#SpecificallyTHIS is US Muslims Celebrating 9/11

---

sourceL
http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/jersey-city-911-report-on-celebrating-muslims-vindicates-trump/#XdQOrXTQokxmJiX0.99

#THISisStarbucksControversy

YOU ASKED FOR MY TAKE ON #MerryChristmasStarbucks SO HERE YOU GO. #PleaseShareThis #HappyThanksgivingEverybody

Posted by Pastor Greg Locke on Wednesday, November 11, 2015

#THISisReTiredArgument

Labor force projections to 2014: retiring boomers

Group	Level (thousands)				Change (thousands)
	1984	1994	2004	2014	1984–94	1994–2004	2004–14
Total, 16 years and older	113,544	131,056	147,401	162,100	17,512	16,345	14,699
16 to 24 years	23,989	21,612	22,268	22,158	–2,377	656	–110
25 to 54 years	74,661	93,898	102,122	105,627	19,237	8,224	3,505
55 years and older	14,894	15,546	23,011	34,315	652	7,465	11,304

Population, totals
1984
Population - 235,825,000
2014
Population - 318,857,056

Population 55 Years and Over by Sex and Age: 2012
Under 55 - 229,349,000
Over 55 - 79,477,000
Population 55 Years and Over by Sex and Age: 2008
Under 55 - 229,014,000
Over 55 - 70,091,000

Civilian labor force participation rate (percent of population 16 years old and older)

Jan. 1984 - 63.9%
Jan. 2000 - 67.3% (peak)
Jan. 2008 - 66.2%
Jan. 2014 - 63.0%

Civilian labor force (thousands)

Jan. 1984 - 112,209,000
Jan. 2000 - 142,267,000 (peak)
Jan. 2008 - 154,063,000
Jan. 2014 - 155,486,000

#THISisDeFactoAmnesty

Using preliminary numbers, the Associated Press reports that deportations are down to the lowest level in nearly a decade. As you can see from the graphic, deportations (or, strictly speaking, removals attributed to ICE rather than to the Border Patrol) grew significantly under Bush (as they had under Clinton), initially plateaued under Obama, and are now collapsing.
Though the partial FY 2015 number reported by the AP is new, this has been building for a couple of years; deportations have fallen 42 percent since 2012. My colleague Jessica Vaughan reported on this last year.
The operational reason for the collapse in deportations is the Obama administration’s enforcement-suppression policies, which it has labeled “prosecutorial discretion.” The White House has claimed that, given limited resources, it’s focusing only on the worst of the worst among criminal aliens. But then why have even criminal deportations been declining? They can’t blame this on sanctuary cities, because as bad as they are, the number of criminals they’re shielding from deportation isn’t big enough to account for such a steep decline in numbers.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425165/results-are-in-obama-never-intended-to-enforce-immigration-laws

Are deportations from the interior "way down" under Obama? We asked Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for the source of his statement.
We heard back from Jessica Collins, the deputy communication director for the House Judiciary Committee. She pointed us to a 2014 memo that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent to the committee in response to questions about the federal agency’s figures on undocumented immigrants expelled from the U.S.
The agency’s figures show that in 2008, the year before Obama took office, there were 244,091 removals of illegal immigrants from the interior of the U.S., which the agency defines as anywhere away from the "immediate border" where an immigrant is barred from trying to enter the country illegally. In 2009, there were 237,941 interior removals in the first year of Obama’s term. That dropped to 133,551 by year 2013.
Those figures represent a broad group of deportations which include two main categories. One is "removals," where someone is ordered out of the country by a formal court order and prohibited from coming back for a period of time. The other category is "returns," where an immigrant voluntarily leaves the U.S., often in the absence of a formal order. That situation typically doesn’t carry harsh penalties if they return to the country.
The immigration agency further broke down its figures for the House panel, excluding simple returns and focusing on formal removals. In 2008, there were 171,540 of those removals from the interior. That rose to 175,702 in Obama’s first year in office in 2009 before falling to 110,781 in 2013.
In 2014, ICE said it conducted 102,224 removals. It’s not immediately clear from ICE’s latest report whether that 2014 figure includes only formal removals mandated by an order, or whether it includes removals and returns. But either way you look at the figures, interior deportations have fallen between 40 and 60 percent during Obama’s term.

Read more at: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/jul/20/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-deportations-us-interior-have-falle/

#THISisFunnyNumbers

"I would very much appreciate it if you would break it down," Lummis said about Planned Parenthood's accounting. "Because the taxpayers are funding over 40% of Planned Parenthood and my point is they just have a right to know how this money is being spent."

"If taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide that are are an abhorrent services in the view of many taxpayers," Lummis said. "There are alternatives in this country."

Lummis quizzed Richards how abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services while it garners an overwhelming amount of revenue for the non-profit.

"So abortion is included in surgical services. But I want to find out where you get your 3% figure that you cite for abortion procedures. That's your self-reported abortion statistic," Lummis said.

"It is 3% of all the procedures we provide," Richards responded. "All the services we provide."

"Let's talk about Planned Parenthood revenue from abortions. If you look at the 2013 statistics that you report, abortions revenue would have been over 86% of your non-government revenue. How do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion and the fact that you only report 3% of your services being abortion?" Lummis asked.

---

source:
Planned Parenthood Funding - September 29, 2015

#THISisSwedishSocialism

This article was originally published by the Libertarian Republic on 08/18/15.
by Alexandra Ivanov

---

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (D) has said that socialist policies characteristic of countries like Sweden should be implemented in the U.S. As a Swede, I would strongly advise against this.

The worldwide socialist movement praises the Scandinavian countries for their high living standards and welfare. Easy to do for someone who has never lived in Sweden or read a book on Swedish history.

First off: The success of Sweden predates the welfare state. In reality, the economy began to fall behind in the 1960s when the state rapidly expanded. Moreover, Sweden enjoyed the highest growth in the industrialized world between 1870 and 1936 – between 1936 and 2008 the rate dropped down to number 13 out of 28 industrialized nations.

#THISisGlobalSchooling

“Thirty, forty years ago, there were a group of political liberals and scientists who said we were facing global cooling,” Cruz said. “They said we were headed towards a global ice age and the solution to global cooling was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.”

“Then many of these same political liberals, and many of these same scientists, they then latched onto a new theory. It’s called global warming,” he said. “And the new theory of global warming, interestingly enough, the solution was the exact same as the solution had been for global cooling. It was massive government control of the economy, of the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.”

Cruz went on to speak about how the data and evidence did not support global warming, then presented his summation.

“Now, you asked a question: ‘Do I believe in climate change?’ Of course!” Cruz said. “From the dawn of time, the climate has been changing; till the end of time, the climate will change. And yet, interestingly enough, the political liberals, their solution to climate change is exactly the same as it was to global cooling and global warming.”

---

source:

WATCH: Ted Cruz Schools Lib Climate Alarmist... And He Doesn't Even Realize He Just Got Owned

#THISisInconsistentMorality

Re-Blog

---

In February 2014, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, citing a “separate ethical canon for prosecutors and elected officers” and a “considered” personal “feeling,” refused to do his duty by declaring that his office would not defend the Kentucky Constitution, the Kentucky Supreme Court, and the vote of 75% of Kentuckians, who overwhelming affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman.

Prior to the supreme Court’s June 26, 2015 ruling on marriage, AG Conway in full support of the “new normal” declined to defend the then law of the Commonwealth before the Supreme Court; and for his refusal, Conway was celebrated by state government officials and the national media alike. However, Conway’s refusal to perform his duty is contrary to Kentucky law KRS 522.020 as he willfully "refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”

Fully acknowledging he 'had a duty to defend the law,' Conway instead articulated to the public via the Lexington Herald Leader his moral reasoning for not defending the law, So moved Conway “began to cry;” as he said, "For those who disagree, I can only say that I am doing what I think is right. In the final analysis, I had to make a decision that I could be proud of — for me now, and my daughters' judgment in the future."

Governor Beshear's response was to say; 'I understand and respect the sincere beliefs of Kentuckians on both sides of this issue” and in order to defend the Kentucky Constitution the Governor engaged an outside law firm at a reported cost to tax payers of $231,348.

Conway also received support at the federal level. US Attorney General Eric Holder encouraged Conway and other state AGs to stand on moral principle and to honor their conscience by refusing to do their job of defending their state’s law on long-held statutes upholding traditional marriage.

Speaking officially, Beshear, Holder and others offered excuses for the AG’s citing to moral principle as he refused to defend the Commonwealth, but in so doing, Conway’s stand set precedent in the matter:  Officials may stand on their personal moral code without question of official misconduct.

On June 26, 2015, the DOMA amendment to Kentucky's Constitution was declared unconstitutional based on what Chief Justice John Roberts called in his dissent a “moral” opinion. In response, without discrimination, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused post June 26, 2015, to issue marriage licenses. Period.

Davis is standing on the identical precedent laid down by her Attorney General prior to June 26, 2015 when he too did not execute the duty of his office. Davis, like Conway, holds the evolving definition of marriage is a moral issue and has refused to carry out her official duty which conflicts with her conscience. However, this time there is no excuse extended to Davis and the message to this official from her Governor, is to “do your job” and issue the marriage licenses or resign.

Though clearly similarly situated, County Clerk Davis finds herself apparently on the “wrong side of history” and without the same adulation and support extended to Mr. Conway. State officials and a hostile media are now demanding Kim Davis be charged criminally with official misconduct and face fines or incarceration. This vocal minority, including Governor Beshear, has a different standard for Davis; yet she stands on the same “moral” precedent Conway held to as he refused to do his duty to the People and the Constitution of Kentucky.

For those who look beyond the daily headlines, the difference between the moral ground upon which Conway and Davis stand in refusing to perform their official duty is indistinguishable; but Davis’ official treatment and her treatment at law does not bode well for those counting on the assurances of equal protection under the law as provided for in the 14th Amendment.

In it all, Governor Beshear is an unlikely prophet when he excused Conway in February 2014. His prophecy is fulfilled as we move from One Nation under God to One Nation under government. He rightly said the potential in the marriage dispute for "legal chaos is real." Given the reports from Rowan County, he’s right. Welcome to chaos.


Checklist of Similarly Situated Circumstances:

1. Two elected Kentucky officials with constitutional offices and requirements: Check
2. Two elected Kentucky officials with personal "moral" convictions on the institution of marriage acting officially led by their conscience in the execution of their official duties: Check
3. Two elected Kentucky officials refusing to carry out their duties based on moral convictions: Check
4. Two elected Kentucky officials: A county clerk earning $80,000.00 annually and the Attorney General earning $117,000 annually. Check
5. Two elected Kentucky officials standing on same precedent, but treated differently in the media and before the law: Check
6. One official upheld and celebrated for standing on moral principle - illegal at the time and one official degraded and threatened with fines, impeachment and imprisonment for standing on a moral principle illegal at the time. Check

---

For further research:

oral canon and personal feeling
http://time.com/12568/kentucky-gay-marriage-jack-conway/

75%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/

KRS 522.020
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/522-00/020.PDF

Had a duty
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jack-conway-kentucky-gay-marriage-tpm-interview

began to cry
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/03/04/3120213_live-at-1030-am-attorney-general.html?rh=1

I understand and respect
http://www.wnyc.org/story/overruled-ky-gov-says-state-will-appeal-same-sex-order/

$231,348
http://www.wlky.com/news/Taxpayers-facing-2-3-million-tab-in-same-sex-marriage-case/34903842

Eric Holder
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us/holder-says-state-attorneys-general-dont-have-to-defend-gay-marriage-bans.html?_r=0

John Roberts Dissent
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/

do your job or resign
http://www.wave3.com/story/29512863/county-clerk-defies-governors-order-to-issue-marriage-licenses-wont-resign

legal chaos
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-governor-warns-of-legal-chaos-in-same-sex-marriage-case/

---

source:
Two Public Servants on Different Sides of History (edited for formatting - emphasis added)

#THISisTheWorstDayEver

"Worst Day Ever?" By Chanie Gorkin

Today was the absolute worst day ever
And don't try to convince me that
There's something good in every day
Because, when you take a closer look,
This world is a pretty evil place.
Even if
Some goodness does shine through once in a while
Satisfaction and happiness don't last.
And it's not true that
It's all in the mind and heart
Because
True happiness can be obtained
Only if one's surroundings are good
It's not true that good exists
I'm sure you can agree that
The reality
Creates
My attitude
It's all beyond my control
And you'll never in a million years hear me say that
Today was a good day

**Now read from the bottom to top.

#THISisThomasDissenting

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

#THISisTexasLiberties

The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.

Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.

The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.

As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.

---

source:

Office of the Governor - Greg Abbott - [Press Release] Governor Abbott Statement On Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage

#THISisTragicError

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.

---

source:

Supreme Court Decision on Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President of Catholic Bishops’ Conference

#THISisScaliaDissenting

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

#THISisAlitoDissenting

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage. The question in dissenting these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.

#THISisTruckingRidiculous

EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination

Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs

PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

---

source:
EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination

#THISisHomicideRates

Violent Crime and Sexual Offences - Homicide

To put the actual number of homicides in context, incidence rates show the volume of offences as a proportion of the resident population. The incidence rate for homicide remains relatively low, with 9.2 homicides recorded per million population during 2013/14, the lowest homicide rate since the late 1970s (for example, there were 8.5 homicides per million population in 1977). If the 172 homicides committed by Harold Shipman recorded in 2002/03 are excluded from the analysis, homicide rates peaked in 2001/02, at 15.2 offences per million population.

• Low - 0.92/100k
• High - 1.52/100k

#THISisBanningNothing

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.

#THISisBenghaziPlanning

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

#THISisBushDidntLie

Re-blog:

Liberals, please stop it with the Iraq war lies.

There is plenty of criticism that can be leveled against George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, but he didn't deliberately mislead the country about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

With the new cool question for 2016 Republican contenders being “knowing what we know now, would you have invaded Iraq,” the debate about pre-Iraq war intelligence has once again come to the forefront. Predictably, some liberals have used the occasion to again trot out the wholly dishonest spin that the Bush administration concocted evidence and pressured the intelligence community into saying that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

#THISisIraqWarMasterpost

1986-02-18 > UN
United Nations Security Council Resolution 582
The Council then condemned the use of chemical weapons by Iraq.

---

1988-03-16 > Wikipedia
Halabja chemical attack

#THISisTheExecutioner

"I have often had a vision that I would like to share with you. Imagine that a stranger to our planet comes here for some sufficient reason, and talks to one of us about the order that reigns in this world . Among the curious things that are recounted to him, he is told that corruption and vices, about which he has been fully informed, in certain circumstances require men to die by the hand of men, and that we restrict this right to kill legally to the executioner and to the soldier. He will also be told: 'The first brings death to convicted and condemned criminals, and these executions are so rare fortunately that one of these ministers of death suffices for each province. As for soldiers, there are never enough of them for they kill without restraint, and they always kill honest men. Of these two professional killers, the soldier and the executioner, the one is greatly honoured and has always been so honoured among the peoples that up to present have inhabited this planet to which you have come. The other, on the contrary, has just as generally been declared infamous.' Can you guess on which one the condemnation falls?

Surely this travelling spirit would not hesitate for a moment; he would accord the executioner all the praise that you could not refuse him the other day, Count, despite all our prejudices, when you spoke to us of this gentleman, as Voltaire would have said 'This sublime being,' he would have told us, 'is the cornerstone of society; since crime has become habitual on your earth, and since it can only be arrested by punishment, if you deprive the world of the executioner all order will disappear with him. Moreover. What greatness of soul, what noble disinterestedness must necessarily be assumed to exist in a man who devotes himself to functions that are undoubtedly deserving of respect, but which are so trying and contrary to your nature! For since I have been among you, I have noticed that it distresses you to kill a chicken on cold blood. I am therefore persuaded that opinion surrounds him with all the honour that he needs and that is justly due him. As for the soldier, he is, all things considered, an agent of cruelty and injustice. How many obviously just wars have there been? How many obviously unjust! How many individual injustices, horrors and useless atrocities! So I imagine that opinion among you has very justly poured as much shame on the head of the solider as it has poured glory on that impartial executioner of the judgement of sovereign justice.'

You know what the situation really is, gentlemen, and how mistaken the spirit would be!"

- The Senator (from the Seventh Dialogue)"

---

source:

The Traditionalist: Joseph de Maistre: The Executioner

#THISisCognativeDissonance

John Kerry said, "Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally, less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century."

---

Thursday at Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on worldwide threats, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said 2014 was the most lethal year for global terrorism in 45 years the data has been collected.



Clapper said, “When the final counting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such a data has been compiled. About half of all attacks as well fatalities in 2014 occurred in just three countries: Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

---

source:

Clapper: 2014 Most Lethal Year for Global Terrorism on Record - Breitbart - by PAM KEY on 26 Feb 2015

KERRY: WHAT ARE YOU GUYS WORRIED ABOUT? THE WORLD IS SAFER THAN EVER! GO BACK TO WATCHING NETFLIX Posted by The Right Scoop on Feb 25, 2015

#THISisIraqWMD2002

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

---

source:
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (October 10, 2002) - Democratic Underground

#THISisIraqWMD1998

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

---

source:
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff - February 17, 1998

#THISisYellowJournalism

Journo @ChrisCuomo calls #nuerosurgeon @RealBenCarson "anti-science" -> http://t.co/UF1ZRPaOg9 #LiberalJournalism

— rvolt24 (@rvolt24) February 7, 2015

Journo @ChrisCuomo calls black doctor @RealBenCarson #racist -> http://t.co/UF1ZRPaOg9 #LiberalJournalism

— rvolt24 (@rvolt24) February 7, 2015

Journo @ChrisCuomo says #MeaslesOutbreak is @GOP issue. @RealBenCarson points to outbreak in @TheDemocrats districts http://t.co/UF1ZRPaOg9

— rvolt24 (@rvolt24) February 7, 2015

#antiscience is #Liberal #dogwhistle for #RWNJ... @ChrisCuomo calls #neuroscientist @RealBenCarson vaccine #Truther http://t.co/UF1ZRPspEJ
— rvolt24 (@rvolt24) February 7, 2015

#THISisMeaslesPatterns

Measles Outbreak - Feb. 5, 2014

Electoral Vote Results - 2012

CDC - Measles Exemptions by State - October 17, 2014

---

source:

Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2013–14 School Year

#THISisBeingPersonallyBrave

You can be amazing.

You can turn a phrase into a weapon or a drug. You can be the outcast, or be the backlash of somebody's lack of love.

Or you can start speaking up.

Nothing's gonna hurt you the way that words do, and they settle beneath your skin.

Kept on the inside and no sunlight; sometimes a shadow wins.

But I wonder what would happen if you say what you wanna say, and let the words fall out.

Honestly, I want to see you be brave.

Everybody's been there, everybody's been stared down by the enemy.

Fallen for the fear and done some disappearing; bow down to the mighty.

Don't run, stop holding your tongue. Maybe there's a way out of the cage where you live. Maybe one of these days you can let the light in.

Show me how big your brave is.

Let your words be anything but empty.

Why don't you tell them the truth?

---

source:

Sara Bareilles - BRAVE - LYRICS - YouTube.com

#THISisJeSuisCharlie

September 19, 2012

Q: The French government has decided to temporarily close their embassies and schools in several Muslim countries after a satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, that published cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Is the White House concerned that those cartoons might further fan the flames in the region?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.



In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.



Now, it has to be said, and I’ll say it again, that no matter how offensive something like this is, it is not in any way justification for violence -- not in any way justification for violence. Now, we have been staying in close touch with the French government as well as other governments around the world, and we appreciate the statements of support by French government officials over the past week, denouncing the violence against Americans and our diplomatic missions overseas.

---

source:

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 9/19/12 | The White House