Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 06, 2016, 07:49:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92536 Posts in 2300 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print
Author Topic: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom  (Read 393991 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1650 on: December 06, 2015, 11:02:39 AM »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/vet-this.php

Qualified!
Logged
ya
Power User
***
Posts: 244


« Reply #1651 on: December 06, 2015, 02:05:34 PM »

I don't understand why the US govt continues to give pakiland a pass. The wife was a paki, her husbands parents were paki. The husband went to pak as well as Saudi barbaria. Wife was associated with the Red Mosque in Pak (so called kendo stix gals)...see picture. They shot up 14 people another 14 died and we are still asking what was the motive ?.

Every terrorist attack can either be traced to ISIL or to Pak. Muslims constitute a few percent of the US population, yet every terror attack by them has been religiously motivated, Allah-ho-Akbar is the main script. Yes whites also shoot, but don't recall them ever muttering Jesus-ho-Akbar, ie the whites have had mental issues, the muslims are mostly religious nuts interested to expand their caliphate....YA

Logged
ya
Power User
***
Posts: 244


« Reply #1652 on: December 06, 2015, 05:15:19 PM »

Looks like the paki govt is cracking down on negative articles...so no link.

TERROR COCKTAIL, SHAKEN IN PAKISTAN, SERVED IN US

Sunday, 06 December 2015 | Kanchan Gupta | in Coffee Break

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had spoken of “snakes in Pakistan's backyard”. With the San Bernardino attack, one of them has sunk its poison fangs into the hand that so lovingly feeds Pakistan

For all the vaunted homeland security measures, including Orwellian intrusion into private spaces and legally sanctioned eves-dropping into electronic communications, initiated after 26/11, America and Americans may claim greater safety but are in no manner entirely immune from terrorism fuelled by jihadi hate ideology. The ghastly Boston bombings have been surpassed by the grisly massacre of December 2 at San Bernardino, California, when Syed Rizwan Farook, a born-in-US American citizen of Pakistani origin, and his wife Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani who grew up in Saudi Arabia, shot dead 14 people and injured 21 others.

The death toll would have been manifold had the jihadi couple got to use the deadly arsenal, including assault rifles, 4,500 bullets and improvised explosive devices attached to children’s toys (much like the remote-controlled ‘doll bombs’ that are the latest fetish of Islamic State barbarians) they had put together. Ironically, the guns and bullets they used to kill Americans in cold blood were acquired in America, legally. Regular mass killings, including the slaughter of children in schools, racially motivated attacks and targeting of Jews, have done nothing to change stupid laws that allow Americans to buy weapons of assault and run amok.

If that’s the downside, the admirable bit is about the remarkable speed and accuracy with which the first respondents, the police, in acts of terrorism react in the US. Farook and Tashfeen fled the scene of the massacre but were tracked to their home. They tried to escape in their SUV. A gunfight follfoll. They were shot dead. But that’s only one part, possibly the most inconsequential part, of the story. Jihadis are conditioned to kill mercilessly; they are prepared to die a ruthless dead. No tears need to be shed for them.

Treacly stories have appeared of how Farook and Tashfeen left their six-month-old child with her grandmother, how a bleak future lies ahead for her. There is no denying that the child shall grow up parentless and carry the burden of her parents’ crimes. She is as much a victim as those who died or suffered injuries, a testimony to the veracity of what Golda Mier said in a not-so-different context: “Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” We could well adapt that wisdom to our terrible and terrifying times: “Peace will come when Islamists love their children more than they hate the rest of the world.”

There were two initial responses to the San Bernardino killings. The first was organised by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was the usual hackneyed stuff about how “shocked we are”. Farook’s brother-in-law was trotted out to inform the world that he was not aware of what was being planned. This is now a perfectly honed standard operating procedure for CAIR which is also in the forefront of branding critics of Islamic fanaticism as Islamophobes and hounding them with the help of Left-liberals in academia, politics and people at large. There is no shortage of them in America. But even CAIR’s crocodile tears are inconsequential and must not distract us.

The second response came from investigators who suggested the killers were driven by the impulse of “sudden jihad”. That’s a new inclusion to the ever-expanding lexicon of terrorism as well as counter-terrorism. Beyond that it means nothing. Subsequent revelations bear out this point. Also demolished once again are bleeding heart notions of denial, deprivation, lack of education, joblessness, discrimination, in brief, imagined victimhood, fuel the jihadi impulse. Farook was educated, had a reasonably good job with San Bernardino County, while Tashfeen came from a well-off family and had studied pharmacology. Workplace colleagues do not appear to have been non-inclusive. They lived in a home and neighbourhood far more decent than they would have in Pakistan.

So what do we know now that should worry America and make us feel concerned? Three revelations by the FBI, which has designated the killings as ‘terrorism’, are of import. First, Farook visited Saudi Arabia where he met and married Tashfeen. He may also have met his jihadi mentors there. Farook is likely to have been in touch with one or more terrorist organisations. It is unlikely his conversion from chasing the American dream to chasing the jihadi dream was of recent vintage. Like the beard he grew, the jihadi impulse must have taken time to overwhelm his critical thinking after being planted in his mind.

Second, before they embarked upon their shoot-to-kill mission, Tashfeen is believed to have declared her allegiance to the Islamic State. Her crossing the line and entering the zone of no return would have followed contemplation and reasonable exposure to jihad’s dark ideology and acceptance as well as internalisation of the Islamic State’s message of recreating the caliphate on the foundation of hate. Nobody crosses over just like that. The years she spent in Saudi Arabia, imbibing Wahaabi fanaticism, would have prepared her for the final step.

Third, Tashfeen, who grew up in Saudi Arabia after moving there at the age of two with her parents, returned to Pakistan to study pharmacology. Investigators say she came in contact with Maulana Abdul Aziz who is the chief cleric at Islamabad’s infamous Lal Masjid with which she was subsequently associated. Lal Masjid became a terror den during Gen Pervez Musharraf’s time, taunting the military and mocking him. Matters came to a pass when Lal Masjid thugs went after Chinese workers. To pacify an enraged Beijing, Musharraf ordered a raid on Lal Majid and its fortified madarsas for men and women. Aziz tried to escape in a burqa but was caught.

That was in 2007. Two years later Aziz was back in business after being set free by Pakistan’s sainted judges occupying seats in its hallowed courts of justice. All he had to do was plead “Not guilty”. The state, as always, did not press for prosecution. Aziz has since named the library at Lal Masjid after Osama bin Laden, set up a network of madarsas that are cradles of future terrorists, declared allegiance to the Islamic State and refused to condemn the 2014 Peshawar School carnage in which 148 children aged eight to 15 were killed by the Pakistani Taliban. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s alleged civilian Government and the Pakistani Army mollycoddle him.

So it’s a deadly cocktail of Army, Allah and America, shaken in Saudi Arabia, stirred in Pakistan and served in America. Hillary Clinton spoke of “snakes in Pakistan’s backyard”. One of them has sunk its poison fangs into the hand that so lovingly feeds Pakistan. Deceit and duplicity, when used as instruments of dollar-funded ‘strategic diplomacy’, can never fetch anything that is even remotely good. A second lesson: Both Paris and San Bernardino suggest we will increasingly witness female jihadis playing a prominent role in terrorist attacks. Paris was a repeat of 26/11 in both tactics and strategy. San Bernardino was more a ‘lone wolf’ attack. Paris proved, at a grievous cost to human lives, that our cities remain vulnerable in the face of unrelenting Islamism, especially of the vicious Islamic State variety. San Bernardino has shown what we are up next.

(The author is a current affairs journalist based in NCR)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 09:32:38 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1653 on: December 07, 2015, 09:38:22 AM »

Interesting article YA, thank you (and good to see you with us again!).

For the record

"Ironically, the guns and bullets they used to kill Americans in cold blood were acquired in America, legally. Regular mass killings, including the slaughter of children in schools, racially motivated attacks and targeting of Jews, have done nothing to change stupid laws that allow Americans to buy weapons of assault and run amok"

is NOT quite right.  If I have this right, (and I do think I have the gist of it) the main guns were acquired via straw purchase, the magazines were illegal, and if reports of modification to full auto are accurate, then that too was illegal. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1654 on: December 07, 2015, 09:45:49 AM »

Free people own weapons, slaves do not.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 901


« Reply #1655 on: December 07, 2015, 11:20:22 AM »

OBAMA’S ISIS COVER-UP GETS ITS OWN SPEECH

Instead of fighting ISIS, Obama wants to fight the Bill of Rights.

December 7, 2015  Daniel Greenfield


Obama began his speech with a cover-up, suggesting that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik’s bloody San Bernardino massacre was not the work of ISIS.

Whatever dignity his Oval Office speech was meant to convey was lost in his opening sentences as his speech became yet another effort to claim that he hadn’t made a mistake by assuring Americans they had nothing to worry about from ISIS right before its latest terror attack.

Farook and Malik were “self-radicalized”. Their attack was not part of a “broader conspiracy”. But ISIS and Al Qaeda have both embraced a strategy of empowering local supporters to carry out their own attacks by giving them the tools and strategies to do so. Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS. Farook, according to his father, was a supporter of the Islamic State. The worst terror attacks in America in recent years were carried out by these independent Islamic terror cells in support of the Jihad.

These so-called “lone wolf” attacks are part of the broader ISIS and Al Qaeda conspiracy.

Instead of leading the fight against ISIS, Obama is making excuses for his latest failures while trying to once again minimize the threat of the global terror group that he had once described as a JV team.

Back in September, Obama’s strategy for defeating ISIS was, and I quote, "We don't have a strategy yet."

For months we have been hearing that the dog had eaten Obama’s ISIS strategy. It was coming. It was in the mail. It was going to be here soon. It was going to arrive one of these days.

Now, after the latest ISIS terror attack, Obama has finally unveiled his strategy. It consists of doing the same things he’s been doing all along while claiming that he was right all along.

For Obama, success means doubling down on failure.

His plan for defeating ISIS is more fake air strikes, more weapons for terrorists, more empty talk of coalitions and a plea for Putin to bail him out. That last part is somewhat new. That’s about it.

American soldiers will go on fighting ISIS on the ground, but according to Obama it’s not a violation of his pledge that there will be no “boots on the ground” unless it’s a brigade. Weapons will go on being passed out to terrorists even though they’ve found their way to Al Qaeda and ISIS before.

At home, he’ll be relying on the same old Muslim Brotherhood community policing policies that have crippled law enforcement’s ability to intercept plots by Islamic terrorists using informants.

Obama concedes that, “an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities”, but claims that Farook and Malik were only “embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.” As opposed to the regular form of Islam which calls for the same thing.

ISIS, he tells Americans, is a “cult of death” that does not speak for Islam and “millions of patriotic Muslim-Americans… reject their hateful ideology”. Would these be the Muslims who allow Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA with terrorist ties, to speak for them?

But did anyone really expect anything different from Obama?

The media was hoping for an inspirational speech, but Obama ran out of inspiration about the same time that Americans ran out of jobs and hope for the future. All that’s left is narcissistic preening.

We’ve been getting variations of this passive aggressive speech for years now in which Obama condescendingly informs the nation that he knows what he’s doing and isn’t about to change a thing, and then issues some random demands to Congress to try and pass the responsibility to someone else.

All the tired old clichés are here. Anyone who wants to take on ISIS is just “giving it what it wants”. Because apparently what the Islamic State really, really wants is for us to crack down on terrorists.

Anyone who disagrees with Obama is “giving into fear” or “abandoning our values”. And yet it’s Obama who demands that we give in to fear by compromising the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Obama insists that any profiling of Muslims would be “abandoning our values”, but that rolling back the Second Amendment for the entire country somehow isn’t a fearful abandonment of our values.

He claims that a crackdown on terrorists would be “giving into fear”, but creating a class of people who are denied their Second Amendment rights because their names appear on a no-fly list wouldn’t be.

Obama’s solution to ISIS terror at home isn’t to target Islamic terrorists, but to roll back the Bill of Rights for the entire country or select sections of it who, like Ted Kennedy, wind up on the no-fly list.

But would Obama be open to deporting non-citizens who appear on the no-fly list? Don’t bet on it. The people on it are too dangerous to be allowed to buy guns, but not too dangerous to stay in America.

The former isn’t “giving into fear” or “abandoning our values”. Only the latter is.

Instead of fighting ISIS, Obama wants to fight the Bill of Rights. Instead of targeting Islamic terrorists, he’s still going after Americans who cling to their guns and bibles. When he says, “freedom is more powerful than fear”, his own words and actions show that he does not mean it. He’s just selling fear of the NRA, instead of fear of Islamic terrorists.

Obama triples down on bringing tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim migrants, 13% of whom poll as supporting ISIS, to America. He insists once again, falsely, that “It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country.” We actually have religious tests to determine who is being persecuted and who isn’t a genuine refugee. In Syria, that’s Christians and Yazidis.

But Obama instead took in 98% Sunni Muslims, 53 Christians and 1 single Yazidi. That’s a “religious test” too. He just refuses to admit it.

Obama continues to troll Congress with demands for a new AUMF against ISIS. Secretary of State Kerry had already told the Senate, “The President already has statuary authority to act against ISIL.” The original 9/11 authorization for the use of military force still holds. Obama doesn’t need a new AUMF. For that matter he fought a war in Libya without the faintest shred of Congressional authorization.

So why does he keep mentioning a new AUMF? To shift responsibility for his inaction to Congress.

Obama is so “confident” in his ISIS strategy that he keeps trying to blame it on Congress. Even when Congress has nothing to do with it.

There is no plan here for beating ISIS. No plan for stopping the next ISIS terror attack.

Instead all Obama has to offer are false claims of success, a strategy that is more of the same, attempts to shift the blame for his “successful” strategy and a carefully curated selection of the same old lies.

ISIS has new tactics on tap. Obama doesn’t. All he has is the same old claim that he is on the “right side of history.” What is the “right side of history”? It’s the side that refuses to learn anything from history because it is convinced that the past is irrelevant and its success is inevitable.

ISIS thinks the same way.

The tragedy is that both the Islamic State and the United States are led by narrow-minded fanatics who are leading their peoples to disaster in an attempt to create a utopia through abuse of power and lies.

If Obama ever wants to figure out how to really defeat ISIS, he can start by trying to figure out how he would defeat himself.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1656 on: December 07, 2015, 03:27:14 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/house-security-chairman-isis-tried-use-refugee-program-get-u-s/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1657 on: December 07, 2015, 03:58:00 PM »

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/12/middle-eastern-men-arrested-near-mexican-border-with-steel-cylinders/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1658 on: December 07, 2015, 05:12:38 PM »

(percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book 2007):

► As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

► At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

► From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply (United States ). At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — Muslim 5%

► When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons):

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Russia — Muslim 10-15%

► After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

► At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

► From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

► After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Syria — Muslim 90%

► 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’, the 'Islamic House of Peace.' There is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel." –- Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #1659 on: December 07, 2015, 05:19:51 PM »

Trump just gave everyone "explody heads".  He just called to stop all Muslims coming into the US until everything gets sorted out.  Expect another 4% bump in the polls.
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1660 on: December 07, 2015, 06:34:33 PM »

DDF: 

I'm thinking a lot of those numbers from 2007 may be out of date.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1661 on: December 07, 2015, 10:31:13 PM »

DDF: 

I'm thinking a lot of those numbers from 2007 may be out of date.


Obviously. The trend they show though, and what happens with certain percentages is interesting, isn't it?
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7487


« Reply #1662 on: December 08, 2015, 02:53:21 PM »

Bank records show $28,500 deposit to Syed Farook's account two weeks before the shooting, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/08/bank-records-show-28500-deposit-to-syed-farooks-account-two-weeks-before-shooting-source-says.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Still under investigation, maybe he won the lottery...  Still, this didn't happen without help.


Also of note was the body armor they allegedly wore and additional bombs not used.  Bombs set on delay or remote?  Rented car, left after 5 minutes, tried to get away?  This was not the typical suicide mission.  I haven't followed it closely but it looks to me like they tried to survive and intended to do more of these.  

Not 'workplace violence', not lone wolves, not a suicide mission, our enemy is evolving faster the we are!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1663 on: December 08, 2015, 07:37:04 PM »

1) I have read that witnesses mistook gun belt/ammo vests for body armor.

2) In a curious coincidence apparently the money was deposited on the day of the raids in Paris.

3) "Not 'workplace violence', not lone wolves, not a suicide mission, our enemy is evolving faster the we are!"  Exactly so.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1664 on: December 08, 2015, 07:55:08 PM »

It might be a good idea to try to cut off their supply of domestic jihadis. Just saying...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7487


« Reply #1665 on: December 08, 2015, 10:48:39 PM »

1) I have read that witnesses mistook gun belt/ammo vests for body armor.

   - Thank you.  That piece of the puzzle made no sense to me and is an example why I don't like to follow these stories (tragedies) as they are breaking.  They mostly tell you nothing and a good part of what they do tell you is wrong.

2) In a curious coincidence apparently the money was deposited on the day of the raids in Paris.

   - Coincidence, yes.  That doesn't mean unrelated.  They may have worried that certain types of bank wires could get increased scrutiny or shut down in the aftermath.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 06:28:17 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1666 on: December 08, 2015, 10:52:44 PM »

1) I have read that witnesses mistook gun belt/ammo vests for body armor.

   - Thank you.  That piece of the puzzle made no sense to me and is an example why I don't like to follow these stories (tragedies) as they are breaking.  They mostly tell you nothing and a good part of what they do tell you is wrong.

2) In a curious coincidence apparently the money was deposited on the day of the raids in Paris.

   - Coincidence, yes.  That doesn't mean unrelated.  They may have worried that certain types of bank wires could get increased scrutiny or shut down in the aftermath.

It also could have happened with a brief, planned time lapse to the Paris attacks like I have in my defeat-ISIS proposal that calls for us to knock out N.K nukes first, then Iran nukes, then the head of ISIS all on news cycle intervals, for distraction, impression, and to put a vision of defeat in their mortal head.  We could conceivably take out all three before the UN could pass the first condemnation resolution- if we took action like we meant it.


You can't win.... other than protecting oneself....

I've learned some interesting things in the past few years....

If one were so inclined, the best place to get weapons, is directly from the sheepdogs. You just have to go take them from them. It isn't all that hard. Not saying that I would condone that, because I don't.

I'm merely stating that arming oneself isn't difficult and certainly will never be regulated by law when someone wants to arm themselves.

It's kind of comical.... laws, disarming the lawful.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 11:02:18 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1667 on: December 08, 2015, 10:59:27 PM »

Then again, anyone really wishing harm to a country would never choose firearms or explosives as their weapons.

One night after a gunfight.... I was standing there with 210 rounds, and it occurred to me.... "you have 210 rounds....that's pretty powerful." A moment later it dawned on me, that even if you used every single one of those rounds, the dead would be replaced less than a day later...

It made me think.... firearms and bombs don't work.... in several of the many ways one might take that.

Personal safety matters.... "sheepdogs" cannot protect you, nor even themselves.... everyone is a wolf.... and offensive actions have nothing to do with CQC.

They can reject all of the Muslims (and they should), but the fact is, the US is still in big trouble because it thinks multiculturalism can exist in the same place and that race equals culture.... That will be the downfall of the States. You just don't know it yet.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #1668 on: December 09, 2015, 09:42:25 AM »

The author asks a good question...........what happened to the third shooter?  I listened to the police feeds as SB was going on and there were continuous reports of a third shooter, eye witness, etc.

Well? Would the government "hide" this information?

http://spectator.org/articles/64891/odd-man-out-what-happened-third-shooter
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 09:47:07 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1669 on: December 09, 2015, 02:01:30 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428227/national-security-profiling--start-now
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1670 on: December 09, 2015, 02:07:39 PM »

The author asks a good question...........what happened to the third shooter?  I listened to the police feeds as SB was going on and there were continuous reports of a third shooter, eye witness, etc.

Well? Would the government "hide" this information?

http://spectator.org/articles/64891/odd-man-out-what-happened-third-shooter

The abandonment of the crime scene was deliberate, but I doubt there was a third shooter.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #1671 on: December 09, 2015, 02:23:21 PM »

There were credible reports of a third person. I heard the same reports coming in on my scanner.  Even a video showed what appeared to be three people involved.

But I guess the government would not lie about this....,.
Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #1672 on: December 09, 2015, 02:29:39 PM »

Now why would a couple of "foreign speaking" men go into a rural Walmart and buy 60 cell phones?  Must be after the family plan.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/large-quantity-of-cellphones-bought-by-immigrants-at-rural-missouri-walmart-sets-off-alarms/
Logged

PPulatie
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4965


« Reply #1673 on: December 09, 2015, 04:36:27 PM »

"Now why would a couple of "foreign speaking" men go into a rural Walmart and buy 60 cell phones?  Must be after the family plan."

What are you some sort of xenophobe?  Racist?  Bigot?

How dare you!

We are going to watch YOU (not the guys buying huge numbers of cell phones from other lands).

We will plaster your picture and your home address and send it to everywhere around the world and shame you and your family and send you back to the cave you came from with your tail between your legs. 

You white privileged *hateful* (Republican)

What do you say to that?   Apologize, beg for forgiveness, admit the error of your words or we will destroy you and your reputation.  Keep you from travelling anywhere that is above your hate speech (England, San Francisco), picket outside your house, force your employer to fire you, make sure your children are ashamed of you and wish to God you were anything but a white male.

Comprende?
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #1674 on: December 10, 2015, 12:05:27 PM »

Comprende.

BTW,

There must be a huge family with these guys.  It has happened a third time.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/update-fbi-alerted-after-bulk-cell-phone-purchase-at-third-mid-missouri-walmart-video/

Is any Missouri inbreeding going on?
Logged

PPulatie
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1675 on: December 14, 2015, 03:00:33 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=139&v=JNRHsibHlbk

#Invalid YouTube Link#
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1676 on: December 14, 2015, 03:07:19 PM »


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/whistleblower-feds-shut-down-terror-investigation-that-could-have-prevented-san-bernardino-attack/

Strange, I can't imagine that the QUALIFIED Jeh Johnson would allow that to happen on his watch.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1677 on: December 14, 2015, 04:59:47 PM »


http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325



Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.

"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1678 on: December 15, 2015, 08:34:15 AM »

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/14/dhs-monitors-americans-social-media-accounts-but-not-visa-applicants/

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1679 on: December 15, 2015, 05:51:35 PM »


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428540/tashfeen-malik-social-media-ignored-dhs

Tashfeen Malik’s Jihadist Social-Media Posts Were Deliberately Ignored by the Feds


by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY   December 15, 2015 12:00 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

San Bernardino mass-murderer Tashfeen Malik wrote social-media posts that endorsed jihad and expressed disdain for America. Yet, that did not cause U.S. immigration agents to question her admission into our country, much less deny it. In fact, our government consciously avoided learning about Malik’s Islamist rants. Commentators stunned by this dereliction are attributing it to “secret” guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security. In truth, there is nothing secret about it. The instruction to refrain from scrutinizing social-media commentary, a precious source of intelligence, is a straightforward application of what passes for the official Obama administration “anti”-terrorism strategy, known as “Countering Violent Extremism.” Malik, a native Pakistani, who immigrated to the United States in July after living for a time in Saudi Arabia, joined her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, in slaying 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., earlier this month. The jihad’s Bonnie and Clyde were finally killed in a gun battle with police. Government officials now concede that Malik was inadequately screened before being permitted to relocate to the United States on a K-1 visa, issued because she was the fiancée of Farook, an American citizen. The couple married soon after her immigration. Malik’s visa approval was already the stuff of scandal even before the latest revelations — especially in light of President Obama’s plan to admit thousands of immigrants from Syria and other bastions of Islamic supremacism, which inevitably breeds violent jihadism. Right after the massacre, it emerged that Malik had provided government screeners with a fake Pakistani address. She may also have been educated in a notoriously anti-Western madrassa. Neither fact was discovered during the vetting process.

RELATED: Our Immigration Laws Should Screen Out Islamists, Not All Muslims ADVERTISING But as we now learn, that’s not the half of it. It turns out Malik was an active user of social media. Government investigators made this discovery only after the San Bernardino massacre. Malik’s actual posts were not published in the initial media reports (leaving us to wonder just how inflammatory they must be). But sources close to the investigation acknowledge that she championed jihad and condemned the United States. It is not enough to say that these signs of the Islamist mindset were missed by security and intelligence agencies. Our government chose to miss them. As a matter of policy, the Department of Homeland Security — the bureaucratic behemoth created after 9/11 to enhance protection of our country — avoids looking at, much less scrutinizing, the publicly available social-media commentary of aliens who seek visas to enter the United States, including from Islamic countries that are jihadist strongholds. You read that correctly.

RELATED: It’s Time to Start Profiling for Terrorists, without Apology Now that the story of shocking recklessness is out, the administration is scrambling for cover. The policy, officials stammer, was not really written down and was, in any event more like a loose guideline than a real rule. That is simply false. The guidance was mandatory, and it even ignited a furious intramural clash at DHS. In the end, Secretary Jeh Johnson personally refused to countermand the guidance, siding with DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (the radicalism of which is on a par with the Justice Department’s infamous Civil Rights Division) over Homeland Security agents who were worried about, you know, security. Press reports suggest that the guidance was “secret”: adopted out of concerns about antagonizing civil-rights activists in the wake of the hysteria over surveillance provoked by Edward Snowden. Alternatively, the Obama administration floats the suggestion that scrutinizing the social-media commentary of visa applicants would be (a) too difficult because people like Malik use pseudonyms and privacy protocols, and (b) too time-consuming because there are millions of applications. Visa applicants are aliens. They have no right to enter the U.S. and no civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. Each of these rationalizations is bogus. The surveillance controversy, to the extent it was not entirely overblown, sprang from concerns over spying on Americans. Visa applicants, by contrast, are aliens. They have no right to enter the U.S. and no civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. In addition, even if we pretend they have privacy rights, we are talking in this case about speech that aliens voluntarily share with others, not personal property in which they might be said to have an expectation of privacy. Moreover, if social-media commentary is sometimes difficult to uncover, that is mainly because government examiners purposely refrain from asking about it. If visa applicants were routinely questioned about aliases and social-media practices, much would be revealed. The fact that some aliens might lie to examiners is no excuse not to ask questions. Many would tell the truth. As for those who would not, it must be remembered that entering the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. The burden is on the alien to demonstrate fitness, not on the government to prove dishonesty. Examiners are good at detecting duplicity, and the visa should be denied if they suspect it. Finally, the claim about there being far too many visas to allow for competent background checks is frivolous. The number of visas issued is supposed to be a function of our national interest and the resources available to process applications. Plainly, if investigative resources are sparse, the government should issue fewer visas, not skimp on background checks.

But let’s put all of the Obama administration’s panicked excuse-making aside. The fact of the matter is that Tashfeen Malik was issued a visa not because of an insane “secret” visa policy, but because of the Obama administration’s criminally irresponsible but quite public national “security” strategy — “Countering Violent Extremism.” I wrote about CVE when the new strategy was rolled out during Obama’s first term. In essence, CVE holds that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, or even with Islamist ideology that reviles the United States. According to President Obama, “Muslim American communities have categorically condemned terrorism” — as if that were an incontestable proposition or one that told the whole story. Thus, as I elaborated at the time, The real threat to our security, [the CVE guidance instructs], is not Muslim terrorist plots against us but our provocation of Muslims by conveying the misimpression that America is at war with Islam. Therefore, the key to security is “partnering” with the leadership in Muslim communities [much of which just happens to be tied to or heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood]. Let them train the police, let them be our eyes and ears, and surely they’ll let us know if there is any cause for concern. If it is possible, the practice of CVE is even more of a national-security disaster than the theory. That is a central theme of an essential new book by Stephen Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. CVE holds that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, or even with Islamist ideology that reviles the United States. Apart from being an exceptional lawyer, Steve is a trained military-intelligence officer who has studied our enemies’ threat doctrine, Islamic supremacism — the classic sharia-based Islam that is mainstream in the Middle East. The book is about how the United States government has systematically stifled the study of this doctrine since before 9/11. CVE is the paragon illustration of how the Obama administration has exacerbated this catastrophic failure. As Coughlin demonstrates, CVE is no secret. For example, DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has worked with the National Counterterrorism Center (another bureaucracy created after 9/11 to improve security) to develop government-agency training programs that “bring together best [CVE] practices.” One product of this effort is a handy two-page instruction document of CVE “Do’s and Don’ts” [sic]. The “Don’ts” tell agents to avoid, among other things, “ventur[ing] too deep into the weeds of religious doctrine and history,” or examining the “role of Islam in majority Muslim nations.” The guidance further admonishes: Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally protected activity, with criminal activity. One can have radical thoughts/ideas, including disliking the U.S. government, without being violent; for example, trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment. This allusion to the First Amendment is patent nonsense. Free-expression principles protect Americans against laws that subject speech to penalty or prosecution (a protection, by the way, that the Obama administration seeks to deny to speech unflattering to Islam). But there is no free-speech protection against having one’s words examined for intelligence or investigative purposes. That is why, for example, speech is routinely used in court to prove crimes. And, to repeat: Aliens outside the United States do not have First Amendment rights at all. In sum, Obama’s CVE strategy expressly instructs our investigators to consider only violent or criminal conduct. They are told to ignore radical ideology, particularly if it has the veneer of “religious expression.” They are directed to turn a deaf ear to anti-Americanism and the desire to impose sharia, which just happens to be the principal objective of all violent jihadists and of the Obama administration’s oft-time consultants, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our agents, furthermore, are cautioned to avoid doing anything that smacks of subjecting particular groups or people from select regions to heightened scrutiny. After all, that might imply that terrorism committed by Muslims has some connection to Islam — specifically, to the undeniable, unambiguous commands to violent jihad found throughout Muslim scripture. Obviously, this CVE guidance is exactly what DHS follows when it willfully blinds itself to social-media postings by visa applicants from Muslim-majority countries where anti-Americanism and jihadist sympathies run rampant. There is nothing secret about it. It is right there in black-and-white. Willful blindness is, furthermore, a guiding principle of Obama’s governance. It is, for example, the same rationale used to justify purging instruction about the Islamic doctrinal roots of violent jihadism from materials used to train our law-enforcement, military, and intelligence agents. The mulish determination not to “know thine enemy” is the intentional design of the Obama strategy. What happened in the case of Tashfeen Malik was not a glitch. It was foreseeable and inevitable. And now, 14 innocent people are dead. —

Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428540/tashfeen-malik-social-media-ignored-dhs
« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 01:17:35 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1680 on: December 17, 2015, 11:05:54 AM »

I've been sympathetic to Ryan, but this is pretty awful.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/paul-ryan-betrays-america-1-1-trillion-2000-plus-page-omnibus-bill-funds-fundamental-transformation-america/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1681 on: December 19, 2015, 08:28:58 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10153919352831336/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1682 on: December 19, 2015, 09:41:42 PM »


Total fcuking betrayal!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1683 on: December 21, 2015, 10:45:20 AM »

http://dcwhispers.com/obama-snarls-against-fbis-immigration-suggestion-you-sound-like-trump/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1684 on: December 24, 2015, 02:04:37 AM »

If I understood correctly, Rand Paul says Marco Rubio is opposing his bill to tighten visa waiver requirements.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1685 on: December 29, 2015, 09:02:51 PM »

https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/29/tsa-says-it-will-stop-accepting-drivers
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1686 on: December 31, 2015, 01:47:30 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/unarmed-aviation-officers/index.html
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2937


« Reply #1687 on: January 09, 2016, 12:01:49 PM »

Security theater, citing fear of terror attacks as a reason to abrogate second amendment protections, institutionalized eavesdropping, et al, play in to the hands of terrorists:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/we-are-terrorized-why-us-counterterrorism-policy-failing-why-it-cant-be
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1688 on: January 14, 2016, 10:22:48 AM »

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/01/judicial-watch-uncovers-2004-state-department-records-confirming-arab-smuggling-cells-al-qaeda-leader-in-mexico/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1689 on: January 17, 2016, 02:09:24 AM »

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/16/defending-our-homeland-how-neighbors-can-protect-their-community/

Homegrown.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13253


« Reply #1690 on: January 18, 2016, 06:04:40 PM »

http://www.nypdshield.org/public/SiteFiles/documents/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf

Thanks ACLU!
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1691 on: January 19, 2016, 11:12:42 AM »


I keep seeing accusations of this sort from the chumps at Judicial Watch and Stratfor; yet, not one of the two can quote a hard source (general, politician, etc,) or provide any proof of this.

Why is that? Are they that hard up for evidence?

Bonus Question - Who has ever vetted the people behind Stratfor and Judicial Watch?

Stratfor - two military vets, neither of whom have any contacts here in Mexico, slinging accusations to sell page hits.

"Strategic Forecasting, Inc. — known as Stratfor — is an American publisher and global intelligence company founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, who was the company's chairman. Shea Morenz is president and chief executive officer. Fred Burton is Stratfor's vice president of intelligence.
 
Other executives include Chief Operating Officer Mark Ozdarski, a retired Navy SEAL officer who also has worked as an investment portfolio manager;[2] former U.S. Special Operations Command officer Bret Boyd, vice president of custom intelligence services;[3] and Editor-in-Chief David Judson.[4]"

Judicial Watch - "Thomas J. "Tom" Fitton is an American activist. He is the President of Judicial Watch, a conservative educational foundation. He has worked for America's Voice and National Empowerment Television, the International Policy Forum, the Leadership Institute, and Accuracy in Media. He also used to be a talk radio and television host.[1]"

I'm failing to see how any of them would have the slightest idea what goes on in Mexico.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 11:24:30 AM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1692 on: January 19, 2016, 12:15:11 PM »

You have PM.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1693 on: January 19, 2016, 12:49:06 PM »

http://patriotpost.us/posts/40116
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1694 on: January 19, 2016, 05:34:09 PM »

You have PM.

Excellent point sir. I stand corrected.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1695 on: January 19, 2016, 06:27:26 PM »

And thus our Search for Truth takes a step forward! 

TAC!
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 284


« Reply #1696 on: January 20, 2016, 03:57:33 PM »

And thus our Search for Truth takes a step forward! 

TAC!

Indeed. They should make it clearer however, that their source is an unidentified, "confidential" informant. We all know how trustworthy those are.

I was just hoping they had something more than that.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1697 on: January 28, 2016, 12:40:29 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/10000-from-terror-countries-overstay-visas-in-u-s-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35820


« Reply #1698 on: February 02, 2016, 09:31:55 AM »

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/01/abbott-and-cuellar-question-dhs-over-cuts-border-s/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4965


« Reply #1699 on: February 02, 2016, 10:10:10 AM »

I think it is better said that Obama cuts surveillance.  We know the directives are coming down from the top.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!