My Comment: Idiot French Commie useful idiots shocked at such gratitude…
Calais: Illegals complain and throw away food given by French leftists
My Comment: Idiot French Commie useful idiots shocked at such gratitude…
Calais: Illegals complain and throw away food given by French leftists
REPOSTED FROM CONSERVATIVEPOST.COM
Gary Sinise is known for many roles he has played in. His most common and famous role was the hit movie “Forest Gump”. When he played Lieutenant Dan in the hit blockbuster film, he played a veteran for a large portion of the movie. His role consisted of a disabled vet that went through quite the hardships.
We now find out that Gary Sinise spends his free time performing free concerts for America’s troops and even builds houses for disabled veterans!
Here’s the video now:
We are tired of hearing the cynical view of celebrities that most of them are stuck up and ignorant. This isn’t the case all the time.
We thank you, Gary! We appreciate your support towards the true heroes!
SHARE this to support our troops!
Glenn Greenwald: The Greatest Threat to Campus Free Speech
There is no shortage of American pundits who love to denounce “PC” speech codes that restrict and punish the expression of certain ideas on college campuses. What these self-styled campus-free-speech crusaders typically — and quite tellingly — fail to mention is that the most potent such campaigns are often devoted to outlawing or otherwise punishing criticisms of Israel. The firing by the University of Illinois of Professor Steven Salatia for his “uncivil” denunciations of the Israeli war on Gaza — a termination that was privately condoned by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin — is merely illustrative of this long–growing trend.
One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The university’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the state’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that — in the name of combating “anti-Semitism” — would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.
Under the most stringent such regulations, students found to be in violation of these codes would face suspension or expulsion. In July, it appeared that the Regents were poised to enact the most extreme version, but decided instead to push the decision off until September, when they instead would adopt non-binding guidelines to define “hate speech” and “intolerance.”
One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week, reported the Los Angeles Times, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein would publicly denounce the university if it failed to adopt far more stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found to be in violation.
The San Francisco Chronicle put it this way: “Regent Dick Blum said his wife, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ‘is prepared to be critical of this university’ unless UC not only tackles anti-Jewish bigotry but also makes clear that perpetrators will be punished.” The lawyer Ken White wrote that “Blum threatened that his wife … would interfere and make trouble if the Regents didn’t commit to punish people for prohibited speech.” As campus First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn put it the following day, “Feinstein and her husband think college students should be expelled for protected free speech.”
Blum’s verbatim comments at the Regents meeting are even creepier than that reporting suggests:
I should add that over the weekend my wife, your senior Senator, and I talked about this issue at length. She wants to stay out of the conversation publicly but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to be critical of this university if we don’t have the kind of not only statement but penalties for those who commit what you can call them crimes, call them whatever you want. Students that do the things that have been cited here today probably ought to have a dismissal or a suspension from school. I don’t know how many of you feel strongly that way but my wife does and so do I.
Sarah McLaughlin of the campus free-speech group FIRE wrote: “Yes, a UC Regent flatly threatened the university with political consequences if it failed to craft a ‘tolerance’ policy that would punish — and even expel — its violators.”
In response to inquiries from The Intercept, Feinstein refused to say whether her husband was authorized to make such threats on her behalf, but she refused to distance herself from them. “This is a matter before the University of California and Senator Feinstein has no comment at this time,” her Press Secretary said.
The specific UC controversy is two-fold: whether, in combating “anti-semitism,” the university should adopt the State Department’s controversial 2010 definition of that term, and separately, whether students who express ideas that fall within that definition should be formally punished up to and including permanent expulsion. What makes the State Department definition so controversial — particularly for an academic setting — is that alongside uncontroversial and obvious examples of classic bigotry (e.g., expressing hateful or derogatory sentiments toward Jews generally), that definition includes a discussion of what it calls “Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel.”
How does speech about Israel become “anti-Semitic”? According to the State Department, “anti-Semitism” includes those who (1) “Demonize Israel” by “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or “blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions”; (2) espouse a “Double standard for Israel” by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” or “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”; or (3) “Delegitimize Israel” by “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.” The State Department generously adds this caveat at the end: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”
The ironies of this definition are overwhelming. First, it warns against advocating a “double standard for Israel” — at exactly the same time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel. Would the State Department ever formally condemn what it regards as excessive or one-sided criticism of any other government, such as Russia or Iran? Why isn’t the State Department also accusing people of bigotry who create “double standards” for Iran by obsessing over the anti-gay behavior of Iran while ignoring the same or worse abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uganda? The State Department is purporting to regulate the discourse surrounding just one country — Israel — while at the same time condemning “double standards.”
Clinton unveils gun control plan during Monday campaign stop
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Monday that, if elected, she would use the power of her office to curb gun violence if necessary.
Expanding background checks and making it easier to hold negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable would be some of the measures she would take, she said.
Clinton has spoken forcefully in favor of new gun control measures after a gunman killed nine people and wounded another nine last week on the campus of Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.
“How many people have to die before we actually act, before we come together as a nation?” Clinton asked at a community college in Manchester, New Hampshire, which she said was similar to the Oregon campus.
Clinton has said she wants to build a “national movement” to counter the influence of the National Rifle Association, the nation’s top gun-rights advocacy group.
At the Manchester town hall and in background documents provided to reporters, Clinton detailed the measures she would take if elected to the White House in November 2016.
Clinton said that if the U.S. Congress will not act, she would use presidential executive authority to close a “loophole” to ensure people buying firearms at gun shows and on the Internet undergo the same background checks and pay the same sales tax as when buying from traditional retailers.
Clinton will also push Congress to pass laws that prohibit all domestic abusers, including stalkers, from purchasing guns and to close what she called the “Charleston loophole,” referring to a June shooting at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, that left nine dead.
Currently, if a background check is not completed within three days, a gun sale can proceed. The alleged Charleston shooter was able to buy his gun because of this loophole, as did 2,500 people in 2014 who would have otherwise been barred from making such a purchase, Clinton’s campaign said.
Clinton also reiterated that she wanted to get “military-style assault weapons” off streets, to repeal a 2005 law that she says gives gun manufacturers and dealers “immunity,” and to tighten restrictions on straw purchasers who give guns to others.
“They’re not new,” Clinton said of her proposals. “There’s nothing unique about them, other than I am so determined to do everything we possibly can.”
As a U.S. senator representing New York, Clinton voted against the law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for crimes committed with their guns.
(Reporting By Amanda Becker; Additional reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and Lisa Von Ahn)
My comment: ROFLOL
Hillary Clinton supporters think that a ‘white privilege tax’ is a real policy, and what’s more they support it, saying that taxing just white people and redistributing the money among minority communities is a good idea.
Political activist Mark Dice went out on the street in San Diego, California to seek out Hillary supporters’ opinions, telling them that Clinton plans on implementing a tax on the income of all Caucasian Americans to help offset income inequality.
Swedish bishop wants to remove crosses from church and mark direction of Mecca to make it more inviting for Muslims
October 4, 2015 7:10 pm By Robert Spencer
“Bishop wants to remove Christian symbols in the Seamen’s Church,” translated from “Biskopen vill ta bort kristna symboler,” SVT.se, September 29, 2015:
Bishop Eva Brunne has proposed to remove the Christian symbols of the Seamen’s Church in Freeport to make it more inviting for visiting sailors from other religions.
The bishop wants to temporarily make the Seamen’s Church available to all, for example by marking the direction of Mecca and removing Christian symbols, as is already done in common prayer rooms at airports and in some hospital chapel.
“Making a room available for people of other faiths does not mean that we are not defenders of our own faith. Priests are called to proclaim Christ. We do that every day and in every meeting with people. But that does not mean that we are stingy toward people of other faiths,” writes Bishop Eva Brunne…
Has aroused protests
The proposal has triggered protests. Patrik Pettersson, priest of the Oscars parish in Stockholm, thinks that the proposal is noteworthy and writes on his blog:
“The church chapel can not reasonably be equated with prayer rooms at airports and hospital chapels anyway. The Christian churches and chapels are not public areas at any time.”
And Seamen’s Mission Director Kiki Wetterberg does not agree with the bishop.
“I have no problem with Muslim or Hindu sailors coming here and praying. But I believe that we are a Christian church, so we keep the symbols. If I visit a mosque, I do not ask them to take down their symbols. It’s my choice to go in there,” she says to the newspaper Dagen.
BY ONAN COCA FOR FREEDOMOUTPOST.COM
Once upon a time, I was a social studies teacher who was privileged to impart knowledge about Geography, History, Economics, and Civics to young minds. I loved it. What I did not love was the criticism that came from not doing things exactly the way others wanted it done. Anyway, during my years teaching American history, whenever we arrived at post WWII America, we’d run into the interesting story of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a married couple from New York City who were found guilty of espionage after working to pass nuclear secrets on to the Soviet Union.
At the time, American liberals believed that the couple had been railroaded and that perhaps a miscarriage of justice had taken place. However, we now know that the government did indeed have ironclad proof that the couple were Soviet Agents. We also know that they are still honored among the agents of Russia’s SVR (their modern version of the KGB or Secret Police). The Rosenbergs were traitors. They were spies for the communist Soviet Union, and they were actively working to steal state secrets on nuclear weaponry in the hopes of passing it on to the USSR. Indeed, the Rosenbergs were about the business of helping the Soviet Union dominate America by gaining powerful weaponry that could have led to the death of millions of Americans.
None of this matters to New York City’s liberal community who took the opportunity this past week to HONOR Ethel Rosenberg for “demonstrating great bravery.”
New York’s city council has taken it upon itself to posthumously honor Ethel Rosenberg, a Soviet spy who helped, in her modest way, the worldwide Communist enterprise to murder some 100 million people. Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer was joined by three city-council members earlier this week in issuing proclamations honoring Rosenberg for “demonstrating great bravery.” They also affirmed their belief — in spite of heavy evidence to the contrary — that she was wrongfully executed for her role in the Soviet spy ring dedicated to stealing information about the U.S. atomic-bomb program in order to give Stalin et al. another weapon in their battery of terror.
Daniel Dromm, who for his sins is a Democrat representing Queens on the city council, said: “A lot of hysteria was created around anti-Communism and how we had to defend our country, and these two” — note that two — people were traitors, and we rushed to judgment and they were executed.”
These are mainstream Democrats, folks. This isn’t self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, these are NYC machine Democrat operatives who just honored a traitor and spy who did her very best to defeat the United States and enslave her neighbors.
I am simply astounded that the media, voters, and even Republicans continue to allow Democrats to get away with such gross displays of idiocy. When a Republican says or does something stupid it’s in the news for 3 or 4 days, but when the Democrat Party in America’s most important city HONORS a traitor and calls her brave… SILENCE.
This is just another sad commentary on how far the Democrat Party has fallen and on how far they’ve dragged our nation with them. It’s abhorrent.
Here’s some of the evidence against the Rosenbergs.
From the LA TIMES – the declassified evidence from Soviet messages.
Former NSA agent John Schindler rips Rosenberg defenders and explains why both deserved the death penalty.
The Rosenberg children admit their father was guilty.
Also, New York has a history of “romanticizing radicals” even if they tried to get a lot of Americans killed.
BY TPI WRITER FOR POLITICALINSIDER.COM
In the past, American presidents have addressed the United Nations to explain the greatness of America. But President Barack Obama just went in front of the U.N. to attack conservative Presidential candidate Donald Trump!
This is not classy, and is an embarrassment to America on the world stage:
Referring to the “most advanced democracies” in the world, [Barack] Obama admitted to the world leaders that there was opposition from the “far right” on trade agreements and immigration.
“We see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants,” he said.
Trump is the only candidate that has specifically called for a wall on the Southern border of Mexico. He also has joined Republican opposition to Obama’s efforts on trade agreements in Asia.
Obama also lectured politicians in advanced nations for trying to win voters’ support by preying on their fears, an accusation he frequently makes when criticizing the Republican party.
Trump has been the champion of movements to secure America’s border, which is necessary after the immigration crisis Obama has created. Then after slamming Trump, he went on to dismiss dangerous regimes that run Iran and China.
Obama has so much arrogance, and doesn’t seem to realize how weak he appears by offering to cut deals with Iran, a nation on the verge of nuclear arms. Trump, on the other hand, is a master negotiator and would defend American exceptionalism as President. Trump has sounded the alarm on sanctuary cities which has already encouraged congressional action, and shows Trump is already a leader without winning an election yet!
BY SEAN BROWN FOR MADWORLDNEWS.COM
Radical Islam isn’t anything that any of us want here in America for any reason, especially after seeing its devastating effect in purely Islamic nations. As a means to keep the threat of its expansion as low as possible, 16 states have taken bold action in an effort to ensure the safety of their people.
As we all know, Sharia is an oppressive rule of law that has absolutely no place anywhere in our nation as it stands in stark contrast to our own Constitution, which promotes freedom and liberty. Strict adherence to Sharia allows for such things as honor killings, death sentences for adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality, and underage arranged marriages, to name a few.
Despite this, it seems as though anytime a state attempts to prevent our courts from using Sharia to litigate cases, the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations is always right there to accuse them of “Islamophobia” and of showing “outright hostility towards Muslims.” However, at least 16 states have decided they’re not going to even risk such a takeover of their courts, and in doing so they’ve assured that the only law to be followed will be American laws while protecting their citizens from the harsh Islamic rule.
Below is a list of the states that have forbidden Sharia in their courts, according to the Political Insider. See if yours is on the list. If it isn’t, it’s time to call your legislators.
Alabama (two bills)
Florida (two bills)
Indiana (two bills)
Mississippi (four bills)
Missouri (two bills)
Oklahoma (seven bills)
South Carolina (two bills)
Texas (six bills)
Wyoming (two bills)
Personally, I’m not entirely sure why every state hasn’t done this yet. With the massive influx of Muslim immigrants our nation has seen, and the very real possibility that as their numbers grow, they will push harder for Sharia to be recognized, it’s much better to be safe than sorry when it comes to this. There’s absolutely no room in our legal system for anything Sharia, and the passage of such a safeguard seems like an easy step in ensuring no American will ever have to deal with it.
REPOSTED FROM RIGHTWINGNEWS.COM
Today, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest conducted an oversight hearing on the administration’s plan to increase the number of refugees admitted to the United States by approximately 200,000 over the next two years, with the increase largely attributable to Syrian refugees. The question on most American’s minds is…WHAT WILL IT COST ME?
After the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Sessions summed up the conclusions that emerged:
* We do not have access to any Syrian government database to learn the backgrounds of these refugee applicants.
* We do not have adequate resources or records and will not conduct any meaningful investigation of each of the thousands of applicants.
* The administration approves over 90% of all Syrian refugee applications.
* We have no capacity to determine the likelihood that Islamist refugees, once admitted to the United States, will become involved with terrorist activity.
* We are already struggling with a huge problem of prior Islamist refugees seeking to take up arms with terrorists, and we have every expectation that the Administration’s current refugee plans will exacerbate that problem.
* It is not a probability, but a certainty, that among the more than 1 million migrants from Muslim countries we will admit over the next decade, a number will already be radicalized or radicalize after their entrance into the U.S.
* With respect to cost, the $1.2 billion budget for refugee placement is only a fraction of the total expense, and does not attempt to measure the short-term or long-term costs of providing access to virtually all welfare, healthcare, and retirement programs in the U.S. budget, as well as community resources such as public education and local hospitals.
* Robert Rector, with the Heritage Foundation, estimates the lifetime cost of benefits at $6.5 billion per 10,000 refugees. In the most recent year, the Office of Refugee Resettlement provided services to some 140,000 newly-admitted refugees, asylees, and related groups.
So let’s do the math: if 10,000 refugees incur a lifetime benefits cost of $6.5 billion, then 200,000 will add up to $130 billion. This extraordinary cost is due in large part to the fact that nearly all of the individuals in question will be on welfare. As Sessions also noted, and as we wrote here recently, more than 90% of recent Middle Eastern refugees receive food stamps, while 70% get free health care and cash welfare.
So, in other words: here we go again.
In essence, we could literally be giving monetary care to the very people who plan to invade and conquer this country!