|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
02-13-2017, 08:18 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Yes, your post definitely received a bounce from the lefty echo chamber.
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.
|
02-13-2017, 08:35 AM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Yes, your post definitely received a bounce from the lefty echo chamber.
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?
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
02-13-2017, 08:44 AM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Since when are the fact checkers at a highly regarded and Pulitzer prize winning major newspaper the "lefty echo chamber", Mike?
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
|
02-13-2017, 08:54 AM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
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/
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
|
02-13-2017, 09:13 AM
|
|
Persona non grata
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
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.
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
|
02-13-2017, 10:15 AM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Yes, your post definitely received a bounce from the lefty echo chamber.
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.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
|
02-13-2017, 10:22 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
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.
|
02-13-2017, 10:25 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
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.
|
02-13-2017, 10:26 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
|
Wow, someone actually reads my posts?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 PM.
|