Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politics

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-13-2017, 07:45 AM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Post 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
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-13-2017, 08:18 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-13-2017, 08:35 AM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-13-2017, 08:44 AM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-13-2017, 08:54 AM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-13-2017, 09:13 AM
Tom Joad's Avatar
Tom Joad Tom Joad is offline
Persona non grata
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-13-2017, 10:15 AM
nailer's Avatar
nailer nailer is offline
Rational Anarchist
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-13-2017, 10:22 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-13-2017, 10:25 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-13-2017, 10:26 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post
A cursory check with Google came up with these loons.

http://theblacksphere.net/2017/02/tr...ircuit-ruling/
Wow, someone actually reads my posts?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.



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