Shame, Shame On The New York Times

David French over at the NATIONAL REVIEW has an excellent article on this topic, and is the one Prager is reading from:

The New York Times published its editorial in response to yesterday’s vicious, violent, and explicitly political attack on Congressional Republicans — an attack that wounded four and left Representative Steve Scalise in critical condition in a Washington-area hospital — and it is abhorrent. It is extraordinarily cruel, vicious, and — above all — dishonest. The editorial doesn’t just twist the truth to advance the board’s preferred narratives; it may even be libelous, a term I choose carefully.

Yesterday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, left little doubt as to his political leanings and his political motivations. He was a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, belonged to Facebook groups with names such as “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is paved with Republicans,” and he was constantly sharing angry anti-GOP messages and memes. Before opening fire, he reportedly asked whether the players on the baseball field were Democrats or Republicans. In other words, all available signs point to an act of lone-wolf progressive political terror.

How does the Times deal with this evil act? The editorial begins innocently enough, describing the shooting and even forthrightly outlining Hodgkinson’s politics. But then, the board says this — and it’s worth quoting at length:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. (Emphasis added.)

Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years before Palin published her map….

(READ IT ALL)

#FakeNews: The New York Times Connects Scalise to Palin

What was unbelievable is that the NEW YORK TIMES tried to connect this to Gabby Gifford’s in some comparative manner!

The New York Times corrected an editorial on the GOP baseball shooting Thursday that baselessly accused Sarah Palin of inciting the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords.

“An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords,” the correction reads. “In fact, no such link was established.”

The editorial initially stated there was a “clear link” from Palin’s rhetoric to Giffords’ shooting, as a means of justifying the board’s decision not to place the same kind of blame on Democrats for the baseball shooting.

“In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” the board wrote, later adding: “Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

As The Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson pointed out: “There is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Loughner, a schizophrenic, was at all inspired by Palin’s electoral map.”

(DAILY CALLER)

HOT AIR also notes that “[i]ncredibly, despite the addition of a second correction, the Times tells CNN their argument hasn’t been undercut or even weakened.” Continuing, they go for the jugular:

[….]

Not all the details are known yet about what happened in Virginia, but a sickeningly familiar pattern is emerging in the assault: The sniper, James Hodgkinson, who was killed by Capitol Police officers, was surely deranged, and his derangement had found its fuel in politics. Mr. Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer virulently opposed to President Trump. He posted many anti-Trump messages on social media, including one in March that said “Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner…

Having corrected their errors, the line about this being a “sickeningly familiar pattern” no longer makes any sense. There were only two data points in this pattern, Alexandria and Tucson. Now that Tucson does not fit the pattern (it never did but now the Times admits it) we’re left with is a “pattern” with only one data point: James Hodgkinson.

I believe the reason the Times editorial board introduced the subject of Tucson (as they misunderstood it) was to soften the blow for their progressive readers. If the Times was going to admit that a left-wing nut shot a congressman after mainlining Rachel Maddow, they wanted to at least spread the blame a bit. So in their published draft, the connection of Tucson to the right was a sure thing while the connection of Alexandria to the left was still a bit vague. Maybe, the editorial seemed to be saying, the left is now as bad as the right was six years ago.

Only, as the Times now admits, that’s not at all how it happened. There is no familiar pattern here and thus no way to spread the blame to more familiar political targets.

NYT’s Executive Editor Admits Left Doesn’t Want Thoughtful Discussion

Larry Elder notes Dean Baquet’s, executive editor of the New York Times (the top position in the newsroom), admission to the Left not wanting to hear thoughtful responses to issues from a counter viewpoint. Here is NEWSBUSTERS comments on the issue:

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller harped on something New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said Wednesday at the Recode conference in California. In discussing the Times editorial pages — and the liberal reader anger over signing up right-leaning columnist Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal — he used the royal “We” in describing the Left, until he caught himself, and “I’m not ‘we,’ I’m a journalist.”

Recode’s Peter Kafka brought up a New York magazine article by Rebecca Traister reporting Hillary Clinton being angry about the Stephens hire: “Why… would… you… do… that?…66 million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them!”

Baquet insisted Stephens is not a “climate denier,” but that he thinks climate activists have turned their crusade into a “religion that brooks no disagreement.” Baquet liked having a “thoughtful voice” like this in the paper. Kafka shot back “One of the arguments that people have is, look, there’s plenty of places to find news from ‘climate skeptics,’ if you want to call them that,” and if the Times wanted to stand for something, they should “embrace the left side” of the spectrum. Baquet insisted the editorial pages were meant to have more than one side.

Here is the link to the other articles referenced in the above audio:

THE CIVIL HERETIC
CLIMATE OF COMPLETE CERTAINTY

Wonder What Fake News Is? Benjamin Netanyahu Tells Us (Updated)

(NEWSBUSTERS) Better not show the latest video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan. She has already revealed that she is triggered just by the term “fake news” and the video of Netanyahu accusing CNN and the New York Times of reporting fake news about Hamas would probably cause her to wilt from such a macroaggression. Netanyahu not only clearly explains why CNN and the Times were reporting fake news but provides a nice finishing touch by tossing the Hamas report into a trash bucket.

GATESTONE INSTITUTE has an excellent piece about the renewed vigor against Israel and America:

As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to hold his second meeting with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem next week, two Palestinian terror groups have announced that the new U.S. administration is planning to “liquidate the Palestinian cause.” The warning by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is directed not only against Trump and his new administration, but also against Abbas and any Arab leader who dares to “collude” with the U.S.

The two Palestinian terror groups, which control the Gaza Strip and its two million residents, also renewed their pledge to pursue the armed fight against Israel; they said they would not give up one inch of Palestine, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river.

Trump and his administration would do well to heed the warning issued by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, especially in the wake of Abbas’s recent statements concerning a two-state solution and peace with Israel. Abbas controls only parts of the West Bank, and how he intends to establish a Palestinian state when he cannot even set foot in the Gaza Strip is anyone’s guess. Recently, Hamas announced that if and when the 82-year-old Abbas shows up in the Gaza Strip, he will be hanged in a public square on charges of “high treason.”

The warning by the Palestinian terror groups was made during a joint rally in the Gaza Strip on May 14. Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad vowed to “preserve the Palestinian rifle and Palestinian rights in the face of any schemes and attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar stated that Palestinian “principles are part of our [Islamic] religion, and we cannot make any concessions on them. We will not give up one inch of our land and holy sites. We will continue to work until the liberation of each inch of Palestine.”

Zahar also warned Abbas against signing any agreement with Israel that includes relinquishing Palestinian rights. “Anyone who gives up our rights and holy sites will betray Allah and his Prophet Mohammed,” Zahar cautioned.

Notably, Zahar’s statement to “liberate every inch of Palestine” comes amid false claims in the Western media to the effect that Hamas has abandoned its dream of eliminating Israel.

The claims are based on a new policy document recently published by Hamas; it says that the Islamic terror movement accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, but without recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Translation: Hamas seeks a Palestinian state that would be used as a launching pad to destroy Israel.

Zahar and other Hamas leaders have taken advantage of every available platform to clarify that their acceptance of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines does not mean abandoning their plan to eliminate Israel.

They have also explained, at length, that the new policy document does not replace Hamas’s original charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel.

Hamas’s honesty with respect to its true intentions stands in utter contrast to the deceit with which the policy document is being treated by others.

For instance, some Western media outlets and Palestinian affairs “experts” and “analysts” deceptively describe the document as a sign of moderation and pragmatism on the part of Hamas.

While Hamas leaders proudly proclaim that there is no real change in their ideology and charter, some Westerners seem to have a sort of hearing disability when it comes to the truth of the terror movement.

Another Hamas leader, Ahmed Bahr, said at the rally that his movement remains strongly opposed to security coordination between Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and Israel in the West Bank.

Bahr described the security coordination and the crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank as a new Palestinian “Nakba” (Catastrophe) — the term used by Palestinians and Arabs to describe the establishment of Israel in 1948…..

(Read It All)

The Women’s Strike About Communism, Not About Women

Dennis Prager discusses the issue of radical Leftism and the useful idiot that follow these people. The term “useful idiot” in political parlance means:

  • In political jargon, a useful idiot is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause

Dennis reads from a NEW YORK TIMES article where Tithi Bhattacharya, a member of the strike’s organizing committee, says the strike on Wednesday focuses on rejecting the “systemic violence of an economic system that is rapidly leaving women behind.” Continuing, she notes:

“This is the day to emphasize the unity between work done in the so-called formal economy and the domestic sphere, the public sphere and the private sphere, and how most working women have to straddle both,” says Ms. Bhattacharya. “Labor is understood to be work only at the point of production, but as women we know that both society and policy makers invisibilize the work that women do.” The strike calls for women to withhold labor, paid or unpaid, from the United States economy to show how important their contributions are.

The platform of the strike seeks to elevate the demands of the majority of women, not simply the demands of the loudest or most privileged women.

“The language of feminism in recent years has been used to talk about ‘Lean In’ feminism,” says Ms. Bhattacharya. “We do not want a world where women become C.E.O.s, we want a world where there are no C.E.O.s, and wealth is redistributed equally.” This, she explains, is why they decided to convey their “new international feminist movement” around the socialist philosophy of “Feminism for the 99 Percent.”…

The New York Times “Week In Hate” ~ What a Joke!

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.”

Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

(See the many myths and examples HERE that will elucidate the past and current history of the Democrat Party. As well as more recent examples HERE , HERE, and HERE.)

Drunk rude or merely rude people understood as racist, misogynistic, bigoted, etc., are said to be the “new norm.” The difference is that these real examples (many are hoaxes) are not leading politicians of a Party or media darlings. Here are just a few of the MANY examples:

➤ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a 2010 interview with journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in which he said that Barack Obama would be successful in his Presidential thanks to being “light-skinned” and speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
➤ Vice President Joe Biden talking the entrepreneurial immigrants that enter our country and run 7-11’s and Dunkin Donuts: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!” || “I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.”
➤ Who can forget when Al Sharpton reminded us how white people lived in caves and greek people were all gay: “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”
➤ That time President Obama caught his grandmother being a “typical white person,” whatever that means… “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
➤ Not to leave out old ‘Slick Willie,’ here’s a great quote about Obama from former President Bill Clinton, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee…”
➤ “(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” — Dan Rather

(See Larry Elder for more antithesis)

And don’t forget that for twenty-years Obama went to a church that celebrated black nationalism [racism] and sold sermons by and openly celebrated a cult leader (and cop killer), Louis Farrakhan, that teaches the white ethnicity was created on the island of Cyprus over 6,000 years ago and that black “gods” in UFO’s will come to earth to kill the white man (UFO Sermon || and, racist church of twenty years [could you imagine the outcry if Bush went to a similar church?])

Or Julian Castro being the 2012 Democratic National Convention keynote speaker who is part of a racist, socialist organization — La Raza — and who’s mother was the founder in her area (a chapter of): Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA).

Whatever happened to the days of people like Caesar Chavez, founder of the UFW, who saw these movements now fully integrated into the Democratic Party, as the racist organizations they are:

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”… ~ CHAVEZ

Or the many examples of black people targeting white people that are never reported as racist (just a handful of the many examples):

  1. Milwaukee madness: White people ‘hunted’ for attacks
  2. A Very Dangerous Game: Young blacks who attack people of other races for fun are getting no media attention
  3. Are Race Riots News?
  4. Hundreds of racist Black youths attack Whites at Wisconsin State Fair
  5. Cell Phone Video Shows Gang Of Black Teens Brutally Attack White Baltimore Man — Neighbor Says It Was Racial Attack!
  6. WATCH: Charlotte Riots Man Attacked in Parking Garage Beating Video
  7. Pair charged in explosive device at elementary school; planned to shoot cops, start race war
  8. Black Lives Matter ~ George Wallace Approved
  9. Black Lives Matter ~ Killer Political Cult
  10. Countering BLM and PC Language Police
  11. The Gruesome Story of a Murdered Tennessee Couple You May Have Never Heard – But That You Will Never Forget

The point being you will never see a section in the New York Times dedicated to these violent attacks against whites or examples of Democrats being bigoted (or if a Republican said them, racist).

In a recent conversation I was given examples of Christian terrorism. The First example being a British white supremacist who murdered a Parliament member named Jo Cox. First, this person was part of an anti-Christian racist cult who themselves are socialists… not capitalists. After I pointed this out I was quickly inundated with many links to articles. I tried to get this gal to button down on one of the “top-ten” lists she linked, entitled: “10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism.” You see, many people who are stuck in a closed minded position will do this “Gish Gallop” and merely post many links with no explanation or ability to pause and deal with specific examples in these long lists.

I tried to get her to engae on the article linked above. I took the first and eighth example to make my point. Quoting my portion from the discussion, as she merely responded with more links: “Mmmm, Salon, this will be fun. I am sure they note the 29,817 terrorist attacks since 9/11 done in the name of YHWH — ER — sorry, I meant Islamic attacks invoking ALLAH.”

I continue…

Shilley W., let us look at Salon’s #1 – the Murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi by Frank Roque.

SINCE YOU posted the link, you should be familiar with the cases and be ready to discuss them. (Which is why I link to posts on my site typically, because I am familiar with them.)

Do you have evidence that Roque is a Christian? I have studied racists cults in-depth, and a good portion of my over 5,000 books are geared to world religions, the occult, and cults.

(I see you just like to post links… this may be an opportunity for you to enter into dialogue.)

I would say that Salone failed in their prime example of #1 to connect this to Christianity at all.

Not to mention he — Roque — did not do this claiming the example of Jesus or YHWH as his source. LIKE Jonathan Dienst.

You are bringing up non-sequiturs.

Let me repeat that…

You are bringing up non-sequiturs.

After more links I continued…

Shilley W., so you are admitting the vacuousness of your first link to Salon?

You see, rather than get you on a “Gish Gallop,” I would rather you camp on a specific and see if your understanding matches with reality.

I will choose another example to see if Salon is telling the truth on Joseph Stack (#8):

The things said in his [Joseph Stack’s] manifesto seem to all be taken straight from Michael Moore movies?

✦ Anti-health care system = Sicko
✦ Anti-Capitalism = Capitalism, a Love Story
✦ IRS cronyism with businesses = Capitalism, a Love Story
✦ Anti-Bush = Fahrenheit 9/11
✦ Blames Big Corporations for job issues = The Big One

[…..]

…Joe Stack was a liberal. As I point out…

✦ Hated George W. Bush and his “cronies”
✦ Hated Big Pharma
✦ Hated Big Insurance
✦ Hated GM executives
✦ Hated organized religion
✦ Refers favorably to communism
✦ And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.

…read more…

You see… what is THOUGHT to be examples of “Christian” or “Right Wing” terrorism, are in fact the opposite.


If you find this info helpful, please consider donating any amount:


The New York Times Dodges Paying Taxes

The NYT’s was against paying taxes before they were for it. This isn’t an argument against Trump (or the New York Times) as much as is is against the progressive tax code.

To set this story up, we will travel to THE YOUNG CONSERVATIVES regarding the New York Times and Trump’s taxes:

The New York Times ‘illegally obtained’ a copy of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns the other day.

The billionaire businessman has said he’d release everything once a routine audit was complete, or he’d do so during the audit against his lawyers wishes if Hillary Clinton released her 30,000 deleted emails.

The ’95 returns show Trump took a $916 million hit that year. Meaning, that loss alone could be why Trump didn’t pay federal income taxes for a number of years.

From New York Times:

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period….

(read it all)

The only problem is, that, the New York Times didn’t pay any taxes as well. Why? Becuase when you are a business/business owner and you have loses… then you can claim those loses. L-E-G-A-L-L-Y! Here is the story from BREITBART:

The New York Times has excited the Clinton campaign and the rest of the media with a revelation that Republican nominee Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995 that might have resulted in him not paying taxes in some subsequent years.

The implication, reinforced by CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday morning, is that Trump “avoided” paying taxes, when in fact his tax liability was zero.

But the Times itself has “avoided” paying taxes — in 2014, for example.

As Forbes noted at the time:

… for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.

Islam Is [NOT] Peace (Updated)

Don’t believe the lies. Islam doesn’t mean peace. And every single good Muslim knows this FACT. But that doesn’t stop them from pushing the ‘peace’ narrative. It works well with the massive wave of opportunistic Muslim migration. In fact, it’s a key aspect of the dissimulation that allows the European Migrant Crisis to continue to spiral out of control.

Gateway Pundit notes the naivety expressed by a New York Times reporter about how Muslim law views non-Muslims. GP goes on to quote the Urban Dictionary, which defines ‘kuffar’ as:

“Also spelled ‘kafir’ or ‘kaffir’, Kuffar is a highly derogatory Arabic term used to refer to non-Muslims, though it is usually directed less against “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews) and more against others (Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, etc)…”

This just isn’t true. That is, that it is directed less against the “People of the Book.” Bill Warner explains (also, see the final — long — quote at bottom):

The ISM (International Solidarity Movement) issued a statement praising Kayla Mueller for her work with the group in “Occupied East Jerusalem.”

The Jewish Action Taskforce (JAT) notes the radical nature of this organization, ISM:

…The Solidarity Movement is not a legally incorporated entity. It is a fairly loose association of individuals free to unite, to depart, and to call themselves by a different name every day. Indeed, it is often to their advantage to do so because if, as has happened, Charlotte Kates, the leader of the New Jersey Solidarity Movement, gives a ringing endorsement of suicide bombing, other branches of the solidarity movement can say: she does not speak for us.

Solidarity movement is also both a proper noun and a term of art. Supporters of the Solidarity Movement have come out of the International Socialist Organization, a group that has spawned other international solidarity movements. Socialists and radical leftists use this sort of phrasing: we should form an international solidarity movement to help in the people’s struggle for X since international solidarity movements have been so useful in past struggles.

This particular International Solidarity Movement is often called the Palestinian Solidarity Movement in the United States. Local chapters have myriad names. Names of groups linked in the “local chapters” section on theInternational Solidarity Movement web site, include: Boston to Palestine, the Palestine Information Project (Seattle), and the Free Palestine Campaign (Ann Arbor), which has a useful section on its web site labeled “attacks on the ISM” [Ref. 1]. The section contains several excellent articles regarding the nature of the ISM and its activities.

The web sites of local ISM affiliates are indicative of the complexity of the Movement itself. The founders of ISM openly endorse terrorism, and the volunteers on the ground in Israel work to protect terrorists, but in the United States the group also depends upon the support of individuals who believe that they are working for a peaceful solution and who not only are not personally anti-Semitic, but who are often Jewish.

[….]

In another email, ISM cofounder George Rishmawi offers his opinions on why terrorism and violence are needed [Ref. 11]:

You are mistaken my friend. I am sorry to tell you this but you are. Well, When did the suicide bombing start? When did the occupation of the west Bank and Gaza started? When did the aggression agaisnt the Palestinian started?

You need to know the source of the conflict and the source of the suffering that bushes people to kill themselves and others.

I do not want to see anybody killed but we need to say that taking people’s rights and freedom is the source of the problem and when this stops there should be not need for anymore killing. This is what we should advocate for it right now.

In a recent interview, ISM cofounder Adam Shapiro “justifie(d) the Palestinian armed resistance against Israel as long as it is targeting Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Otherwise, he is not in favor of suicide bombings.” [Ref. 12].

…read it all…

The socialists LOVE jihadists… because their real goal is to overthrow capitalism (see chapter from book explaining more, here):

Jihad Watch also notes the support the organization (ISM) gives to terrorists:

…But many documented International Solidarity Movement speakers or workshop leaders participated in this week’s Duke conference, including ISM’s co-founder Huweida Arraf, who tried to recruit students to join her group.

Arraf led a workshop yesterday titled “Volunteering in Palestine: Role and Value of International Activists.” Arraf handed out brochures for the ISM and urged students to join the terror-supporting group, members of Duke’s Conservative Union who attended the workshop told WorldNetDaily. They asked that their names be withheld from publication.

Arraf, together with seven other self-declared International Solidarity Movement members who would not state their last names, screened a slide show about ISM activism, detailed the group’s two-day training session and fielded questions about the logistics of traveling to “Palestine,” explaining how to fool Israeli border control since ISM members are denied entry.

Arraf also told students the ISM “happily works with Hamas and Islamic Jihad,” said one Conservative Union member who attended the talk…

…read more…

Explaining Islamic theology to all the wing-nuts at the NYTs is this longer excerpt from a wonderful book edited by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch:

NON-MUSLIMS IN THE QUR’AN

The attitudes of modern Muslims toward non-Muslims are rooted, of course, in the Qur’an, which Muslims believe to be the eternal words of Allah dictated to the prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. The Qur’an occupies an influence in the Islamic world that is far greater than that of the Bible in the West, even during the heyday of Christendom; it exerts a dominant and formative influence on the Muslim mind and culture.

Proponents of the myth of Islamic tolerance point to verses such as this one: “Those who believe [in the Qur’an], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (sura 2:62; cf. 5:69 and 22:17). Muslim spokesmen in the West like to quote such verses and to stress, as in the Council on American Islamic Relations ad, the commonality between Islam and Christianity—and sometimes even between Islam and Judaism.

However, the preponderance of Qur’ anic testimony favors not tolerance and harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims, but just the opposite. A fundamental component of the Qur’an’s view of non-Muslims is the often repeated and implacable belief in its own superiority: “The Religion before Allah is Islam” (sura 3:19), or, as another translation has it, “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” Muslims, accordingly, are also superior to others: “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.” By contrast, most Jews and Christians (“People of the Book”) are wrongdoers: “If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors” (sura 3:110).

According to orthodox Muslim belief, the Qur’an is the final and perfect revelation from Allah, the one true God. It confirms earlier revelations—a fact of which Muhammad was evidently so sure that in the Qur’an he has Allah telling him that if he is harboring any doubts about the veracity of his experiences with Gabriel, he need only check with those who received scrip­tures before Muhammad’s time—that is, Jews and Christians: “And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers” (sura 10:94).

Yet the testimony that the earlier scriptures were supposed to bear to the coming of Muhammad has been obscured by Jews and Christians. In a lengthy passage in a late sura (chapter) of the Qur’an, “al-Baqara” (the Cow), Allah castigates the Jews and Christians for rejecting Muhammad when they know better:

We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of mes­sengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! They say, “Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word: we need no more).”

Nay, Allah’s curse is on them for their blasphemy: Little is it they believe. And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them, although from of old they had prayedfor victory against those without Faith, when there comes to them thatwhich they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith.

When it is said to them, “Believe in what Allah Hath sent down,” they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us”: yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: “Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?”

There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai), (saying): “Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law).” They said: “We hear, and we disobey.” And they had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faithlessness. Say: “Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!”.. .

Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe—whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael, lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse. Is it not (the case) that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throw it aside? Nay, Most of them are faithless. And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if (it had been something) they did not know! . . . If they had kept their Faith and guarded themselves from evil, far better had been the reward from their Lord, if they but knew! (sura 2:88-103)

By the evidence of this passage and others in the Qur’an, the Jews and Christians who remain in the world after the time of Muhammad are renegades who have rejected this final revelation out of corruption and malice and who have exchanged truth for falsehood: “The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say” (sura 9:30). Nor is that remotely all. The Jews “have incurred divine displeasure): in that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; We need no more)’; nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe . .” (sura 4:155). They even misrepresent the scriptures: “There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!” (sura 3:78). They blasphemously doubt Allah’s power: “The Jews say: `Allah’s hand is tied up.’ Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter” (sura 5:64).

The Qur’an also frequently censures Christians for believing in false doctrines—including beliefs that are central to the faith as it had been understood and practiced for as long as six centuries before Muhammad began preaching. Apparently misunderstanding the nature of the Christian Trinity, one verse has Allah quizzing Jesus: “0 Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?” Jesus answers: “Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say)” (sura 5:116).

In the book Allah frequently insists that he has no son—a fact Muslims believe to be an essential component of true monotheism. “Say: ‘Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!'” (sura 17:111).

Finally Muhammad weaves his charges against Jews and Christians together by condemning Christians for believing that Jesus was crucified, and Jews for believing that they crucified him: “They said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not” (sura 4:157).

Because of the cavalier, self-serving, and underhanded ways in which they have treated Allah’s message, both Jews and Christians live under the curse of Allah: “Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (sura 9:30).

The idea that Jews and Christians are accursed recurs several times in the Qur’an. Both have rejected Allah and his messenger Muhammad:

Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: “I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practice regular charity, believe in my messengers, honor and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path of rectitude.”

But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them—barring a few—ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

0 People of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of dark­ness, by His will, unto the light, guideth them to a path that is straight. (sura 5:12-16)

All this leads directly to the Qur’an’s notorious verses of jihad, such as this one from later in the same sura: “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith” (sura 2:190). Many Western Muslim spokesmen today deny that this verse applies to Jews and Christians of this age or any other, as they are in the Qur’an “People of the Book” and not idolaters. However, it is clear from the long passage above that Jews and Christians are indeed counted in the Qur’an among those who “suppress faith” and thus must be met by Muslims not with talk of tolerance and peaceful coexistence but with jihad warfare: “And fight them until persecu­tion is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do” (sura 8:39).

Indeed, the sura that most Muslim scholars believe to have been the last one revealed—and hence the portion of the Qur’an that takes precedence over any contradictory passage revealed earlier—is sura 9, at-Tauba (“Repentance”). It explicitly enjoins Muslims to wage war against the People of the Book until they either convert to Islam or are subdued as second-class dhimmis: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [a special tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (sura 9:29).

In the end it is the will of Allah that Islam will triumph over all other reli­gions: “He it is Who bath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Reli­gion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse” (sura 9:33).

This is tantamount to a declaration of war, and its spirit pervades the entire Muslim holy book. So far is the Qur’an from modern notions of toler­ance and peaceful coexistence that it even warns Muslims not to befriend Jews and Christians—apparently including those who “feel themselves sub­dued” and are paying the jiyza: “0 ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protec­tors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (sura 5:51).

It is ironic in light of all this that the Qur’an also criticizes Jews and Chris­tians for being intolerant. Allah warns Muhammad that “never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: ‘The Guidance of Allah, that is the (only) Guidance.’ Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah” (sura 2:120; cf. 2:135).

This is the Qur’an that pious Muslims cherish and memorize in its entirety; it is for them their primary guide to understanding how they should make their way in the world and deal with other people. It is nothing short of staggering that the myth of Islamic tolerance could have gained such cur­rency in the teeth of the Qur’an’s open contempt and hatred for Jews and Christians and incitements of violence against them—and a testimony to the ease with which one can convince himself of the truth of something in which one wants to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

NON-MUSLIMS IN THE HADITH

The Hadith, the traditions of the sayings and doings of the prophet Muhammad, are second in authority only to the Qur’an for most Muslims. In fact, Sunni Islam, the sect of 85 to 90 percent of Muslims worldwide, takes its name from the Sunnah, the Traditions, which Sunnis follow in contradis­tinction to Shi’ite Islam, which from the days of its great imams and in a different way thereafter invested more authority than do Sunnis in religious leaders. Sunnis rely instead, at least according to the theory, on the teachings of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith and explicated by Islamic jurists.

The Hadith is voluminous, and much is of doubtful authenticity. But in the early centuries of Islam six collections were identified by Muslims as being substantially authentic and therefore trustworthy: those known today as Sahih Sittah (“reliable collections”): Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, the Sunan of Abu Dawud, the Sunan of Ibn Majah, the Sunan of an-Nasai, and the Jami of at-Tirmidhi. These, as applied and interpreted by jurists from the four prin­cipal Sunni madhhabs, or schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi’i) form the primary source for the innumerable regulations of Islamic law, which governs virtually every aspect of life—from personal hygiene to macroeconomics. Although it is likely—and Western scholars have established in many cases—that many of these traditions that are revered as reliable are just as tenuous and inauthentic as many of those that are univer­sally rejected, this fact has had little impact thus far in the Islamic world. Many of them enjoy normative status as principal sources for religious beliefs and practices. Critical analysis of both the Qur’an and Hadith has been slight and furtive among Muslims—largely owing to the fact that Islamic tolerance, both in history and today, does not generally extend to a willingness to allow the words of Allah to be examined and prodded. To allow this would be tan­tamount to admitting that the Qur’an is a human book, which few pious Mus­lims have been prepared to do ever since the comparatively rationalist Mutazilite sect was vanquished centuries ago and the idea that the Qur’an was uncreated was raised to the level of an unquestionable dogma. In any case, since these traditions are regarded as authentic by orthodox Muslims, they play a key role in the elaboration of Islamic intolerance and were accordingly muted in the era of the imposition of the myth of tolerance.

The Traditions’ message regarding non-Muslims consists primarily of an amplification of that of the Qur’an. The Qur’an’s inconsistent statements about whether or not Jews and Christians will enter paradise are resolved: “It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.” So once again we see that if there is any tolerance in Islam at all, it is only provisional, in anticipation of the great Day on which Allah will make it manifest to all that “the Religion before Allah is Islam” (sura 3:19). Another Hadith has Muhammad saying:

On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, “Let every nation follow that which they used to worship.” Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e., good) and those who were dis­obedient (i.e., bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, “Who do you use to worship?” They will say, “We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.” It will be said to them, “You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son. What do you want now?” They will say, “0 our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.” They will be directed and addressed thus, “Will you drink,” whereupon they will be gathered unto Hell (Fire) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, “Who do you use to worship?” “They will say, ‘We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.'” It will be said to them, “You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,” Then it will be said to them, “What do you want?” They will say what the former people have said. Then, when there remain (in the gathering) none but those who used to worship Allah (Alone, the real Lord of the Worlds) whether they were obedient or disobedient.

Of course, consigning other groups to hellfire doesn’t necessarily mean that one will not consent to live in peace as equals with them on earth. But Islam in its totality attempts an audacious recasting and, in a real sense, appropriation of Judaism and Christianity—a kind of theological imperialism that can serve as a useful analogy and paradigm for the true nature of the tol­erance that Islamic jurists envision for this world.

For Muhammad did not hesitate to appropriate the central figures of Judaism and Christianity and to claim that they were Muslim. Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus appear in the Qur’an and Hadith as Muslim prophets (see suras 2:87, 2:136, 3:84, 33:7, 42:13, etc.). Their religion was Islam—until it was corrupted by their wicked followers (who were, of course, the ancestors of the Jews and Christians, who remained outside the fold of Islam). In the Christians’ case, Jesus will set this right in the latter days, returning to end the dhimmi status of non-Muslims in Islamic soci-eties—not by initiating a new era of equality and harmony, but by abolishing Christianity and imposing Islam upon everyone:

Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e., taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added, “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): `And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e., Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them”‘ (4.159)

To drive the point home, another tradition adds that Muhammad said: “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e., Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?”

Still, while all this and similar material is useful to refute the pseudo-multicultural posturing of contemporary Muslim advocacy groups (particu­larly in the United States), it doesn’t add up in itself to anything particularly intolerant. Theological absolutism of a similar kind can be found in virtually all sects of Christianity, as well as in other religious traditions. But although sura 109 of the Qur’an—often quoted today—envisions a live-and-let-live attitude between Muslims and non-Muslims, that is far from the last word on the subject in either the Qur’an (as we have seen) or the Hadith. The Hadith expand upon verses 9:5 and 9:29 of the Qur’an with accounts of Muhammad’s battles against unbelievers. One of the most notable of these records not a battle but an epistolary encounter between the Prophet of the new religion and the leader of the old empire, Heraclius of Byzantium. The account in Sahih Bukhari is full of unlikely details, including the assertion that Heraclius was mightily impressed by Muhammad and all but acknowl­edged his prophethood. To the dismay of courageous Muslim apostates through the centuries, the Heraclius of this hadith burbles to one of Muhammad’s men: “I asked you whether there was anybody who, after embracing [Muhammad’s] religion, became displeased and discarded his religion; your reply was in the negative. In fact, this is the sign of True Faith, for when its cheerfulness enters and mixes in the hearts completely, nobody will be displeased with it.”

But most noteworthy is the brief, easy-to-overlook threat lobbed into the letter from the holy man: “Embrace Islam,” he exhorted Heraclius, “and you will be safe.” No guarantee of safety or offer of truce is made in the event that Heraclius declines to accept Islam.

The imperative was to invite non-Muslims to become Muslim—as Muhammad did Heraclius and Osama bin Laden did the United States in the late 1990s—and then fight those who refuse. This hadith delineates these choices, in accord with sura 9:29’s mandate to fight Jews and Christians until they pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)—or, of course, convert to Islam. Says Muhammad:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war; do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.

When speaking of non-Muslim dhimmis, the sahih ahadith are primarily concerned with the collection of the jizya—which constituted the “source of the livelihood” of the Muslims. The traditions say little about the way in which Islamic societies are soon going to ensure that non-Muslims “feel themselves subdued,” in accordance with sura 9:29. But Muslims from the earliest ages seem to have been intent to fulfill this command and devised numerous ingenious ways to do so. This resulted in an elaborate system of regulation for the treatment of dhimmis that enforced their humiliation and inferiority on a daily basis—and that remained constant in the Islamic world, although they were enforced with varying degrees of ferocity in different regions over the ages. These regulations, as intolerant as they are, remain part of the Sharia to this day. Radical Islamic terror organizations around the world have repeatedly declared their intention to impose the Sharia wherever and whenever they can. This stands as an enduring threat to non-Muslims in nations with Muslim majorities and elsewhere.

Robert Spencer, Ed., The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treat Non-Muslims (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005), 39-48. (For footnotes/references of quotes, buy the book.)

Alumni Revolting with Their Wallet

Via the video description from my YouTube:

HotAir has a good story on the New York Times article Dennis Prager is reading from. Alumni need to find colleges that better fit their values. Places like Hillsdale need to have a dedicated team to “headhunt” alum from other universities to support their endeavor. Places like Biola and Masters college need to think in similar terms.

I included a couple links in the story to the example given about Yale… they are as follows:

Yale Students Demand Resignations from Faculty Members Over Halloween Email
Meet The Privileged Yale Student Who Shrieked At Her Professor

I must thank 1791L as I stole some “design” issues from him.

New York Times – AR-15 Fires 8-Rounds a Sec. (Ghost Gun Added)

THE BLAZE notes that the New York Times (Alan Feuer) makes an amazing claim, and it is this (H/T – Young Conservative):

  • In making its case that the popular AR-15 is a “common element in mass shootings,” the New York Times, citing the owner of a gun engineering company, reported the semi-automatic rifle can FIRE EIGHT ROUNDS PER SECOND.

The Blaze then quotes Olympic shooter AMANDA FURRER (pictured below) saying she can only shoot 3-rounds a second, and she shoots guns for a living!

In regards to the Grayson’s comment, my son (a Marine) and I were rolling over all the variables involved in his 700-rounds a minute statement:

My son and I were talking about the logistics of this. A shooter that could pull this off would have to be legendary. There would have to be a wheel-barrel full of magazines, and a person to hand off full magazines to the shooter who would have to change them out quickly. Carbon build-up would most likely jam the striker, the shooters finger would tire from pulling the trigger so many times. We were laughing about all the scenarios available to a father and son, but the idea Grayson puts forward is not funny as it serves the left to try to put forward gun-control.

Taking Amanda’s ability, and assuming she had a magazine or a belt with enough ammo on it, as well as assuming no muscular degradation in muscle ability from pulling the trigger for a minute straight, she would be able to shoot 180-rounds a minute.

These people [leftist media’ites and Democrats] are idiots, that is the only explanation. I thought this video by DOM RASO would be fitting considering the topic:

(Above video description) After the attack at Pulse night club in Orlando, Hillary Clinton looked past the obvious enemy – radical Islamic terror – and instead said “weapons of war have no place on our streets” and that we need to ban AR-15s immediately. AR-15s are fine for Hillary and her family. They’ve been protected by armed guards who use them for three decades. But average Americans who watch the news and feel genuine fear for their safety, and their families’ safety—Hillary wants to deny them the level of protection she insists upon herself.