Tag Archives: Terrorism

News

If you see something, say something: so that Obama can prosecute you for hate speech

3 Comments
Obama thinks that bringing what looks like a bomb to school is cool
Obama thinks that bringing what looks like a bomb to school is “cool”

Does Obama really want Americans to say something when they see people acting suspiciously? Let’s take a look.

Here’s an article about that from The Stream.

Excerpt:

“If you see something suspicious, say something,” said President Obama after the Paris massacre. He’s offered similar calls for vigilance after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. But does he mean it?

[…]Remember the so-called “clock kid” in Irving, Texas?  Teenager Ahmed Mohamed brought a homemade device to school that looked like a suitcase bomb. He ignored a teacher’s advice to stash the device, which he falsely claimed was an alarm clock he had built. He brought the device into another classroom, with the alarm clock set to go off in the middle of the lesson. When hauled off to the principal’s office his answers raised enough suspicion for the police to be called. His reticent answers to them raised further suspicions, enough to warrant a brief arrest. We don’t know exactly what he said because his family — which has a history of trouble with the school and curious connections — refused to give authorities permission to release the police report on the incident.

MacArthur High School saw something and said something. Were they praised? Acknowledged by the Administration for their vigilance? No, for weeks they were verbally slapped around by Obama and the media as haters and Islamophobes. Now comes the kicker:  Last night the Justice Department confirmed that it is officially investigating the school for its actions.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Muslim Advocates president Farhana Kher Thursday that it was “great to hear that the department has opened an investigation” into the school; that the “treatment” of Mohamed was an “issue of great concern and really struck a cord with many parents.”

So, there will definitely be a chilling effect from that investigation on others who might warn of suspicious behavior that could mean a terrorist attack.

And that’s in fact what happened with the terrorist couple in San Bernardino:

Several neighbors saw suspicious activity at the couple’s apartment, but did nothing for fear of being accused of racial profiling. They now have to carry the awful burden of wondering, “How many died because I stayed silent?”

Speaking of fear, Attorney General Lynch told the Muslim Advocates dinner Thursday night her “greatest fear” is anti-Muslim sentiment will lead to violence against Muslims in America. Even if she’s reading doctored intelligence from the White House, surely she can turn on a TV. The Russian plane attack in Egypt, the Lebanon attack, the Paris attack, the Mali attack, the San Bernardino attack, the countless numbers on our shores getting inspiration and instruction from Islamist sites. Yet her “greatest fear” is a possible backlash against members of the very religion that hosts those responsible for all the carnage.

Perhaps that attitude from the nation’s top law enforcement official explains what’s reportedly happening in Los Angeles, only an hour west of this week’s terrorist attack.

TMZ is reporting that “LAPD cops have been told not to single out Muslims in their hunt for terrorists,” with one cop admitting, “It’s a huge problem for us.”

According to the cops, LAPD brass doesn’t want officers talking to people from the Middle East unless they’re doing something “that arouses real suspicion.” Officers are also telling TMZ that when they ask questions about unusual activity — such as “tourists” photographing electrical units on buildings — they are greeted with hostility.

Has the Obama administration done a good job of preventing terrorist attacks? Does his attitude of blaming America deter terrorist attacks, or does it embolden radical Islamists to perform more attacks?

This article from the Daily Caller lists 7 terrorist attacks that occurred during the 7 years of the Obama presidency, as of July 2015.

Here is one:

In November 2009, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire in an attack at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Hassan killed 13 people and wounded over 30 more.

In a document dated Oct. 18, 2012 obtained by Fox News, Hasan wrote: “I, Nidal Malik Hasan, am compelled to renounce any oaths of allegiances that require me to support/defend man made constitution (like the constitution of the United States) over the commandments mandated in Islam.”

The U.S. government has steadfastly refused to call Hasan’s militant slaughter a terrorist attack. Instead, federal officials have repeatedly characterized Hasan’s actions as “workplace violence.”

A U.S. military court sentenced Hasan, a military psychiatrist, to death in 2013.

And here is another:

In April 2013, Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev exploded two pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

The bombings killed three people including an eight-year-old boy. Hundreds of runners and spectators were seriously injured. Seventeen people saw their limbs blown off.

Three days later, the brothers ambushed and killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev died when his brother ran over him with a stolen Mercedes SUV in the midst of a shootout with police. In April, a jury found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty of 30 criminal counts. He later received the death penalty.

These kinds of attacks have been occurring, but they are mostly ignored by a media that is desperate to cover up anything that might make the Obama administration look weak in the face of Islamic terrorism.

The Democrats’ priority is not to protect the law-abiding taxpayers who pay their salaries. Their priority is to live out their politically correct worldview, regardless of risks and threats to us. We have to remember these things in November when it is time to decide who will be in charge of national security.

News

Doug Wilson explains the meaning of love and respect

11 Comments
Does government provide incentives for people to get married?
Women need love, men need respect… what does it really mean?

So, Dina sent me an audio book called “Reforming Marriage” by that Calvinist weirdbeard Doug Wilson. It actually sat on my ironing board for some time not being listened to, (I don’t iron, I have all wrinkle-free everything). I just finished listening to Bernard Cornwell’s classic on the battle of Waterloo, so I decided to pick this one up next.

I listened to the first CD, and I found something amazing in chapter 2. I want to make two points about what I heard. Fortunately, I was able to find the entire passage at one of Doug’s online haunts.

He writes:

Now the Scripture plainly gives us our duties. Wives are to respect their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. But there is more. When we consider these requirements and look at how men and women relate to one another, we can see the harmony between what God requires and what we need both to give and to receive.

The commands are given to our respective weaknesses in the performance of our duties. Men need to do their duty with regard to their wives they need to love . Women need to do their duty in the same way they need to respect . But men are generally poor at this kind of loving. C.S. Lewis once commented that women tend to think of love as taking trouble for others (which is much closer to the biblical definition), while men tend to think of love as not giving trouble to others. Men consequently need work in this area, and they are instructed by Scripture to undertake it. In a similar way, women are fully capable of loving a man and sacrificing for him, while believing the entire time that he is a true and unvarnished jerk. Women are good at this kind of love, but the central requirement given to wives is that they respect their husbands. As Christian women gather together (for prayer? Bible study?), they frequently speak about their husbands in the most disrespectful way. They then hurry home to cook, clean, and care for his kids. Why? Because they love their husbands. It is not wrong for the wives to love their husbands, but it is wrong to substitute love for the respect God requires.

We can also see the commands which are given have regard for our respective weaknesses in another way. Men have a need to be respected , and women a need to be loved . When Scripture says, for example, that the elders of a church must feed the sheep, it is a legitimate inference to say that sheep need food. In the same way, when the Scripture emphasizes that wives must respect their husbands, it is a legitimate inference to say that husbands need respect. The same is true for wives. If the Bible requires husbands to love their wives, we may safely say that wives need to be loved.

But we are often like the man who gave his wife a shotgun for Christmas because he wanted one. When a wife is trying to work on a troubled marriage, she gives to him what she would like, and not what God commands, and not what he needs. She loves him, and she tells him so. But does she respect him and tell him so?

We have difficulty because we do not follow the scriptural instructions. When a man is communicating his love for his wife (both verbally and non-verbally), he should be seeking to communicate to her the security provided by his covenantal commitment. He will provide for her, he will nourish and cherish her, he will sacrifice for her, and so forth. Her need is to be secure in his love for her. Her need is to receive love from him.

When a wife is respecting and honoring her husband, the transaction is quite different. Instead of concentrating on the security of the relationship, respect is directed to his abilities and achievements; how hard he works, how faithfully he comes home, how patient he is with the kids, and so forth.

The specifics may cause problems with some because he thinks he might not come home, and she thinks he doesn’t work nearly hard enough. But love is to be rendered to wives, and respect to husbands, because God has required it, and not because any husband or wife has earned it. It is good for us always to remember that God requires our spouses to render to us far more than any of us deserve.

So I bolded the two parts that I want to talk about.

First thing is about the removing troubles view of love. Now, I had never really consciously thought of this before, but I was thinking about how I treat Dina and suddenly it became clear that this is exactly what I am trying to with her. She hurts her hands, has OCD, wants to vacuum up cat fur, has to lift a heavy vacuum up and down the stairs… I buy her a cordless hand vacuum! She likes to cook with a wok several times a week, uses a horrible, cheap broken-handle wok that has to be washed and dried or it will rust… I buy her a Circulon wok! She hates to iron, has to iron baskets and baskets of clothes with her hurt hands… I buy her a steam iron that makes quick work of ironing! And on, and on, and on. After all, why should she have to suffer when she is trying to do her work so she can clear her schedule in order to do other things, like care for the elderly as a volunteer? She already has a stressful job at work, she doesn’t need more stress at home. My job is to make her life easier, and that shows that I care about what her life is like. I don’t want her to be struggling, I want her to be able to do good for God without being burdened by troubles.

Second thing is about how a woman can give a man respect. Well, an important part of what a man does in a marriage is to give a woman security. And this is not something he can finesse at the end of his life, he has to be thinking about giving her that at the beginning of his life… when he is in school, when he is starting to work. The most praiseworthy way of getting money is by earning it in the private sector, by supplying the needs of consumers in a competitive free market. In order to learn how to do that, you have to study things that are valuable. to others, like mobile devices, petroleum engineering, etc. So when it comes to your education, you don’t get to study what you like or what makes you feel good. You have to study things that will allow you to earn money, money that you can use to give your wife security and freedom. Money that is saved should be invested, so that you earn more than you can even get by working. When a woman comes along, she must recognize which men have done hard things to prepare for her – hard things that were not fun. Choosing a man who understands the role of earned money in a marriage is a way of according him respect. No, he did not do what he felt like. No, he did not win the lottery. No, he did not receive money from his parents. Recognizing those sacrifices and the value others get from them is respect.

I’m going to keep working through this book and see if there are any other secrets for me to find in it. So far, so good.

News

Attorney General Loretta Lynch vows to crack down on anti-Muslim speech

1 Comment
Don't worry, the real threat to America is climate change
Don’t worry, the real threat to America is climate change

Here are some more details about the murderers in the San Bernadino shooting that emerged on Friday and over the weekend.

From the radically leftist CNN:

[…]Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime, which didn’t raise red flags, said two government officials.

[…]Farook himself had communicated by phone and via social media with more than one person being investigated for terrorism, law enforcement officials said. A separate U.S. government official said the 28-year-old has “overseas communications and associations.”

No red flags, because they’re not Christian pro-lifers or conservative Tea Partiers. That would raise red flags with this administration.

NBC News reported this:

Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS just before she and her husband carried out the San Bernardino massacre, law enforcement sources told NBC News.

Malik posted a statement of support for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook “just before the attack,” one official familiar with the issue said.

And CBS News:

A law enforcement source tells CBS News that the bombs found in the couple’s home are near carbon copies of explosives shown in an issue of al Qaeda’s on-line magazine “Inspire,” which printed instructions on “how to build a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.”

Fox News points out that the woman passed a screening from the Department of Homeland Security:

Officials said Thursday that Malik underwent and passed a Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism screening as part of the process of getting the K-1 visa.

And it was unlikely that they could afford all of their weapons and explosives on their own:

Among the weapons found were three rigged-together pipe bombs at the social service center, each equipped with a remote-control detonating device that apparently malfunctioned; more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition and multiple pipe bombs in the rented SUV where they died; and 12 pipe bombs, tools for making more, and over 3,000 additional rounds of ammunition at a family home in the nearby town of Redlands.

[…]As part of the complex investigation late Thursday, authorities were trying to piece together a money trail that would have enabled the suspects to acquire over $30,000 worth of guns and explosives. Public records show that Farook made approximately $51,000 per year as an employee of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, making it unlikely he could have afforded such an arsenal out of his own pocket. There is no evidence that Malik had a job.

So, does this sound like Islamic terrorism to you? If it does, then the Obama administration might have to prosecute you for hate speech. Let’s see what the government thinks this attack was, then we’ll see what they’ll do to you if you disagree with them.

Is it workplace violence?

First, none of this evidence proves that it’s Islamic terrorism, Obama says:

Maybe it’s workplace violence, because get off your high horse and stop judging. Remember the Crusades? Yeah, so shut your racist mouth.

There was another attack at Fort Hood a while back, and it was proven that the attacker was in contact with Al Qaeda. Obama called that one “workplace violence” as well.

And then there was beheading by a radical Islamist in Oklahoma, and Obama called that one “workplace violence” as well.

And the attack on the recruiting station in Chattanooga, TN was never labeled as terrorism by the Obama administration, either.

I could go on and on and on, because we’ve had a lot of attacks by radicalized Muslims under Barack Obama in the last few years, but everything is going to be fine now, because the Democrats have announced a bold new plan to fix everything.

The Obama administration’s plan to protect us

So, there is a plan to protect us from these sorts of activities, and it was announced by Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch. Are you ready for the plan? This is the great plan that moral relativists on the secular left are offering to protect us. Are you ready?

Here it is from the Daily Wire:

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates’ 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, 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.

“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,” she said.

[…]After touting the numbers of “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

Obama has his global warming, and Lynch has her “greatest fear”.

This is the same woman who declined to charge Lois Lerner for using the IRS as a weapon to persecute conservative groups in an election year.

Do you feel safe now? Do you think that the Democrats are serious about the threat of Islamic terrorism? Do you think that you should elect the Democrats again in November 2016?