This Is What Happens When You Pay Ransom
Aug 23, 2016 Political, Terrorism
Barack Obama paid 400 million dollars to his buddies in Iran so they would release Americans they were holding. The longstanding policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not paying ransom was ignored by Obama as he sent a plane load of money to Iran.
He claims it was a coincidence but the Iranians said it was paid to release the hostages and the hostages said the plane they were on was not allowed to leave until the plane with the money arrived.
The State Department put out a warning to Americans yesterday (22 August 2016) telling them to avoid travel to Iran because Americans are being targeted for capture there.
That was pretty easy to see coming. You get more of what you pay for. Give in to demand for ransom and there will be more incidents of abductions leading to requests for more ransom money.
If you paid it once there is no reason for the bad guys to think you won’t pay it again.
Why Americans would even go to Iran escapes me. If you go there and get captured then you are on your own if the only way to get you back is to pay a ransom. We will keep negotiating for your release but we are not going to pay because it will encourage the abductions of others.
At least that is how it was until Obama gave in and provided a state sponsor of terror with 400 million dollars.
Just think what that kind of money would have done for the folks in Louisiana…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Will The Real Barry Obama Please Stand Up?
Jul 18, 2016 2016 Election, Political, Terrorism
Just some thoughts on Obama and his response to police officers who have been murdered at the hands of terrorists from the terror group, Black Lives Matter.
Before I get to his words I would like to point out that Obama is either very stupid, blind, or deliberately ignorant of reality. Every time one of these things happens the murderer tells us why he did it (or tells us why he is going to do it) but Obama (or should we call him oblivious) says “we don’t really know the killer’s motivation.” It is going on now with the cop murders and it happens when there is a terror attack by ISIS or some other Islamic terrorist. They scream we hate America and we are doing this in the name of ISIS and Allah to avenge (fill in the blank) and Obama tells us we don’t know why they did it…
Hell, the guy could hire a plane to tow a banner saying why he did it, put it on all social media, give interviews with the media and send out cards in the mail and Obama would tell us we don’t know why he did it…
Of course, Obama is always ready to tell us why cops did what they did long before any facts are in. He might say they acted stupidly….
Now on to the response from Obama on the latest terror attack by BLM.
Obama said that we need to stop using inflammatory rhetoric:
We don’t need inflammatory rhetoric. We don’t need careless accusations thrown around to score political points or to advance an agenda. We need to temper our words and open our hearts … all of us.
This would be the same Obama who said this about how he would counter Republican attacks:
If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.
I am pretty sure that this remark would be considered inflammatory and designed to score political points…
But, but, but Obama is a great guy. Look at how he supported the Dallas police officers by referring to himself a lot and by telling us how cops can be better and that guns are the problem…
He even had some words about attacking police officers after the BLM terrorist murdered three in Baton Rouge:
Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible.
Obama is the one who has blood on his hands. He has blamed the police for these issues and he has been one of the first to blame them when a black person is shot by police (most times the shooting is warranted). He is the one who fans the flames of racism and victimhood. He might tell people that attacks on police are an attack on all of us but he blames the police for this mess and says they need to admit they are the problem:
There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters.
And if police organizations and departments acknowledge that there’s a problem and there’s an issue, then that, too, is going to contribute to real solutions. And, as I said yesterday, that is what’s going to ultimately help make the job of being a cop a lot safer. It is in the interest of police officers that their communities trust them and that the kind of rancor and suspicion that exists right now is alleviated.
You cops got that? You have a problem and you have to admit it in order to be safe. This kind of talk gives the radical BLM terrorists their cues. They hear what Obama said and they don’t hear cops saying they have a problem so to them it means they can attack because Obama said cops can’t be safer until they fess up.
Obama has caused a lot of this strife. He has fanned the flames of racism and he has encouraged the violence that is taking place. He started an open season on law enforcement and his words still reflect his belief that they are the problem.
It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Keep in mind though, the violence you see is caused by liberals who follow the ideology of Obama and his ilk. Any violence at the Republican convention will be caused by liberals, not the Republicans…
God help the US because we sure need it after eight years of Satan in the White House.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Note To Libs: Muskets Were Weapons Of War
Jun 20, 2016 Second Amendment, Terrorism, Tyranny
Every time there is a shooting in this country, that is every time some deranged liberal or Muslim terrorist shoots a bunch of people, there is always a cry to ban guns. The left wants to ban all firearms in this country regardless of what they say.
Make no mistake about that, they want to ban all firearms and all private ownership. They will do it incrementally but their end goal is a complete ban. If you listen to them you can hear them saying it. One only needs to hear them say we need what Australia has to know they want private ownership to end or be so difficult that no one has anything more powerful than a pea shooter.
The issue is not the gun, it is not the background checks, and it is not the availability of guns or the alleged ease with which a person can buy one (this ease all depends on where you live).
[tip]The firearm used was not an AR 15 though anti gun nuts keep calling it that and showing pictures of one when they appeal to the masses. They want control and nothing else.[/tip]
Removing all guns will not end gun violence and the liberal model of Australia shows us that crime will actually rise as all other categories of crime did in that nation. Background checks exist and every time a person who bought a gun legally uses it to harm others liberals scream we need expanded background checks. What do they actually hope to find that government (the entity conducting the checks) does not already have access to? The government has failed in doing background checks when it fails to discover the future motives of people.
Sound ridiculous? That is what government wants you to believe it can accomplish with “expanded” background checks. It wants you to believe that it can tell what a person will do in the future if only we could look a little deeper.
The reality is most of the gun crimes committed are done by people with illegally purchased firearms and legal gun owners account for a small fraction of the murders.
It is also important to note that the government conducted a background check on the Islamic terrorist who shot up the gay night club and said he could own a gun. They said nothing in his background kept him from buying the firearm. If that is true then we just have a case of a person who had not done anything wrong deciding to do so. That happens all the time in our country though the case of legal firearms owners doing so is rare.
When these things happen we get this outcry of people who want more gun control as if restricting those who follow the law will stop those who don’t. It is more convenient to blame a gun than it is to blame the liberal moron, or in this case the Islamic terrorist, who pulled the trigger. Liberals would rather moan about one guy with a gun and claim him as the problem rather than seeing the issue was the 150 people who did not have a gun. Even if half of the club goers were carry permit holders they were banned from having their firearms in the club. Evidently the Muslim terrorist did not follow that law either.
Look, the reality is bad people do bad things and we can’t predict when they will but we can’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding as some feel good measure to make liberal bed-wetters think they are doing good. We also can’t allow liberal (and sadly some alleged conservative) politicians to take away our rights. Doing so will allow them to control us instead of us controlling them.
When they take away your means to resist they will then do as they wish, just ask some old German and Jewish folks about that.
The problem is not the firearm, it is the person using it illegally (and to some extent politicians who refuse to allow law abiding people to carry firearms). We do not ban cars or alcohol because people drink and drive. We don’t say that some person might drink and drive so he can’t own a car or buy alcohol. We don’t do these things even though more people die in alcohol related accidents than are murdered with firearms. In these cases we hold the driver responsible for his actions.
Blaming firearms for the shooting at the night club is like blaming the planes for 9/11.
I am also tired of hearing liberals tell us we don’t need these assault weapons or these weapons of war.
[note]Alan Grayson, a moron politician and wife beater from Florida, claimed that these firearms could shoot 700 rounds a minute. A semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire depends on how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger. To shoot 700 rounds a minute the shooter would have to squeeze the trigger almost 12 times a second and that does not include the time to change magazines. Misinformed people are easy to control and government is doing the misinforming because it wants to control people. Though in this case it is likely Grayson, who is unintelligent, does not know.[/note]
First of all, there are no assault weapons. Assault is an action and people commit that action. They use many things to do so but whatever they use is not an assault item.
Second, all firearms can be weapons of war. In fact, the musket was a weapon of war and everyone had a musket. Obviously the Founders made no distinction and neither should we.
The important words are shall not be infringed. There is no qualifier, no sentence about weapons of war or only if you need or only if government says it is ok or anything else. The words are the right of the PEOPLE (all citizens) to keep and bear arms (to have and to carry) shall not be infringed.
Remember, the people telling you that you don’t need these firearms are surrounded and protected by people who have these firearms.
How many more Islamic terror attacks are we going to allow before Obama is held accountable?
The gun is not the problem. Anti-gun politicians, Muslim terrorists and bad people are the issue. But keep pushing for gun control and one day there will be pushback and you will not like it at all.
We will not comply.
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: firearms, gun control, islam, lies, Obama, Second Amendment, terror
The Apple Does Not Fall Far
Mar 13, 2016 Political, Tyranny
Barack Obama is a big government big brother liberal progressive left wing fanatic who believes in government control over the lives of private citizens. He was raised by communists, studied and uses Rules for Radicals, and he violates the Constitution nearly every day. In short, he is un-American and the kind of person the Constitution was designed to stop.
There is a case before the court right now dealing with an Apple iPhone that was used by a few terrorists who shot up San Bernardino. It seems the feds are unable to crack the encryption on the phone, a claim I find preposterous, so the FBI wants Apple to write the code to crack the phone. The problem is, the code would affect all iPhones and make it easier for the government to demand a phone be accessed in the future.
[note]Maybe Obama should ask the Chinese or the Russians to get the data from the phone. These countries seem to be able to hack into our government on a regular basis. Better yet, maybe the government should ask Apple to teach it electronic security…[/note]
I doubt the issue at hand is the phone itself. I am sure the highly paid people at the FBI (or perhaps the NSA) could get into the phone. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that the same government hacking into systems all over the world can’t get into a phone? No, this is about setting precedence that would force companies to build backdoors into devices that government could use when it wanted to obtain data.
Obama recently made his views known when he discussed the issue. He believes that PRIVATE companies should not be able to build items government cannot access. That is the basic idea behind what Obama said. Now he laced it with sugar coating by discussing child pornography and such things because, well no one could oppose such common sense things.
Then he got to the real reason. You see, government needs to access your electronic items so it can be certain you are paying your taxes. Obama thinks that without the ability to access phones people will be walking around with Swiss bank accounts right on their devices.
As if most people have the ability to get one. But the rich certainly have them (I would not be surprised to find out many politicians had them) though I suspect they would not be foolish enough to keep that info on their phones.
While Obama thinks no citizen should have absolute privacy he carries an electronic device paid for by the taxpayers that has all kinds of encryption on it to keep it from being hacked. And while Obama thinks government should have the ability to access your information he certainly supports YOU going to jail for accessing anything held on the government’s electronic media.
They work for us but they act like they own us. Their information is very important to them so much so that Hillary Clinton set up a home brew server to route all her communications through other than government channels.
Instead of worrying about some citizen keeping a Swiss bank account on a cell phone perhaps Obama should concern himself with government officials who are hiding their misdeeds from the public.
People have a right to privacy and that right should not be infringed upon because the government can’t access data it wants. But if the court agrees with government and allows this violation of our rights perhaps we should be afforded the opportunity to redact things before they get to see them.
You know, just like they do when citizens request information…
The apple does not fall far from the tree and in the case of Obama it is a rotten apple that fell from the tree of communism.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Judging From Their History Dems Should Be OK With A Delay
Feb 17, 2016 2016 Election, Tyranny
A lot has been going on since Justice Scalia died over the weekend. The liberal left celebrated his death and mocked his life and the job he did in the Supreme Court. They mocked him because he had the audacity to actually use the Constitution when he interpreted law instead of using his feelings or his partisan beliefs like say, Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor.
Barack Obama and Democrats in the Senate, smelling blood in the water and not wanting to let an opportunity to give the court a liberal majority, made demands of Republicans who, thank goodness, hold the majority in the Senate. These Democrats demanded that the Republicans make sure Obama’s nominee gets a shot. They basically want a rubber stamp for whichever left wing socialist America hater Obama nominates.
Republicans, so far, are having none of it. They want to wait and let the next president make the nomination.
The Democrats have a point (besides the ones on top their heads) in that the president, under the Constitution, has a duty to nominate. We can ignore for a moment that Obama has never abided by his duty under the Constitution and focus on what they want. They want Obama to nominate and that nomination not to be blocked.
They seem to forget that the Constitution also says that the president nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate. So the Senate has to consent and they do this by voting yes or no. Obama can put forth all the nominations he wants but there is nothing wrong with voting no on each and every one of them.
Democrats would have you believe this is out of the ordinary and unprecedented but our history shows it has been done before and that one vacancy existed for over two years because the Senate and president did not see eye to eye.
Now that was a long time ago but blocking nominees has happened in the recent past. Hell, Chuck Schumer, a guy who looks like his neck threw up, vowed that any vacancy in the Court that happened during George W Bush’s lame duck term would be blocked. Schumer made this declaration 19 months before Bush’s term would end. No vacancy came up but it was already out there that if one did no nominee would be considered.
In 1960 Democrats passed a resolution that presidents could not nominate during an election year.
Many Democrats now screaming for the vacancy to be filled have records of voting against nominations and of holding up the process. So the reality is there is no reason for Republicans to give in and allow Obama to get another liberal on the SCOTUS.
If they do not like it well that’s just too bad.
But if he does nominate anyone I think it would be reasonable to expose their entire life, make a mockery of their judicial experience, chastise them for their views, pick apart their judicial opinions, and generally make their life and the lives of their family miserable until they decide to withdraw from consideration.
Oh how horrible!
Two words, Robert Bork.
Now liberals, please quit your whining and sit back and accept that which you were so willing to do when you were in the majority.
And Republicans, do not give in to these morons. Mitch McConnell, you have a history of caving to Obama. If you do then you can rest assured you will lose control of the Senate and Trump will likely be the nominee for the Republican Party. Screw us over and we will strike back.
Do not let Barack Obama get another young liberal partisan hack on the court so the rest of us will be forced to live with their anti-American decisions for decades to come.
It is time to sack up and fight.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: delay, ginsberg, kagan, liberals, lies, nominee, Obama, scalia, scotus, sotomayor