access, has a much higher rate of suicides.

But 21,000 depressed people killing themselves per year isn’t reason to care about mental health to Frau Stasi, while under 9,000 (many of those are dirtbags killing dirtbags, and there are some more that are dirtbags killed by people defending themselves) is reason to have the boot of government stomp on the rights of individuals and leave them defenseless against criminals who will never follow the law, as well as defenseless against governments that will eventually become like… the Stasi.

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

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.

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

From a little while back, something I’m reminded of due to Paris, via HotAir:

The gun used during the attempted terror attack on the “Draw Muhammad” event in Texas may have been bought from the Arizona store linked to Fast and Furious. Los Angeles Timesbroke the news yesterday which also included the nugget that Nadir Soofi’s purchase was known by the federal government (emphasis mine).

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

The terrorist bought his gun from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Arizona.  Lone Wolf was one of the gun dealers the ATF instructed to sell guns to the cartels.

The tapes Issa and Grassley refer to were recorded by Andre Howard, owner of the Lone Wolf Trading Co., after he suspected the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was lying to him about the guns they recruited him to sell to buyers of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Papers reporting this story still refuse to get Fast and Furious right.  The ATF told gun store owners to sell guns to people they knew were illegal buyers – illegal buyers they knew would send guns to Mexico.  The ATF did not have anyone in Mexico to intercept the guns (they did during Operation Wide Receiver in 2007), they simply sent guns south.

But at least the papers are getting the same answers that greeted actual reporters before:

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. “We’re still sorting that out,” he said.

“We’re still sorting that out” is the same answer as “it’s still under investigation so we can’t talk about it and the investigation will remain open forever so we will never talk about it”, which was the standard claim the DOJ used to avoid answering any questions about Fast and Furious, except for the ones covered up by the use of Obama’s executive privilege.

Wonder why he got to purchase guns that he shouldn’t have?  Look no further than the FBI’s involvement assisting the ATF in Fast and Furious, where people who would’ve been denied under NICS (National Instant Check System) and now allowed to buy a firearm were allowed:

In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won’t say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun. …

When asked about the breakdown, Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the NICS System, said the FBI had no comment. However, an ATF agent who worked on the Fast and Furious investigation, told Fox News that NICS officials called the ATF in Phoenix whenever their suspects tried to buy a gun. That conversation typically led to a green light for the buyers, when it should have stopped them.

The ATF was greenlighting criminals to buy guns.  Not something new, but with the terrorist Soofi, it’s a new twist.

Of course it’s a new twist that will result with “no comment” and “ongoing investigation” stonewalling.

It seems I have to do this every time a gunwalker story comes up, but Fast and Furious wasn’t botched.  It did exactly what it set out to do.  It sent guns to the cartels, it “proved” the “Iron River” lie, and it implicated US gun culture as something that needed to be targeted (mind you there are additional reporting requirements now for gun purchases in CA, AZ, NM and TX).

Again:

Operation Wide Receiver used the common law enforcement tactic of “controlled delivery” in which the illegal sales of weapons were allowed to take place, the movements of the weapons were closely monitored and the end purchasers were then apprehended. It involved gun-tracing, not gun-walking.

Under the “controlled delivery” of Wide Receiver, agents didn’t just write down the serial numbers and let the guns disappear as in Fast and Furious. They closely and physically followed the guns from American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.

Most importantly, Wide Receiver was run in close cooperation with Mexican authorities, who were kept in the dark on Fast and Furious.

In contrast ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have testified that they were ordered not to track the weapons and in cases where interdiction was possible they were ordered to stand down and actually watch the weapons walk.

ATF Special Agent John Dodson has testified how in one instance guns were sold to known illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Against orders from his superiors, Dodson kept the stash house under surveillance and when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. His superiors refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance.

Fast and Furious, the gift from Obama and Holder’s ATF that keeps on giving.