Author: Papa Giorgio

Saba Ahmed Not So Moderate After-All ~ Fire & Ice

Published by Papa Giorgio

Libertarian Republican updates an older story on RPT about Saba Ahmed, the Muslim woman at the Heritage event:

A few weeks ago, a Muslim woman, Saba Ahmed, gained some attention by defending “peaceful Muslims” at a Heritage Foundation panel on holding our government responsible for the attack on our Ambassador in Libya. There are one point something billion Muslims, she said, the majority of whom are peaceful. So, westerners must be careful to distinguish particular Muslims who break the law from the majority of Muslims. 

Well, now comes a photo of this person – at the time, uneventful – leaving the courtroom with Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was charged with attempting to set off a car bomb at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. Having been found guilty of the offense in a court of law, we can suppose that Mohamud is guilty of other offenses of which he has been suspected but not formally charged, such as raping a woman at Oregon State University. So what that there was probable cause to believe this man was a rapist and an attempted murderer, says Saba Ahmed, what is important is to show solidarity with a fellow Muslim.

[….]

Saba, I accuse you of denying the One True God and putting your co-religionists ahead of His laws and – even! – of claiming to represent Him when you defend rapists and murderers.

 Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children notes some of the recent political activity of Saba:

According to Erick Erickson of RedState.com,

“Saba Ahmed has been arrested for stalking and her family claims she was diagnosed with a mental disorder. She’s also been active at Occupy rallies denouncing American war efforts. She has made opposition to the American war against terrorism a key part of what she does.” 

Oregon Live wrote that she is running for a Congressional seat in Oregon. She switched parties in 2012 after a primary defeat for an Oregon senate seat, and ran as a “conservative Republican.” With a hijab of course…

In that post, USMC simply asks after noting that Saba Ahmed is a friend of a man who tried to bomb Portland, Oregon… if she is TRULY a Moderate Muslim? 54° 40′ Or Fight has this on the “mental” disorder thingy:

Ahmed has a documented history of mental illness and a habit of stalking conservative and Republican web pages and meetings.  After Osama Bin Laden’s death in May, Ahmed claimed she had to cancel a fictitious rally in Pioneer Courthouse Square (which she never advertised or got a permit for), falsely asserting that she had received threats on the Oregon Tea Party Facebook page.

A cursory search of the internet shows that Saba Ahmed has been arrested several times, and has had at least one visit to a psychiatric hospital.

HotAir notes Saba’s background as well: “She is same Saba Ahmed that tried to win the Democratic nomination to the US House of Representatives in the 2012 cycle, only to change party affiliation to the GOP after drawing less than one percent of the Democratic vote…”

Read Erick Erickson’s story, “What Dana Milbank Does Not Tell You,” on this topic to finish off the knowledge base on this.

Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Jon Stewart & Lib Cranks

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Via Gateway Pundit) The Blaze wrote about the left’s many lies on the Hobby Lobby decision.

The Washington Post faulted several Democratic lawmakers for less-than-truthful assertions about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, most of which implied that employers could prevent employees from buying contraception.

The 5-4 court majority actually ruled that closely held companies cannot be forced to pay for select types of contraceptives for employees.

Since some Democrats – including party leaders Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California – confessed to misspeaking, and others stated they were expressing an opinion, the Post’s Fact Checker said it would not count the comments as outright lies.

“But this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to be more careful in their language about the ruling,” the Post noted. “All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person’s religious freedom.”

The Post cited eight Democrats for making misleading comments.

Larry Elder and Jason Riley DESTROY Eric Holder!

Published by Papa Giorgio

The above is dissected a bit by The Daily Surge as well as the video of the exchange on CNN:

Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley said, “No matter how much racism you think remains in this county, the policies promoted by this administration are much more harmful to the prospects of blacks in America than racism.” 

Riley was reacting to comments Eric Holder made Friday about his and Obama’s political opposition. “There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus,” Holder said. 

Riley hammered Holder’s illogical comments by pointing out that it is the Obama administration’s “opposition to school choice, which helps black kids get out of failing schools and their support for minimum wage laws that price blacks out of the labor force, that are much more harmful than any residual racism in America.”

“Eric Holder does not want to have a serious conversation about race in America,” Riley continued, “nor does President Obama.”

“This is the agenda that the black left pushes, that racism is an all-purpose explanation for what ails black America,” Riley said.

Riley goes on to define the exact reasoning behind Holder’s comments saying Eric Holder is “making these comments for political reasons.”

…read more…

 

 

Murder Rate Drops With Increased Conceal Carry Permits

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Above) Dr. John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. At National Review Online, he has written, “Bogus Gun Control Numbers,” in which he takes issue with the statistics concerning concealed-carry cited by the Violence Policy Center. Dr. Lott notes that their report, “Concealed Carry Killers,” is riddled with false data – and conclusions. Originally aired on the Sportsman Channel 4/29/14.

Fox News carries this commentary on a recent study, “Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims” ~ with a h/t to Wintery Knight:

A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.

The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.

“When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals,” said the center’s president, John R. Lott, a Fox News contributor. “Some criminals stop committing crimes, others move on to crimes in which they don’t come into contact with victims and others actually move to areas where they have less fear of being confronted by armed victims.”

[….]

Six states don’t require a permit for legal gun owners to conceal their weapons, and Lott notes those states have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.

The real measure of the deterrent effect of concealed carry permits, according to Lott, is not laws on the books, but the percentage of a given state’s population that holds the permits. In 10 states, more than 8 percent of adults hold concealed carry permits, and all are among the states with the lowest crime rates. Lott claims his group’s analysis shows that each one percentage point increase in the adult population holding permits brings a 1.4 percent drop in the murder rate.

“We found that the size of the drop [in crime] is directly related to the percentage of the population with permits,” Lott said.

Between 2007 and the preliminary estimates for 2013, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000….

Comedian Paul Rodriguez Strays from CNN’s Script (+Mark Levin)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via SooperMexican! (h/t to Libertarian Republican):

The popular Mexican-born comedian Paul Rodriguez shocked the CNN panel on illegal immigration when he advocated for deportation for illegal immigrants. Shamelessly, Don Lemon accosted him by insinuating that legal immigrants like Rodriguez can’t be against illegal immigration. Yeah, that’s pretty pathetic.

What about the leftist hero who was recently lionized by Obama? Mark Levine takes you on a short tour-de-forces of how Democrats try and re-write history:

Breitbart notes a recent visit by Mark Levin to the Sean Hannity Show:

…Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants.

As Breitbart News has reported, “Chavez was so opposed to amnesty that even the film’s producers, who have a history of making politicized movies, decided, out of respect, to steer clear of the subject”:

As the New York Times noted, Participant Media, which produced the film, has a “fondness for films about social issues.” The company made Lincoln as a statement about bipartisanship, The Help to “highlight the plight of domestic workers,” and Promised Land as a “call for environmental action” against fracking.

But the producers avoided immigration reform in the movie because Chavez “fought for better wages and conditions for workers but held complex and evolving views on the status of unauthorized immigrants, some of which would be at odds with the changes many Hispanics and others are seeking today.”

Breitbart News has also detailed how much Cesar Chavez opposed amnesty:

Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a supporter of comprehensive immigration who has “studied and written about Chavez and the United Farm Workers … for more than 20 years,” wrote in a 2010 essay that “the historical record shows that Chavez was a fierce opponent of illegal immigration.” He added that “it’s unlikely that he’d have looked favorably on a plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.”

Chavez also wanted stiffer sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, and Navarrette emphasized that it was “absurd for anyone to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to pass immigration reform.” He stressed, “As I said, were he alive today, it’s a safe bet that Chavez would be an opponent of any legislation that gave illegal immigrants even a chance at legal status.”

Navarrette wrote that, according to numerous historical accounts, “Chavez ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegal immigrants who were working in the fields so that they could be deported.”  

He noted that while Chavez was with the UFW, “UFW officials were also known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants,” and the UFW even “set up what union officials called a ‘wet line’ to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States. Under the supervision of Chavez’s cousin, Manuel, UFW members tried at first to convince immigrants not to cross the border”:

When that didn’t work, they physically attacked the immigrants. Covering the incident at the time, the Village Voice said that the UFW was engaged in a “campaign of random terror against anyone hapless enough to fall into its net.” A couple of decades later, in their book The Fight in the Fields, Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval recalled the border violence and wrote that the issue of how to handle illegal immigration was “particularly vexing” for Chavez.

Chavez was also against ethnic groups like La Raza. In fact, he saw the dangers of such organizations from the beginning. 

“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.”…

Defeating Atheism with Science ~ Spike Psarris

Published by Papa Giorgio

From the video’s description:

Many atheists claim that science disproves the Bible. Despite these claims, science is actually quite consistent with Scripture.

Christians often feel unequipped to defend their faith in this area — but this need not be so. Instead, any Christian can defend his or her faith against any scientific claim from an atheist, even without knowing the details of that particular claim. Why? Because science itself disproves atheism.

Atheism, when taken to its logical conclusion, denies the fundamental assumptions and requirements of science. Therefore, if science is valid, then atheism must be false.

In this presentation, engineer and former atheist Spike Psarris will present on “Defeating Atheism with Science,” showing why this is true. Join us as we discuss how Christians can defend their faith in all areas of science. After a brief discussion of specific evidence like fossils, radiometric dating, and intelligent design, we’ll dig deeper and see how science itself disproves atheism. Understanding a few fundamental ideas about science are all that’s necessary for any Christian to be well-equipped in this area.

About the Speaker:

Spike Psarris was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian. He now speaks on creation and Christian apologetics, equipping believers to defend their faith and glorify their Creator.

The Best & Worst Presidents Since WWII ~ Media Spin

Published by Papa Giorgio

Muslims buck the tide, Via Politico, h/t Drudge:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is higher among Muslims than any other religious group, a new poll says.

According to a Gallup poll released Friday that tracked responses for the first six months of 2014, 72 percent of Muslims said they approve of the president, compared with just 20 percent who disapprove.

Mormons were the least approving religious group, with 18 percent of Mormons approving and 78 percent disapproving of the president. Mormons in the past have ranked as the most conservative major religious group in the U.S.

The survey underscores a religious divide when it comes to presidential approval — Obama is more popular among non-Christians and less popular among Christians.

Those who classify as “Other non-Christian” gave the president a 59 percent approval rating, while Jewish Americans gave Obama a 55 percent approval rating and atheists or those who subscribe to no religion have a 54 percent approval rating.

Catholics, on the other hand, have only a 44 percent approval rating of Obama, compared with 51 percent disapproval. Protestants and other Christians are more critical, with 37 percent approving and 58 percent disapproving….

In fact, a poll the left (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the like) was VERY vocal about was President Bush [43] getting top grades in this poll. Now, I don’t hear a peep from NEWS (yeah right) organizations.

(Breitbart) The winner of America’s best president since World War II is Ronald Reagan, who beat second and third place combined. A full 35% of voters chose Reagan. Bill Clinton and John Kennedy won 18% and 15%, respectively. Obama only received 8% in the best presidents poll.

Col. Allen West says this in his rightly title post, “Racist poll shows Obama is worst president since WWII”

Did you all hear the latest? A new undeniably racist poll from Quinnipiac University shows people think Barack Hussein Obama, the first black president — actually the first half black president — is the worst president since World War II.

Well, you can be certain the NAACP, National Urban League, Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, and other liberal progressive media outlets will decry this as proof that America is still a racist nation. We simply don’t want to accept the “hope and change” of their self-proclaimed progressive socialist messiah.

(Washington Times) …Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney had been elected, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren’t so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rated the man who swept into office in 2009 with a promise of “hope and change” as worse than even his predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush, who left office with terrible approval ratings.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll….

Here are some examples from the biased media for comparison:

  • On January 22, 2006, the late Tim Russert asked then-Senator Obama, “Will George Bush be considered one of the worst presidents in history?”
  • On May 21, 2006, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos profiled then-Senator John Edwards. He wondered, “You’ve also said the President is the worst President of our lifetime…Worse than Richard Nixon?”
  • On Wednesday, MSNBC downplayed the bad news for Obama. Chuck Todd dismissed, “These great and worst lists, they’re terrible…because they always reflect the moment in time.” Yet, in 2006, the same network hyped a “devistating” poll finding the same result for George W. Bush.

(NewsBusters)