Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Dispatches From The Lunatic Fringe (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=11469)

bobabode 02-13-2017 07:45 AM

Dispatches From The Lunatic Fringe
 
Stories floating around the rightwing blogosphere...(cue the theme from The Twilight Zone)

'Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order' Center for Immigration Studies (2/11)

http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals...-vetting-order

Some background on this so called "think tank" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center...ration_Studies

Like clockwork...

Blightfarts - http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...vetting-order/

The Blaze - http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02...ism-since-911/

Then we have Stephen Miller, Trump's 31 year old wunderkind policy advisor, pointing to this so called study as "proof" that Trump is justified in his 7 country Muslim ban, earning him three Pinocchio's from the fact checkers at the Washington Post.


'Stephen Miller’s claim that 72 from banned countries were implicated in ‘terroristic activity’'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cc3c7720396a

whell 02-13-2017 08:18 AM

Yes, your post definitely received a bounce from the lefty echo chamber.:rolleyes:

The "objective"...ahem...WaPo "fact checking" exercise essentially rests on this sentence:

But it’s important to note that being convicted of material support is not always evidence that the person was planning a terrorist attack or terrorism-related activities.

Yeah, no shit. This is America, and the threshold for getting a conviction on a criminal is purposefully set quite high: as in "beyond a reasonable doubt." Since terrorists - like the subset of criminals who have a brain - try hard to obscure their activities, the Feds are not always going to be able to get a conviction on a terrorism charge, so they resort to getting a conviction on whatever they can make stick.

But according to the Associated Press, “authorities stressed that the men had no links to any terrorist groups and have not been charged with any terrorism crimes.” A federal prosecutor said at the time: “This is simply a money laundering case. There are no charges claiming that they were giving money or aiding any terrorist organizations.”

The Center for Immigration Studies noted there were charges of terror links that prosecutors decided not to pursue in court.


So, because they weren't convicted of terrorist activities - regardless of the fact that it was likely their terrorist activities that put them on the FBI's radar in the first place - WaPo is claiming that Miller's comments went to far.

OK, fine. Let's concede that point for the moment, and for the sake of discussion. The intent of the study by the Center for Immigration Studies was to provide support for the reasoning behind the Trump EO, and to specifically smack down the 9th Circuit Court jesters who stated:

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

As I've stated earlier, the 9th Circuit Court jesters over-reached here, since the the justices don't have authority to review a President's assessment of a national threat. Apparently the Justice Dept chose not to present this evidence in the appeals process, either because Justice didn't think the jesters should have been asking for it (tactical error), or because they weren't prepared to present it (execution error).

But such evidence does exist. Its sad to see the left think they can make political points by politicizing and down-playing legitimate security threats. Sad, but not surprising.

d-ray657 02-13-2017 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 347666)
Yes, your post definitely received a bounce from the lefty echo chamber.:rolleyes:

The "objective"...ahem...WaPo "fact checking" exercise essentially rests on this sentence:

But it’s important to note that being convicted of material support is not always evidence that the person was planning a terrorist attack or terrorism-related activities.

Yeah, no shit. This is America, and the threshold for getting a conviction on a criminal is purposefully set quite high: as in "beyond a reasonable doubt." Since terrorists - like the subset of criminals who have a brain - try hard to obscure their activities, the Feds are not always going to be able to get a conviction on a terrorism charge, so they resort to getting a conviction on whatever they can make stick.

But according to the Associated Press, “authorities stressed that the men had no links to any terrorist groups and have not been charged with any terrorism crimes.” A federal prosecutor said at the time: “This is simply a money laundering case. There are no charges claiming that they were giving money or aiding any terrorist organizations.”

The Center for Immigration Studies noted there were charges of terror links that prosecutors decided not to pursue in court.


So, because they weren't convicted of terrorist activities - regardless of the fact that it was likely their terrorist activities that put them on the FBI's radar in the first place - WaPo is claiming that Miller's comments went to far.

OK, fine. Let's concede that point for the moment, and for the sake of discussion. The intent of the study by the Center for Immigration Studies was to provide support for the reasoning behind the Trump EO, and to specifically smack down the 9th Circuit Court jesters who stated:

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

As I've stated earlier, the 9th Circuit Court jesters over-reached here, since the the justices don't have authority to review a President's assessment of a national threat. Apparently the Justice Dept chose not to present this evidence in the appeals process, either because Justice didn't think the jesters should have been asking for it (tactical error), or because they weren't prepared to present it (execution error).

But such evidence does exist. Its sad to see the left think they can make political points by politicizing and down-playing legitimate security threats. Sad, but not surprising.

So did you come up with the court jesters comment on your very own, or was it in your daily briefing?

bobabode 02-13-2017 08:44 AM

Since when are the fact checkers at a highly regarded and Pulitzer prize winning major newspaper the "lefty echo chamber", Mike?

bobabode 02-13-2017 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 347671)
So did you come up with the court jesters comment on your very own, or was it in your daily briefing?

A cursory check with Google came up with these loons. ;)

http://theblacksphere.net/2017/02/tr...ircuit-ruling/

Tom Joad 02-13-2017 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 347672)
Since when are the fact checkers at a highly regarded and Pulitzer prize winning major newspaper the "lefty echo chamber", Mike?

Their credibility took a serious hit since they came under control of the CIA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman...b_4587927.html

When I say serious hit I mean something on the order of the hit Enron stock took in 2001.

However I wouldn't call them a "lefty"echo chamber.

I would call them a Neo-liberal warmongering Clintonista echo chamber.

nailer 02-13-2017 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 347666)
Yes, your post definitely received a bounce from the lefty echo chamber.:rolleyes:

The "objective"...ahem...WaPo "fact checking" exercise essentially rests on this sentence:

But it’s important to note that being convicted of material support is not always evidence that the person was planning a terrorist attack or terrorism-related activities.

Yeah, no shit. This is America, and the threshold for getting a conviction on a criminal is purposefully set quite high: as in "beyond a reasonable doubt." Since terrorists - like the subset of criminals who have a brain - try hard to obscure their activities, the Feds are not always going to be able to get a conviction on a terrorism charge, so they resort to getting a conviction on whatever they can make stick.

But according to the Associated Press, “authorities stressed that the men had no links to any terrorist groups and have not been charged with any terrorism crimes.” A federal prosecutor said at the time: “This is simply a money laundering case. There are no charges claiming that they were giving money or aiding any terrorist organizations.”

The Center for Immigration Studies noted there were charges of terror links that prosecutors decided not to pursue in court.


So, because they weren't convicted of terrorist activities - regardless of the fact that it was likely their terrorist activities that put them on the FBI's radar in the first place - WaPo is claiming that Miller's comments went to far.

OK, fine. Let's concede that point for the moment, and for the sake of discussion. The intent of the study by the Center for Immigration Studies was to provide support for the reasoning behind the Trump EO, and to specifically smack down the 9th Circuit Court jesters who stated:

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

As I've stated earlier, the 9th Circuit Court jesters over-reached here, since the the justices don't have authority to review a President's assessment of a national threat. Apparently the Justice Dept chose not to present this evidence in the appeals process, either because Justice didn't think the jesters should have been asking for it (tactical error), or because they weren't prepared to present it (execution error).

But such evidence does exist. Its sad to see the left think they can make political points by politicizing and down-playing legitimate security threats. Sad, but not surprising.

You do love making heads spin. The first weasle worded WaPro quote says it all.

whell 02-13-2017 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 347672)
Since when are the fact checkers at a highly regarded and Pulitzer prize winning major newspaper the "lefty echo chamber", Mike?

Well, your posts inspired from the "lefty echo chamber" will never be mistaken for a product of a think tank, even a "so-called think tank". The WaPo has been living on its historic reputation, which is now decidedly in the tank thanks to recent insight into their complete lack of objectivity.

whell 02-13-2017 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 347671)
So did you come up with the court jesters comment on your very own, or was it in your daily briefing?

All by myself, counselor. Aren't you proud? Its not as subversive as lefties trashing college campuses, but I go for small scale subversive.

whell 02-13-2017 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 347673)
A cursory check with Google came up with these loons. ;)

http://theblacksphere.net/2017/02/tr...ircuit-ruling/

Wow, someone actually reads my posts? :cool:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.