Before Akayed Ullah injured himself and three others in a failed suicide bombing in New York City, the radical Islamic terrorist who claims allegiance to the Islamic State posted something on Facebook that he intended to be ominous. His attempt to strike fear in the hearts of Americans failed nearly as badly as his bomb.
“Trump you failed to protect your nation.”
Whether that turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but as of now, the President is doing no worse than his predecessors.
Source: NY Daily News
The accused Port Authority bomber posted a taunting message to President Trump in the hours before the attack, authorities said Tuesday.
“Trump you failed to protect your nation,” Akayed Ullah, 27, wrote on Facebook early Monday, according to a federal complaint.
The glimpse into Ullah’s poisoned mind was revealed hours after he was hit with federal terrorism charges.
Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018
An abbreviated list* of the times the national Socialist left talked about taking everyone’s firearms.
In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.
The Left needs this control over private property to get the data for their final solution to the gun problem. This is the critical step for them and the reason they obsess over ‘Background Checks’. The difficulty for the Left is that they need this stepping stone to gun confiscation while denying it’s a stepping stone to gun confiscation.
This is an abbreviated list shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.
Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”
NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]
Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment
New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
Toronto Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns
Splinter news: BAN GUNS
Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons
Redhawks Online: Guns must go
New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution [2nd amendment]
Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns
Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.
The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment
The Week: Ban guns
Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s
Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]
Washington Post Editorial Board : “President Trump, end this ‘American carnage.’”[Australian-Style Gun Ban]
Huffington Post: We don’t need gun control. We need domestic disarmament
New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
Salon: The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
Barack Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
The Washington Post: A gun-free society
[Also Syndicated in the Chicago Tribune, Macomb Daily, The Oregonian, Trib live, etc.]
Tallahassee Democrat: Stop the insanity: Ban guns
Barack Obama: “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it — we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”
The Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
Washington Post, Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns
*Abbreviated because a full listing would be far too long and it’s extremely difficult to track down all of these demands by the many varied euphemisms for Gun Confiscation.
Hazel doesn’t hold back against Woodall in GA7 debate
Marines are known as fearless, and this held true as Shane Hazel, the former Force Recon Marine, took on establishment incumbent Ron Woodall in the Republican debate for the Georgia 7th Congressional District Thursday night. The two traded barbs, but while Hazel’s centered around Woodall’s repeated betrayals of his conservative constituents, all Woodall could point to was Hazel’s lack of political experience and criticism for his plans to scale back the out of control leviathan that is the US federal government. Hazel in particular noted Woodall’s most recent snub of a conservative agenda when he voted in favor of the $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill that thrilled Democrats and agitated the most fiscally conservative members of Congress such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and the entire House Freedom Caucus. The omnibus bill included: $500 Million for Planned Parenthood, $30 Billion for a tunnel in New York, and continued to fund Sanctuary Cities, yet included only a pittance for the proposed border wall.
Woodall implied that Hazel only wanted to say “no” to bills instead of saying “yes,” ignoring the fact that that is precisely what conservatives want Congress to do after 8 years of the Obama Administration getting pretty much whatever it wanted to grow the size and scope of government. Further, Woodall appeared disinterested throughout the debate, or at the very best, amused, as if the debate were merely a formality and that the nomination for his reelection were a foregone conclusion. Hazel, by contrast, had the intent look of a man trying to save his children’s future, and by extension, the entire country’s future as well.
Hazel detailed his plans to me in an exclusive interview a few weeks ago, and has maintained his opposition to the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline and its unwillingness to put a stop to the legacy policies of the previous administration such as Obamacare and a lack of border enforcement. I sat down with him for a post-debate interview.
BW: How do you feel the debate went?
SH: I’ll let the crowd be the judge. The crowd was hugely supportive post debate, hugging us and telling us how much they supported us. We’ve had a huge outpouring of support since the debate and it shows that people are ready for a change and not the establishment anymore.
BW: What do you think it says that Woodall could only point to your lack of political experience and kept attacking your ideas to scale back the size of government?
SH: I think it shows how out of touch he is. I’ve supported him every time he has voted in line with the constitution. There is no secret sauce. Simply follow your oath and I’ll support you. Rob Woodall is not doing that. His last question to me on what bills I would say “yes” to shows this clearly.
BW: For many conservatives the line between Republicans and Democrats has gotten ever more blurry. Why do you think the one gentleman in the audience reacted so strongly to your suggestion that Woodall run as a Democrat? Many conservatives wonder the same about MANY Republicans in the House and Senate.
SH: The gentleman in question is named Toddy Lentz and he is not a private citizen, but rather running for the same seat as an independent. I honestly think he was a Woodall plant. He’s a big Woodall fan and basically endorsed Woodall. He actually tried to warn me before the debate began to “be nice.” He’s a constant critic of mine, and has a web page dedicated to just bashing me. Apparently I’m living rent-free in his head.
BW: Do you feel the debate accomplished the things you wanted it to? I know from speaking to Banks Wise in a previous interview this wasn’t easy to get.
SH: Absolutely worth the effort for this sitting congressman to have to sit and try to defend his record.
BW: Do you think Woodall voting in favor of this extraordinarily unpopular omnibus bill and then coming back here just days later for a debate shows a level of entitlement to renomination?
SH: Yes. This is what happens. They pass spending to make their lobbyist big donors happy and then come back to their district and try to make everything seem fine and dandy when people know it’s not. People are mad about this bill and I don’t think the plan is going to work this time. He doesn’t understand why Trump won, and that’s because people are frustrated with politics as usual.
You can view the entire debate from Hazel’s Facebook page here.
Supreme Court Schadenfreude: Mainstreaming the Left’s Demands for Gun confiscation.
While many Liberty Grabbers hailed the mainstreaming of the subject of Gun Confiscation, many others realised it was a supreme mistake to do so.
While we on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right fully realise that the Left’s jihad against freedom is deadly serious. However, there are moments when it’s duplicity makes for what can only be described as pure schadenfreude. The Left’s increasingly shrill attacks against Liberty, with particular emphasis on the basic human right of self-defence poses a dilemma for them. On the one hand, they have to rally the troops, keeping them focused on the prize of Gun Confiscation. Meanwhile, they have to vehemently deny their obvious goal of Gun Confiscation to everyone else.
So, given the Left’s two-faced war against liberty, it was quite amusing to see the reaction to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ New York Times piece demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment.
While many a Leftist hailed another coming out of the authoritarian closet, others were not very delighted with the prospect that their Gun grabbing goal having just become mainstream. Twitter sprung to life with the subject with three camps. Most of the Liberty defending Right condemned this gross example of Leftist overreach. While the enemies of Liberty on the Left either praised or tried to downplay this outing of their final solution.
The Liberty Grabbers were all a Twitter.
Joy Reid’s twitter feed had some choice conversations unmasking the national Socialist Left’s “negotiating strategy” – accept the ‘crumbs’ of your common sense human rights or lose it all:
27 Mar 2018
Retired Justice Stevens goes there.
27 Mar 2018
No, no, this is good Joy! Tell someone they stand a chance of losing all their guns and suddenly sensible gun control seems like the best idea they’ve ever heard. That’s how I see this going 🙂 Cause, suddenly, repealing seems actually possible. wild
Replying to @ShilohFoxRoslin
27 Mar 2018
As a negotiating strategy you are absolutely right.
Replying to @brandon_r_horan @JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Nah. We tried to compromise but they wouldn’t. Now they lose everything.
The National Socialist Media realises this was a Supreme mistake.
But it was the articles reacting to this totalitarian coming out party of the former ‘Justice’ that turned the schadenfreeude up to eleven. First up was the Washington post with the piece entitled: John Paul Stevens’s supremely unhelpful call to repeal the Second Amendment
It bluntly made the point in it’s first sentence:
One of the biggest threats to the recovery of the Democratic Party these days is overreach.
A party that was once afraid of being saddled with supporting “government-run” health care is increasingly okay with the word “liberal” and even voted in droves for a self-described socialist in 2016. And its 2020 hopefuls are leading the leftward charge.
It is also infuriating enough that a party going after Liberty by depriving people of their most basic of human rights would dare label itself with the term ‘Liberal’. But that’s a discussion for another day.
The real ‘red meat’ came later:
But rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.
In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).
One can almost hear the Leftists whispering “icksnay on the gun ban ray” in reaction to a demand for the destruction of ‘reasonable’ human right of self-preservation.
Then there is this other example in the same tone from NBC news whose title says it all: How calls for a Second Amendment repeal could easily backfire for gun control advocates.
The author buries this deep in the piece after copious amounts of Liberty Control propaganda:
Thus, by framing the debate in terms of absolute repeal, Justice Stevens’s Times piece may therefore have the complete opposite of its intended effect — implying that common-sense reform proposals wouldn’t be constitutional today and satisfying the narrative that many gun rights supporters have been using to oppose those proposals on policy grounds.
The phrase ‘No kidding’ comes to mind. The fact is we oppose their ‘common-sense reform(s)’ because they are stepping-stones to gun confiscation. The Liberty grabbers obsess over Intergalactic Background Checks because they are the precursors to registration followed by CONFISCATION. That fact should be plain to everyone.
It is easy to see why the national Socialist-Left has to balance on the razor’s edge of duplicity on this subject. They at once have to deny that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.
While this is a deadly serious game they are playing, one can only laugh when they quibble amongst themselves on how to best lie about the subject. Perhaps that is why those of us on the Conservative-Right find so much enjoyment at the Left’s discomfiture. It is always supremely satisfying to see Liars caught in their web of deceit, foretelling what exactly will happen to those who cannot further their agenda without such practices.
The Biblical phase: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Has never had so much relevance.