|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 3, 2015 9:36:54 GMT -5
California Shooting: The Debate Starts Here
By Meira Svirsky
December 3, 2015
With the investigation of the California shooting in its primary stages, what we do know about this horrific attack is that it was highly planned. The shooters were prepared: in dress -- they donned “assault-style clothing” (described as dark, tactical garments) and body armor; with weapons -- they chose AK-47 Kalashnikov semi-automatic rifles (or the equivalent) plus pistols; and with ammo – they were carrying multiple magazines and had planted explosive devices resembling pipe bombs.
Without ruling out other motives, law-enforcement officers say the facts of this case point to a terrorist attack. What we do know is that Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters, “was very religious,” according to his father.
...
In the wake of the attack, U.S. President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley all immediately called for gun-control laws, not venturing into the territory of what makes another human being want to cause so much death and destruction with a gun.
Republican candidates initially offered prayers for the victims and their families, as well as law-enforcement officers in harm’s way. At a speaking engagement, Ben Carson pointedly asked, "What happened to our country? Where did that come from? I will tell you where it did not come from. It did not come from our Judeo-Christian values. It came from something else.”
If, indeed, the shootings turn out to be an Islamist terror attack, Carson’s questions need to be answered. The current administration’s policy of denying the ideological underpinning of the world’s current battle with worldwide terror is as dangerous as it is ridiculous.
Having an unidentified elephant in the room, a lurking “that-who-will-not-be-named” presence wreaking havoc in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people does not make it go away. On the contrary, it only empowers it.
read full article
www.clarionproject.org/analysis/california-shooting-debate-starts-here#
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 3, 2015 10:09:25 GMT -5
Blaming White Americans First
Erick Erickson
There is an interesting trend worth noting. In the face of tragedy, the political left always blames rational Americans first — not crazies, not terrorists, but rational Americans with whom they have political disagreements, who tend to be white, Christian, and Republican.
It happened immediately this afternoon. As word came of a mass shooting in California, the left’s immediate reaction was to blame Republicans. A writer for the Guardian suggested assassinating NRA board members. CNN made to sure to document where the Planned Parenthood facility was. Alan Colmes did too. So too did Bloomberg. News reports spread that it could be a white suspect who did the shooting. Once it turned out to be a Muslim, the left-media would not even mention his name for hours after Fox News had broken the story.
Along the way, leftwing activists began shaming anyone who tweeted or put on Facebook that they were offering prayers. The left was shaming people as victims and relatives in California, with blood still on the ground, were praying together or texting, asking for prayers. Yes, the left was criticizing people for praying as the victims were praying.
When shootings like this happen in the United States, the first reaction of the American right is to blame either lunatics with mental issues or terrorists. They do not instictively blame their fellow Americans with whom they have political disagreements. But time and time again, whenever there is a shooting, whether it is Floyd Lee Corkins shooting up the Family Research Council, the gay reporter in Virginia killing his two colleagues, the Islamic terrorist in Chattanooga, TN, or the three jihadists in California earlier today, the left always blames their political opponents. Their opponents tend to be mostly white, mostly Christian Republicans.
They peddle made up statistics on violent Christians and angry Republicans. They wrap themselves in comfortable memes. They refuse to acknowledge actual enemies to their freedom and they refuse to acknowledge the problems with mental health in this country. Their agenda is single-minded focused on taking away guns and shaming those who dissent from their agenda.
When the shooters turn out to be gay or Muslim or an environmentalist, the media sweeps it under the rug. When it turns out to be a single while male with mental health problems, the media indicts the entire political right and attacks the NRA.
read full article
www.erickontheradio.com/2015/12/blaming-white-americans-first/?utm_source=The+Conservative+Team&utm_campaign=6dfa7b8910-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ed44836b36-6dfa7b8910-265969673
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 3, 2015 12:31:45 GMT -5
Obama: “mass shootings like this have no parallel anywhere in the world”
Has he already forgotten about what happened in Paris or what happens in Israel virtually on a daily basis?
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,397 
|
Post by fearnot on Dec 3, 2015 13:55:37 GMT -5
Of course the first thing Obama wants to do is take away every bodies guns...but see these folks also had pipe bombs.
If someone is intent on mass murder they could use lots of things like and a hand grenade, poison gas, some kind of killer virus etc etc
All taking away law abiding citizens guns does is make them without a way to defend themselves and become sitting ducks.
I've noticed at almost all of these no one had any way to defend themselves ( no one else had a gun)...which will be all the worse if they take away the 2nd admendment!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 4, 2015 10:59:57 GMT -5
Please -- profile me!
Joseph Farah
You know the trademarked, copyrighted slogan of the Department of Homeland Security, right?
“If you see something, say something.”®
That’s right. The government is so fond of this slogan that it trademarked it.
There’s just one thing about it: Everyone knows it’s a lie. Everyone knows Washington doesn’t mean it. Everyone knows the government only wants you to report certain things by the code of political correctness and multiculturalist standards. That’s the way DHS does it. That’s the way Barack Obama wants it.
What do I mean?
Let me give you an example of how a Muslim couple was observed performing all kinds of suspicious activity in their home that went unreported even though their neighbors saw something. The result in San Bernardino? 14 dead and 21 wounded.
One man working in the Redlands, California, neighborhood of Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, days before the attack on a nonprofit facility in San Bernardino noticed a lot of activity around their house in recent weeks. A half-dozen Middle Eastern men were in and out of the home, which has been described as a bomb factory by investigators.
The worker candidly said he did not report any of the activity since he did not wish to racially profile anyone.
“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What are they doing around the neighborhood?’” the worker observed after the fact.
The same thing happened several years ago in the Fort Dix jihad plot: A young man who inadvertently discovered the plot initially hesitated to contact police, fearing that to do so might be racist.
The same predilection had broadcast and cable media veterans tip-toeing around even disclosing the name of the prime suspect in the massacre in San Bernardino for fear it would lead to speculation about Islamic terrorism.
Hello! What is it if it is not Islamic terrorism?
continue reading
www.wnd.com/2015/12/please-profile-me/
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by fearnot on Dec 4, 2015 14:17:23 GMT -5
Yes a person would have to face being labeled a racist at best,
but might lose their job or business, pay fines, lose home, go to jail....
if the person they were reporting, was anything but 'white'....
if they were reporting a white person, then it would be perfect and front page news ( in a 'good' way! NOT!! sarcasm)
It wouldn't be really 'good, no matter if they were white, black Asian, etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 5, 2015 12:00:13 GMT -5
San Bernardino Massacre Raises Significant Questions
By Jay Sekulow
Terror struck America again this week. While there are many more questions than answers in the early days of the ongoing investigation into the brutal massacre in San Bernardino, California - emerging details raise more concerns about protecting the homeland.
First, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, families, brave first responders, and residents of San Bernardino in the wake of this horrific attack.
More details continue to emerge from authorities.
Fourteen people were murdered and 21 others were injured when Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire at the Inland Regional Center.
Here’s what we know:
This attack was pre-planned with authorities saying the two were “on a mission.”
The terrorists left their 6-month old child with grandparents.
They walked into the meeting room and fired between 65 and 75 rounds in seconds.
They brought with them a massive pipe bomb, designed to be detonated by a remote controlled toy car – a tactic used by radical Islamists.
Their home was booby-trapped and officials said it resembled more of a bomb factory than a residence.
Inside the house, 12 more pipe bombs were found along with hundreds of tools to construct bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
The FBI has confirmed that the suspects travelled internationally. Authorities say Farook went to Pakistan at one point and his wife was in the U.S. on a visa with a Pakistani passport. Saudi Arabia’s embassy has reportedly confirmed that Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia last year.
continue reading
aclj.org/national-security/san-bernardino-massacre-raises-significant-questions-
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 6, 2015 9:49:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 7, 2015 9:55:13 GMT -5
Obama’s ISIS Cover-Up Gets Its Own Speech
Daniel Greenfield
December 7, 2015
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.
continue reading
www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261048/obamas-isis-cover-gets-its-own-speech-daniel-greenfield
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 7, 2015 12:47:16 GMT -5
America’s Pathological Denial of Reality
By Caroline Glick December 7, 2015
...In an interview with CNN following the shooting, US President Barack Obama said the massacre demonstrates that the US needs stricter gun laws. As for the motives of the shooters, Obama shrugged. “We don’t yet know the motives of the shooters,” he insisted.
In other words, while ignoring what in all likelihood drove Farooq and his wife to murder innocent people, Obama laid responsibility for the carnage at the feet of his political opponents who reject his demands for stricter limitations on gun ownership.
Here is the place to note that California has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US.
According to the victims, Farook and his partners were able to reload their weapons and shoot without interruption for several minutes until the police arrived because there was no one to stop them.
Obama wasn’t alone in deflecting attention away from the likely motivations of the murderers.
Wednesday evening, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), held a press conference at the Islamic Center of Orange County. Farook’s brother in law, Farhan Khan was carted out before the cameras to tell the world that he for one had no idea why his brother in law opened fire.
Two other speakers at the event were Hussam Auyloush, CAIR’s regional executive director and Muzammil Siddiqi, the director of the Islamic Society of Orange County.
Auyloush insisted that he had no idea would could have possibly prompted Farook and his wife to murder those gathered at the center. Auyloush raised the prospect that they could have been mentally ill, or perhaps they just didn’t like the victims, or maybe they were garden-variety extremists.
For his part, Siddiqi insisted that Islam had nothing to do with the shooters’ decision to murder innocent people, (how he could be so certain, is unknown).
read full article
www.breakingisraelnews.com/55513/americas-pathological-denial-of-reality-opinion/
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 7, 2015 12:58:03 GMT -5
Obama: We will defeat ISIS, but this isn't a war with Islam
By Ben Ariel
12/7/2015
...Obama said that, so far, there is no evidence that the shooters, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, belonged to any specific Islamist terrorist group.
However, he said, it is clear that the two had "gone down the dark path of radicalization...embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam". It is believed Farook had contact with people from at least two terrorist organizations overseas, and last week it was reported that Malik had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a Facebook posting.
"This was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people," Obama said of the California shooting, adding, "Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11."
"I have authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people," he continued.
"The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it," he declared. "We will destroy [ISIS] and any other terrorist group that tries to harm us."
"Congress should act to make sure no one on a No Fly List is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?" he said.
In addition, the president continued, "We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. If Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with [ISIS], it should...vote to authorize the continued use of military force."
But, Obama warned, "We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam."
read full article
www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204503
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 12, 2015 10:56:28 GMT -5
Baffling 'odd' gaps in California terror attack
Leo Hohmann
More than a week after Syed Farook and his jihadist wife slaughtered 14 people and injured 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, lingering questions about how the attack played out and the way it is being handled by the FBI continue to simmer just below the surface.
As WND reported, several witnesses said they saw a third shooter dressed in black carrying an assault rifle.
But there are other oddities peculiar to this case.
WND contacted the FBI’s Los Angeles office, which is handling the case, with a list of questions about the possible third shooter, lack of video in an office park dominated by government buildings, and why Farook’s apartment was opened to the media so soon. WND also asked about Farook’s mother, and the strange behavior of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in working to represent the terrorists’ family.
The FBI’s media coordinator, Laura Eimiller, responded to an email Thursday morning saying she believed she “could answer most” of the questions. She never got back with WND as promised on any of the questions.
Why, for instance, did the FBI open Farook’s apartment to the media less than 48 hours after the crime was committed, with what appeared to be much of the evidence left scattered about?
“I’m hesitant to call them oddities, only because we just don’t know anything yet,” former 12-year Secret Service agent Dan Bongino told WND.
He said he could chalk up the “third shooter” reports to the “fog of war” phenomenon, where witness descriptions are notoriously unreliable.
Where’s the video?
Another issue that hasn’t been addressed yet by the FBI is why there has been no video footage.
“We don’t know that for sure. Is there a video and it hasn’t been released? I’m hesitant to call it odd until we know,” Bongino said. “I think (FBI Director James) Comey is doing a pretty good job to avoid the politics so far. I trust Comey. I hate to assume anything without having the facts. I’m a born skeptic, but I can only be skeptical if I have the facts to believe otherwise.”
continue reading
www.wnd.com/2015/12/baffling-odd-gaps-in-california-terror-attack/#Tsi1DOphW41Q1rDH.99
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 14, 2015 9:23:36 GMT -5
Report: Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino
Jonah Bennett
12/10/2015
The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.
A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification.
This source added that as soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy.
Part of the reason for trying to avoid the designation of the shootings as terrorism is because it threatens to upset the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria. A case of Islamic terrorism in the U.S. would put additional pressure on the administration to play a much more active role in the conflict.
But in this case, because the preponderance evidence so pointed to terrorism, the FBI’s hand was forced, and the agency declared the existence of a terrorism investigation, going against top-down priorities from the White House. Syed Rizwan Farook, the shooter, had contact with ISIS and other groups.
In response, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the Department of Justice was ready and waiting to prosecute people engaging in “anti-Muslim” rhetoric.
continue reading
dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/report-obama-told-nsc-to-downplay-terrorist-angle-of-san-bernadino/
|
|
!!
