"The Jihad Murder in Florida You Heard Nothing About"

[Syriusly]

It's amazing to me how the lefties in this thread are so quick to defend radical Jihadists by lumping them together with law abiding Muslims in an effort to demonize anyone who points out that Islam has a violent, intolerant, element that encourages the killing of so-called "Infidels." The little shit in my OP was never stopped in part because idiot lefty, progressive, open border types that leap to shame and denigrate anyone brave enough to speak the truth about a small, but dangerous element of Islam.

"...the lefties in this thread are so quick to defend radical Jihadists..."

Always.
.

And you are always so quick to defend fascist murderers and antisemites.

Always.

Hey- look everyone- I can post just like PC

No, she doesnt defend leftists (fascist and antisemites)

PC defends fascists and communists, and is a big supporter of Fidel Castro.
He kicks puppies and writes bad poetry about unicorns.
He thinks Stalin was Jesus risen.

See- look- I can post like PC too.

And you believe POLITICALCHIC identifies as a man. You're not helping your credibility

I really don't know or care what gender PC identifies as. If he/she/it corrects me, I will use a different pronoun. No biggie to me either way.

 

[Syriusly]

I never lie.....that's why you didn't put any such examples in the post.


BTW....it's spelled 'blatantly.'

Another result of your government schooling, huh?

Lying again, huh?
I bolded your blatant lie.

Everything in the post is linked and documented.

So you must be the liar, huh?


Don't you want to thank me for teaching you how to spell 'blatant'?

Is this what you are claiming is untrue????


"These are unvetted refuges "???


Watch me smash another custard pie in your ugly kisser:


"(CNSNews.com) – John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,.... ... the U.S. can refuse to allow Syrian refugees entry “without in any way violating our humanitarian obligations.”


Bolton also dismissed White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes’ statement Sunday that the refugees are being vetted in Iraq before they are brought to the U.S.

“I don’t know who else believes this other than the White House,” Bolton said in response to Rhodes’ assertion that the U.S. has “very robust vetting procedures for those refugees.”


The U.N.’s 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was amended in 1967, defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

... the signers of the convention are not required to offer them asylum in their own countries.

“The refugee convention imposes on the country of first asylum an obligation to provide food, shelter, sanitation, and medicine in refugee camps” with the main goal of repatriating them back to their country of origin as soon as possible, ...."
Former Ambassador to UN: US Has ‘No Obligation’ to Accept Syrian Refugees



"...dismissed White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes’ statement Sunday that the refugees are being vetted..."




"....Succar, 57, who immigrated to the United States when he was 10, also noted that “Third World countries, particularly places like Syria, do not have the network of information the United States has.”

“In Syria, there’s no such thing. So when they tell you that [the refugees] are vetted, are you out of your mind?” he said.

Meanwhile, officials in Honduras said Wednesday that five Syrian nationals headed for the United States had been caught with fraudulent ID papers in the capital city of Tegucigalpa, Reuters reported."
http://nypost.com/2015/11/19/syrian-community-leader-isis-is-already-in-new-york-city/



"Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process


1. ....a heated debate over the viability and quality of the vetting process that would allow Syrian refugees into America.

2. ....King explained, “I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.”

PETER KING: I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria. There are no databases to work against. There are no government records. And when I talk to people involved in the vetting, they have no confidence at all in the people that are being allowed in. There’s no way. People talk about thorough vetting, there is no vetting as a practical matter. That is the reality.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Hold on a second. There is vetting.

KING: There is not. Mika —

BRZEZINSKI: “There are face-to-face interviews, there’s health screenings. Often it takes two years for a family to get here.

KING: Mika, you’re entirely wrong. You are wrong, you are wrong.

BRZEZINSKI: Actually, sir, I think you’re wrong.

KING: I met with the people doing the interviews. I’m talking to the people involved in the highest levels of government. They tell us that they have no confidence at all. This is not proper vetting. I’m telling you that.

BRZEZINSKI: But the vetting is happening whether you like it or not.

KING: No, it is not a real vetting. You can’t vet if you have nothing to base it against. You are wrong, Mika. You are 1,000 percent wrong, W-R-O-N-G.

BRZEZINSKI: So meeting face-to-face and screening them and interviewing them and often making them wait months and years — that is not a vetting process?

KING: That is not vetting. That is not vetting. No, it is not. You cannot vet unless you have material to base it —

BRZEZINSKI: So should we say, ‘Syrians, stay out of America, you’re not welcome here?’

KING: Mika, we’re not saying Syrians. We’re saying these refugees. Unless we know who the refugees are, we cannot be allowing them in. My job is to protect Americans, not to feel good about myself, not to say that I’m doing something humanitarian. If Americans get killed because we are letting people in because they are not properly vetted — they cannot be properly vetted. How many times am I supposed to tell you this, Mika? You are wrong. They cannot, and it puts American lives at risk."
Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process



In your face, dunce!!!!!!!

Time to remove your face from your over-stretched cut'n'paste rectum.

False GOP Theme: 'Unvetted' Refugees

Even when a lapse is found they are rechecked and it isn't major.
Federal agents are reinvestigating Syrian refugees in U.S. who may have slipped through vetting lapse

They are obviously vetted. And as a group, very well vetted. The fact that you don't believe they are vetted well enough is not synonymous with "unvetted".

Perhaps you should thank me for correcting your blatant lie.

Fact check???

Funny how PC attacks Factcheck for being biased- by posting a link to a politically biased organization.

I had forgotten how blatantly PC lies.

 

[Syriusly]

You have yet to show a clue about Islam.

But I'm an optimist. I will assume you really are asleep

(Awaiting another barrage of cut'n'paste nonsense)

This is the best you can do?


Government school grad, huh?



You're a liar.....I quoted aspects of sharia.

And?

Are we supposed to assume that because you can paste massive amount of cherry picked quotes, harvested from hate sites, that you have any understanding of it?

Here is a clue: Sharia is interpreted differently across the Muslim world. Not all muslims or muslim countries follow the penal code. Sharia is also about halal, financial transactions, how and how often to pray, fasting, etc.

If you are going to pretend you know anything about it...you should try real research...not some poorly constructed survey, from a hate site, of 600 American muslims.

You do know what real research is right?

Ok. That might be a bridge too far too troll.

I proved you're a liar.

Now....you're a moron as well.

I provided aspects of sharia.....


You dismissed it as "paste massive amount of cherry picked quotes, "


See what I mean? Not that it isn't true.....


Pretty much the post of a moron....

Did you say something?

When it's not cut'n'paste....it's hard to recognize you.

Let me know when your research extends beyond well recognized hate sites.

This is the best you can do?????



Government school grad, huh?

Come on PC- don't run away.

You made a big claim

You claimed he supported raping female prisoners, killing gays, killing apostates.

You can either prove it.

Or you are a liar.

We all know what the answer is.

 

[Syriusly]

I never lie.....that's why you didn't put any such examples in the post.


BTW....it's spelled 'blatantly.'

Another result of your government schooling, huh?

Lying again, huh?
I bolded your blatant lie.

Everything in the post is linked and documented.

So you must be the liar, huh?


Don't you want to thank me for teaching you how to spell 'blatant'?

Is this what you are claiming is untrue????


"These are unvetted refuges "???


Watch me smash another custard pie in your ugly kisser:


"(CNSNews.com) – John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,.... ... the U.S. can refuse to allow Syrian refugees entry “without in any way violating our humanitarian obligations.”


Bolton also dismissed White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes’ statement Sunday that the refugees are being vetted in Iraq before they are brought to the U.S.

“I don’t know who else believes this other than the White House,” Bolton said in response to Rhodes’ assertion that the U.S. has “very robust vetting procedures for those refugees.”


The U.N.’s 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was amended in 1967, defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

... the signers of the convention are not required to offer them asylum in their own countries.

“The refugee convention imposes on the country of first asylum an obligation to provide food, shelter, sanitation, and medicine in refugee camps” with the main goal of repatriating them back to their country of origin as soon as possible, ...."
Former Ambassador to UN: US Has ‘No Obligation’ to Accept Syrian Refugees



"...dismissed White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes’ statement Sunday that the refugees are being vetted..."




"....Succar, 57, who immigrated to the United States when he was 10, also noted that “Third World countries, particularly places like Syria, do not have the network of information the United States has.”

“In Syria, there’s no such thing. So when they tell you that [the refugees] are vetted, are you out of your mind?” he said.

Meanwhile, officials in Honduras said Wednesday that five Syrian nationals headed for the United States had been caught with fraudulent ID papers in the capital city of Tegucigalpa, Reuters reported."
http://nypost.com/2015/11/19/syrian-community-leader-isis-is-already-in-new-york-city/



"Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process


1. ....a heated debate over the viability and quality of the vetting process that would allow Syrian refugees into America.

2. ....King explained, “I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.”

PETER KING: I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria. There are no databases to work against. There are no government records. And when I talk to people involved in the vetting, they have no confidence at all in the people that are being allowed in. There’s no way. People talk about thorough vetting, there is no vetting as a practical matter. That is the reality.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Hold on a second. There is vetting.

KING: There is not. Mika —

BRZEZINSKI: “There are face-to-face interviews, there’s health screenings. Often it takes two years for a family to get here.

KING: Mika, you’re entirely wrong. You are wrong, you are wrong.

BRZEZINSKI: Actually, sir, I think you’re wrong.

KING: I met with the people doing the interviews. I’m talking to the people involved in the highest levels of government. They tell us that they have no confidence at all. This is not proper vetting. I’m telling you that.

BRZEZINSKI: But the vetting is happening whether you like it or not.

KING: No, it is not a real vetting. You can’t vet if you have nothing to base it against. You are wrong, Mika. You are 1,000 percent wrong, W-R-O-N-G.

BRZEZINSKI: So meeting face-to-face and screening them and interviewing them and often making them wait months and years — that is not a vetting process?

KING: That is not vetting. That is not vetting. No, it is not. You cannot vet unless you have material to base it —

BRZEZINSKI: So should we say, ‘Syrians, stay out of America, you’re not welcome here?’

KING: Mika, we’re not saying Syrians. We’re saying these refugees. Unless we know who the refugees are, we cannot be allowing them in. My job is to protect Americans, not to feel good about myself, not to say that I’m doing something humanitarian. If Americans get killed because we are letting people in because they are not properly vetted — they cannot be properly vetted. How many times am I supposed to tell you this, Mika? You are wrong. They cannot, and it puts American lives at risk."
Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process



In your face, dunce!!!!!!!

Time to remove your face from your over-stretched cut'n'paste rectum.

False GOP Theme: 'Unvetted' Refugees

Even when a lapse is found they are rechecked and it isn't major.
Federal agents are reinvestigating Syrian refugees in U.S. who may have slipped through vetting lapse

They are obviously vetted. And as a group, very well vetted. The fact that you don't believe they are vetted well enough is not synonymous with "unvetted".

Perhaps you should thank me for correcting your blatant lie.

Fact check???


Time to teach you a bit more...


Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
theswash.com ^ | 8/27/2012 11 | matchdoctor


Posted on 8/28/2012, 146 PM by bronxville

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

http://theswash.com/liberty/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group





They don't come any more gullible than you, huh?


So we agree.....I never lie, and you're a dunce?

Come on PC- don't run away.

You made a big claim

You claimed he supported raping female prisoners, killing gays, killing apostates.

You can either prove it.

Or you are a liar.

We all know what the answer is.

 

[Wapasha]

Yes, we need to make it illegal for mentally unbalanced people to murder our citizens

Spot on, professor! Murder laws don't stop murder. Therefore, no need for murder laws. Man, you are smart!

Once we pass a law making murder illegal, we need to pass a law banning the COVID-19 virus.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, we need to make it illegal for mentally unbalanced people to murder our citizens

Spot on, professor! Murder laws don't stop murder. Therefore, no need for murder laws. Man, you are smart!

Once we pass a law making murder illegal, we need to pass a law banning the COVID-19 virus.

Spot on again! Both have exactly the same effect: nada. Murder laws are useless, no need for them. You convinced me the first time, you humble son of a bitch, you!