I refer to Democrats simply as ‘Rats’ because their collective behavior is very similar to that of rats and other rodents. Like rats, Democrats pee all over everything, embrace infanticide, and love communes.
The biggest rat in the USA is Hillary Clinton who recently tweeted about illegal immigrant children being held in detention by ICE in Texas. Of course Hillary has exaggerated the situation in order to sensationalize it. She’s employing her Chicken Little shtick again.
Babies should not be in detention.
“At least nine infants younger than a year old, including one who is just 5 months old, are being held in ICE custody at a rural Texas detention center without care that's legally required.” https://t.co/qsiJdhxJj2
Democrats complain about children being “ripped from their mother’s arms” at the border and “babies” being held in “detention.” Simultaneously, they have no problem having a baby ripped out of a mother’s womb during an abortion—thereby killing it—and no problem with murdering a newborn baby. Both are clear cut infanticide.
The saddest part of these procedures is that fetuses are sentient. They feel and experience the same tortuous pain and suffering any other human would experience while being dismembered and ultimately murdered.
Here is one very appropriate comment to Hillary’s tweet:
“Yes and they are fed and taken care of quite well. All the while you think it’s acceptable to murder American babies one minute before they are born. So for the last time sit down and STFU. You are going to PRISON. Take that to the bank Hillary. You disgust me!”
What part of a person’s brain or soul is missing in order for them to embrace murdering babies while pretending otherwise that they are concerned for the welfare of all “babies,” to use Hillary’s term?
Anyone who disagrees with the DNC’s socialist talking points might as well be a fetus or newborn because the Rats want us gone. Hillary just puts out a hit on dissenters. I think she’s up over 200 murders now.
Here’s a video from the CBS News website on this subject:
View our first post on the Pamela Geller “Draw Mohammad” contest: TMQ2 SALUTES…
Shut Pam Geller Up, or We Will All Die
By Ben Shapiro | 13 May 2015
Last week, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly announced that Pamela Geller, the woman who sponsored a draw Muhammad event in Texas, threatened America’s national security. Geller, said O’Reilly, “spurred a violent attack.” He continued, “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid. … It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad.” On the same network, Juan Williams stated that Geller “engaged in gratuitous offensive behavior that led to the deaths of two people.” The New York Times editorialized that Geller “achieved her provocative goal” with her “exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.”
Geller, the narrative goes, should never have encouraged people to draw Muhammad because it was “provocative.” To which the answer should be: So what? Women attending school in Afghanistan “provokes” radical Muslims into throwing acid on their faces, but that does not mean that women should not go to school in Afghanistan or be condemned for doing so.
Geller, the narrative goes, made Americans less safe by provoking radical Muslims, as though Muslims have no responsibility to act like decent human beings — as though, faced with the prospect of a cartoon of their prophet, Muslims have no choice but to grab guns and go a-huntin’. But that’s nonsense. What truly spurs radical Muslims into violence is the well-evidenced belief that if they kill enough Muhammad cartoonists, soon people will stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad.
Geller, the narrative goes, was “Islamophobic” in her call for drawings of Muhammad; unlike Charlie Hebdo, Geller was not an equal opportunity offender of all religions, and therefore showed particular animus toward Islam. But failure to equally attack all religions does not make satire of one religion illegitimate — were that the case, The New York Times would have to answer why drawing Muhammad presents deep problems, but running simultaneous ads for the slanderous “Book of Mormon” musical is hunky-dory.
So, why the assault on Geller? The answer is simple: Too many Westerns have bought into the notion that personal responsibility can be jettisoned in favor of judgments about identity. Geller is the problem, in this view, because she is an upper-class Jewish woman from New York City; her rivals are poor Muslims from Phoenix. They are, by the nature of their identities, members of the victim class. She is, by contrast, a member of the victimizing class. Nothing either party can do can change their status in this equation. Therefore, according to Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, even the Muslims who shot up Charlie Hebdo in France were justified: “Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny — it’s just mean. … By attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech.”
How do proponents of this victim/victimizer identity dichotomy determine who falls into which category? They simply look at the socioeconomic status of those involved and make a determination of who is worse off. Thus, black Baltimore rioters were not people acting without any sense of values, but rather victims provoked by injustice from a non-existent white power structure in Baltimore. Before a conflict has even begun, we know who deserves our sympathy.
That calculus leads to more death, more destruction, more chaos. That death, destruction and chaos cannot be laid at the feet of Pamela Geller, but those who continue to perpetuate a narrative in which people who commit evil acts are victims, and those who are their victims are their provocateurs.
Ben Shapiro, 31, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, a radio host on KTTH 770 Seattle and KRLA 870 Los Angeles, editor-in-chief of TruthRevolt.org, and Senior editor-at-large of Breitbart News. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” His latest book, “The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration,” will be released on June 10. He lives with his wife and daughter in Los Angeles. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.
Border Sheriff Armed for Texas-Sized Terrorist Beatdown ‘If any of these fools show up, we’ll be glad to take care of them’
There have been multiple statements from members of ISIS – the Muslim terror group whose members have been sweeping across Iraq, overwhelming the nation’s military and slaughtering Christians and members of other faiths – about how they intend to bring their horrific violence to the United States.
ANGLETON, Texas (AP) — A jury on Wednesday acquitted a southeast Texas man of murder in the fatal shooting of a drunken driver who had just caused an accident that killed the man’s two sons.
David Barajas cried after the verdict was read and he hugged his wife, Cindy, who was also crying. He could have been sentenced to up to life in prison, if he had been convicted.
Prosecutors alleged that Barajas killed 20-year-old Jose Banda in a fit of rage after Banda plowed into Barajas and his sons while they were pushing a truck on a road near their home because it had run out of gas. Twelve-year-old David Jr. and 11-year-old Caleb were killed.
Defense attorney Sam Cammack said Barajas didn’t kill Banda and that he was only focused on saving his sons. The gun used to kill Banda wasn’t found and there was little physical evidence tying Barajas to the killing.
Authorities said that after the crash, Barajas, 32, went to his home about 100 yards from the crash site, got a gun and returned to shoot Banda.
Legal experts said prosecutors would likely have to overcome jury sympathy for Barajas, who had the support of many residents of Alvin, which is about 30 miles southeast of Houston. Further complicating their case was that there were no witnesses who identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative.
Investigators testified that a bullet fragment found in Banda’s car could have come from a .357-caliber gun, and that ammunition for such a gun was found in Barajas’ home, along with a holster. Cammack said his client never owned a gun and that tests showed the bullet fragment also could have come from another weapon.
A forensic scientist testified that blood found on the driver’s side door and driver’s arm rest of Banda’s car was consistent with that of Barajas.
The defense called only three witnesses to testify during the trial, which began last week.
But prosecution witnesses told jurors during questioning by Cammack that more gunfire had taken place well after Banda was shot – pointing to the possibility that the actual shooter was still at large – and that a search of Barajas’ home failed to find any evidence that directly or indirectly linked him to the crime scene.
Cammack also suggested that Banda could have been shot by his own cousin or half-brother, who told investigators that they witnessed the crash but fled the scene. Both testified that they did not shoot Banda.
Cammack also used 911 calls to create a timeline that suggested Barajas would not have had enough time to shoot Banda.
Obama is so confoundedly weak that foreign countries are beginning to test America’s limits.
The problem—thanks to the worst president in our history—is that we now seem to have no limits, borders, or leadership.
TUCSON, AZ (AP) — Mexican law enforcement on Thursday crossed into Arizona by helicopter and fired two shots at U.S. border agents, a border patrol union leader says.
A Mexican law enforcement chopper crossed about 100 yards north into the Arizona desert, the U.S. Border Patrol said in a statement. The helicopter then fired two shots on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Nation, which sits on the border. Border patrol union leaders say the Mexicans fired at agents but that none of them were hurt.
However, Mexican authorities have denied shooting at agents and say they were under attack during a mission to find smugglers on the border.
Tomás Zerón, the director of the Mexican attorney general’s office investigative office, said that Mexican military and federal police who were conducting an operation on a ranch in Altar, Sonora, were shot at by criminals. Mexican authorities never fired any weapons and in fact never crossed into the U.S. side of the border, he said.
Art del Cueto, president of the local border patrol union, said four agents were in a marked patrol vehicle when they were shot at.
“They could say they didn’t fire at the agents intentionally. But for them to say that they were no shots fired within the United States, toward the United States Border Patrol, is a lie. They got in contact with our managers and apologized for the incident,” del Cueto said.
The Mexican helicopter was 15 yards from the border agents when they were [sic] came under fire, Del Cueto said. He’s also concerned that Tucson sector officials didn’t notify the next shift of border agents that there had been a shooting, he said.
“… I think our managers within the area should have definitely informed the oncoming shift this had happened. We’re always on high alert, but I think it would raise a fear level for our agents,” del Cueto said.
Sebastián Galván, a spokesman for the Mexican Consulate in Tucson, said the office was gathering information but did not have any details yet.
The shots were fired at a time when border security has become a heated debate again as thousands of Central American immigrants, many of who are unaccompanied minors or women with young children, have crossed through Mexico into Texas, overwhelming border agents who lack the resources to process so many people.
Arizona Speaker of the House Andy Tobin, a Republican, said he’s glad nobody was hurt, “but this incident clearly demonstrates a lack of clear policy and coordination with Mexico on border security.”
This incident was not the first one in which the Mexican military has veered across the international boundary.
In January, U.S. border agents confronted two heavily armed Mexican soldiers who crossed 50 yards inside Arizona, the Los Angeles Times reported. A standoff ensued, but nobody was hurt.
In 2011, more than 30 uniformed Mexican soldiers in military vehicles crossed the Rio Grande without authorization in an incident that was believed to be inadvertent.
The FBI is investigating Thursday’s incident.
Castillo reported from Mexico City.
– – – I’m all for a war with Mexico to put the little bastards back in their place.
I lived in Mexico about a decade ago and really learned how much they hate Americans. Of course, it’s just petty jealously rotting their tiny brains, but who cares?
They’re a threat to this country’s safety and security, this is the primary responsibility of our president.
How about some drone strikes on the drug cartels and scrambling fighters to shoot down rogue Mexican aircraft that enter our airspace without proper permission?
Come on, Obama, get your head and ass wired together, you loser!
In followup to the federal government’s latest attempt at intimidation of American citizens in Nevada and elsewhere, here is the latest revelation from those wonderful folks at WND:
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
REID SMELLING ANYTHING BUT ROSY IN RANCH FIGHT
Desert showdown blows lid off long-standing plans with the Chinese
When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to take his cattle off land the federal government demanded for the habitat of an endangered desert tortoise, it focused the nation’s attention on an arena Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have preferred to be kept quiet.
An investigative report published last week by Infowars.com drew a connection between Senate Majority Leader Reid’s involvement with Chinese energy giant ENN, Chinese efforts to build massive solar facilities in the Nevada desert and the showdown between Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM.
It wasn’t the first report to notice curious dealings involving the Chinese and America’s top Democrats.
On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.
The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.
Police officer to disabled veteran denied service: “You’re not blind, you don’t need a dog”
Aryeh Ohayon served in the armed forces for 23 years as a member of both the Army and Navy. Like many other military men and women, Ohayon’s experience hasled him to having depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And that’s why his service dog, Bandit, is important. As he told KHOU 11 News, “He’s the alert if I start to if I have a panic attack or start to go back into a flashback mode…He’s my ground. And my family.” However, Ohayon claims that a Houston, Texas restaurant was less than understanding regarding this.
On Tuesday, Mr. Ohayon and Bandit went to the Thai Spice Buffet II but Ohayon was told he couldn’t come in. As The Houston Chronicle notes, it hadn’t even been a year since Texas passed new legislation, “protecting people with service dogs from being refused entry into public places.” Believing the law would be on his side, Ohayon sat down at a booth and called the Houston Police Department (HPD) to back him up. However, any hope for support Mr. Ohayon had was quickly dashed away.
The police officer, thus far unidentified, was not at all understanding. Ohayon told KHOU, “I told him what my disabilities were. That’s when he said, ‘You’re not blind.’ [The officer said,] ‘I don’t see why you need the dog.’” Ohayon left the restaurant, not happy over his treatment. If you’re thinking that maybe reports on this manner have made the Houston PD realize their error…you’d be wrong.
The Houston Chronicle reports that HPD said the complaint was, “cleared as a civil manner.” Spokesperson Victor Senties said that the issue will need to be, “resolved between the two parties.” This continued dismissal over the manner by the Houston Police Department has made people furious. The Chronicle spoke with Bart Sherwood, who certifies service dogs for veterans through Train a Dog, Save a Warrior. He told the paper, “Is there not a police chief down there that knows the law of the state of Texas? It stinks that [Thai Spice] didn’t let him in. The police didn’t back him up and that stinks even more.” It should be noted that the officer who arrived on the scene has claimed that Ohayon denied having a disability when asked. Ohayon describes that allegation as “simply not true.”
As for Thai Spice Buffet II, KHOU spoke with their staff. They claim that it was a misunderstanding, and that they offered Ohayon service while he waited for the HPD to show up, but did acknowledge they were unaware of the law.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time a veteran has been refused service by a Texas restaurant over having a service dog. Only last week , Marine Corps veteran Don Brown was turned away by the River Side Inn Marina in Channelview, Texas over his service dog, Truman. Earlier in February, an Army veteran was, “confronted and embarrassed at a Houston Starbucks.”