Two Reasons Why You Aren’t Hearing More About The Philadelphia Shooter

After all the news coverage recently for the two shooters in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, you think we would have been hearing a lot more about the shooter from the shooting in Philadelphia as well.

As it is, there are two reasons primarily as to why we’re not hearing more about this one in the media.

The first reason is that this was a black man and we all know that all mass shooters are crazy white men who are Trump supporters, right?

He also has a long criminal history as well. He’s been arrested about a dozen times since he was 18 years old and convicted six times on charges involving illegals possession of guns and aggravated assault.

Secondly, he was a Muslim. But not only was he a Muslim, but he was also a radical Muslim and attended a radical Islamic mosque.

Of course, the media can’t say those words and they wouldn’t want them to look bad anyway or get accused of being Islamophobes.

According to Clarion Project,

Maurice Hill, the criminal who wounded six police officers in a shootout in Philadelphia and was arrested after a seven-hour standoff, attended a radical mosque.

The mosque, called Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar, is known for preaching the Islamist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia referred to as “Wahhabism.”

Clarion Intelligence Network has been aware through its sources that the area where the shootings took place is known for trafficking in guns, drugs and counterfeit items. This criminal market has a strong Islamist element that includes extremist gangs.

Hill’s older sister said he “occasionally attended” an unnamed mosque, confirming initial reports from our sources that Hill is a Muslim. The sources do not yet have first-hand evidence of the shooter being personally involved in Islamist extremism.

Clarion Intel’s sources report that Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar is a Salafi mosque which follows the theocratic teachings of Saudi Arabia’s top Wahhabist scholars.

This man should be treated just like any other mass shooter and it shouldn’t matter if he’s black or white or any color in between, the media should treat everyone equally and stop dividing America.

frum WOODSTERMAN

ABOUT TIME.....!!!

Donald J. Trump
Can’t believe the Washington Post wrote a positive front page story, “Unity Issue Has Parties Pointing To Trump. GOP Goes All In, While Democrats Clash Over Ideology & Tactics. Mr. President, We Are With You The Entire Way. REPUBLICANS Have....Coalesced Around Trump.” Then, on top of it all, Kathleen Parker, of all people, wrote “In Case You Were Wondering, Trump Won The Debate.” True, but what is going on at the Washington Post? NOT Fake News!

IS THIS ROBERT FRANCIS O"ROURKE.....???

Good read & overview.

What Is Justice for McCabe? | National Review
The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency . . . even as he sues the Justice Department.

Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act. So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction. It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.

In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow. Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.

READ ON

Robert Francis O'Rourke......Where's my tacos...?

Why is Robert Francis O'Rourke not being called out for taking the name "Beto"..? A Mexican name. Does he want the people to think he is Mexican, so he might get the Hispanic vote ??

Elizabeth Warren tried that with the Indians....you see what that led to and where it got her. Just a nickname "Pocahontas"

"Beto" is about as Mexican as I am....Pure Irish/English

Robert Francis O'Rourke

Fact check: Could a President Beto O'Rourke confiscate assault weapons?    By Holmes Lybrand, CNN
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas has made his position on assault weapons crystal clear. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," O'Rourke said during Thursday's Democratic presidential debate. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."

© Win McNamee/Getty Images 
North America/Getty Images \
HOUSTON, TEXAS - SEPTEMBER 12:

To accomplish this, O'Rourke has proposed a mandatory confiscation of these guns whereby individuals would be compensated for their firearms.

Beyond the thorny politics of this proposal, it raises clear legal and logistical questions, including whether a president has the authority to confiscate people's guns.

Facts First: A president could not issue a blanket confiscation of so-called assault weapons, but they could work with Congress to pass such a law. Constitutionally speaking, that law would likely run into some significant legal trouble.

First, some basic facts. The National Rifle Association has estimated that there are somewhere between 8.5 million and 15 million assault rifles in the US, the organization told McClatchy in 2018. That's about 2% to 4% of all the estimated guns in the US, but it's unclear how many guns would ultimately fall under an assault weapons confiscation.

Part of that has to do with the fuzzy definition of what qualifies as an assault weapon, which can sometimes be based on cosmetic features like a folding stock or an additional handgrip on a rifle.

In 1994, assault weapons were banned from being manufactured but the law did not call for the confiscation of those already in private ownership. That assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and was not renewed under the George W. Bush administration.

O'Rourke's plan, however, not only would include a ban on all sales of so-called assault weapons but also would require owners to sell these guns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, something the US government has never done before.

Because of precedent set by the Supreme Court, the widespread use and popularity of these guns would almost certainly present legal trouble for O'Rourke's proposal.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment. It found that it did, holding that the Second Amendment protects guns that are "in common use" and prohibits " 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "

In response to questions about the constitutionality of his proposal, O'Rourke's campaign told CNN that the confiscation of AR-15-style weapons would be legal, and cited Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion from Heller, that the regulation of "dangerous [and] unusual weapons" does not violate the Second Amendment.

However, Scalia's opinion states that the Second Amendment protects guns in "common use." Given their prevalence, these assault weapons could fall under the definition of being "in common use," and therefore be protected by the Second Amendment.

At least one expert believes that common use interpretation would carry the day. "There's no dispute that these guns meet that definition," Dave Kopel, gun rights scholar and research director of the Independence Institute, told CNN.      

I don't think there was or is a "law" against blackface. Now they just label it a HATE crime and prosecute for that. Hurting someones feelings.....The "snowflake catchall law"...!!

College won’t punish students for blackface photo, citing First Amendment September 12, 2019 By Joshua Rhett Miller

Four college students in Colorado posted a photo of themselves in blackface, setting off outrage online — but they won’t be disciplined because they’re protected by the First Amendment, university officials said.

The photo, which was posted on Instagram over the weekend, shows four unidentified white Colorado State University students in blackface with a caption reading “Wakanda forevaa,” a reference to Marvel’s “Black Panther” hit film.

The image was quickly blasted by critics who demanded that university officials get involved.

“Anybody that tries to justify this behavior is equally as ignorant and offensive,” one woman wrote on Facebook.

One man who said he attended the university posted on Facebook that the image was “not surprising” at all, while another detractor characterized it as “disgusting and absolutely unacceptable” as they called for consequences, a Facebook thread shows.

But university officials insist their hands are tied, saying that personal social media accounts aren’t under its jurisdiction.

“Our community members — students, faculty and staff — can generally post whatever they wish to post on their personal online accounts in accordance with their First Amendment rights,” CSU president Joyce McConnell wrote in a statement released Tuesday. “This recent post runs counter to our principles of community, but it does not violate any CSU rule or regulation, and the First Amendment prohibits the university from taking any punitive action against those in the photo.”

BUT...

G***g G********w, former Works at Lawyering Now and Again

If an act was legal when committed, one cannot be prosecuted for it simply because the law subsequently changed. Having read other answers I will qualify my answer to say my answer is limited to Canada, USA, the UK and other legal systems based on the British model. Other systems outside of this set may well do ex post facto prosecution
OR

Usually no. That’s called Ex ponst facto law and there’s a whole Wikipedia page about it.

AND....Are you naive enough to believe she is the only one.......?? "Good for thee, but not for me"

Ultra-Liberal Actress Alyssa Milano Admits To Owning Two Guns For 'Self Defense' 09/11/2019 Source: American Update by: AU Staff 

Flickr

Ultra-liberal actress and gun control activist Alyssa Milano made a shocking admission Tuesday night during a debate with Texas Senator Ted Cruz: she owns two guns herself for self defense. As Breitbart reports:

Actress and gun control activist Alyssa Milano revealed she has two guns in her home for self-defense during a debate Tuesday evening with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The debate was held in Cruz’s Capitol Hill office, where Milano and Fred Guttenberg — whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting in Parkland, Florida — pressed the senator on various gun control proposals...

Around 13 minutes into the discussion, Guttenberg said he was offended by Cruz’s argument that these gun controls would erode Americans’ rights to self-defense. “That’s a load of BS,” he said. “Nobody’s trying to remove your right to self-defense.”

“By the way,” Milano interjected, “I have two guns in my household for self-defense, just so you know.”

This admission from Milano, long known for her advocacy for gun-grabbing laws, is simply stunning. She seems to be fully embracing her own hypocrisy, owning weapons for self defense while encouraging the government to pass laws to strip other law-abiding Americans of their own 2nd amendment rights. 

Remember the "training camp for school shooters" that was found in New Mexico last august...?? WELL, since the Dems are getting ready to "IMPEACH" Pres. Trump, i thought this would be a good time to bring it up agaln and remind everyone of the crimes committed by the DEMOCRATIC party....obama in particular...!!

Man Who Trained School Shooters Was Hired By Obama, Tied to DNC Father who trained kids to carry out mass shootings linked to former president By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle on 10th August 2018 



© press Siraj Wahhaj has long ties to former President Obama and the DNC

Following the shocking discovery of a training camp in New Mexico in which a father was training 11 children to carry out school shootings, evidence has emerged that the man has ties to Barack Obama and the DNC.
Last week, law enforcement officers searching a rural compound for a missing 3-year-old boy didn't locate him but found eleven other children in filthy conditions and hardly any food, a sheriff announced on Saturday. According to Taos County Sheriff Jerry Hogrefe, the children, ranging in age from 1 to 15, were removed from the compound in the small community of Amalia, New Mexico, and turned over to state child-welfare workers. Investigators later confirmed that the compound was a training camp run by 39-year-old Siraj Wahhaj who was preparing the children to carry out large-scale shooting attacks in American schools.

READ MORE

#NeverForget Rashida Tlaib’s Palestinian pals celebrating 9-11 in East Jerusalem  September 11, 2019

Hard to believe it’s been eighteen years. But in 2019 when actually have Democrats who would make excuses for the same terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack that killed 3.000 Americans. One of them is Rashida Tlaib, the raging racist from Michigan. She always bemoans the plight of Palestinians in Israel. So let’s take a look back and see how Tlaib’s pals reacted after news about the World Trade Center towers came down in East Jerusalem:

Of course, it’s not just Rashida Tlaib who makes excuses for Palestinians behavior like this. It’s basically the entire Democrat party. From Ilhan Omar to Chuck Schumer to Botox face drunk Pelosi, to all 20 or so candidate running for the Democrat nomination, Rashida Tlaib’s views are basically the entire Democrat party. Defending crap like this.

Came across this article on my Wifes facebook page....Right on point.......!!

AOC AND THE BLIND GENERATION  Sept. 1st 2019

By  William Stevens

AOC AND THE BLIND GENERATION

This article was written by a 26 yr old college student by the name of Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA.

My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us!

I'm sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis (Florida) trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of presidential candidates calling for policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around.

I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook's, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we've become completely blind to it.

Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose.These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don't give them a second thought.

We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty One Times!!!

Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful. ??

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, "An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity."

Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in.

When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided.

My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let's just say I didn't have the popular opinion, but I digress.

Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country.

People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they've never seen prosperity, and as a result, we elect some politicians who are dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism.

Why? The answer is this,?? my generation has only seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn't live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, the Korean War, The Vietnam War or we didn't see the rise and fall of socialism and communism.

We don't know what it's like to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don't have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it's spreading like a plague."

That’s exactly what they want to do....!

I know exactly where I was.....

'Where Were You (When The World Stopped Turning)' by Alan Jackson 

Shame to say it but......Sanctuary cities and states are putting you and your fellow citizens at risk....By allowing these CRIMINALS to walk the streets. They shouldn't even be in this country, BUT......If the police had cooperated with ICE, this wouldn't have happened....(along with a lot of other rapes and murders that have been committed by people in our country ILLEGALLY )

Law Blocked Sheriff From Telling ICE About Release Of Man Who Later Shot Deputy  - Blue Lives Matter Holly Matkin

The jail had him months ago for assault with a deadly weapon, then the courts let him go on probation, but state law blocked the sheriff from telling ICE. Then he went on to create more victims in his horribly violent crime spree.    

Guadalupe Lopez-Herrera ambushed Merced County Sheriff's Sergeant Clint Landrum on Sept. 4. Dos Palos, CA – A Merced County sheriff’s sergeant was repeatedly shot by a wanted violent offender who is also an illegal alien, according to the sheriff.

“We had him in our custody in January of this year,” Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke said during a press conference. “And because of the folks in [the state capitol of] Sacramento eliminating our ability to cooperate with ICE, we could not turn him over.”

READ ON

Mitch McConnell is doing a lot of talking about Social Security RUNNING OUT of money.....Read the article below...,The figures may not be exact, but you should get the general idea....

Who died before they collected Social Security?

KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL
EVERYONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT.
THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT
TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!

WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.

If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500

Read that again

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a government bank to insure you and I, that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.

Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.

If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).

After 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!

If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON
HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME

THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!

Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits?

--- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.

Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.

Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
Sad isn't it?