Jihadists Post Photo of Their “Youngest Hostage” in Syria

Young Hostage

According to Sham Times and other Arabic websites, jihadi social media networks posted the above picture of a child sitting on the ground while surrounded by armed men pointing their rifles at him. The caption appearing with the picture, purportedly posted by a supporter of the Free Syrian Army, is “Our youngest hostage from among the hostile sects of Kessab.”

Kessab is a predominantly Christian Armenian village in Syria near the Turkish border. Earlier it was invaded by jihadis, who terrorized, pillaged churches, and prompted some 2000 residents to flee. Initial reports had stated that about a dozen families remained as hostages.

via Jihadists Post SHOCKING PHOTO of Their “Youngest Hostage” in Syria | The Gateway Pundit.

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedIn

Retired Justice Proposes Changes to Constitution


In his new book, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.

His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented. It’s his second book since retiring from the court at age 90.

The book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens‘ 94th birthday.

Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing “whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again.” Twenty first-graders and six educators were killed.

He said he was bothered by news reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court’s 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedIn

Granting Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Return for Military Service

imagesHere’s a disturbing new idea from some members of Congress: Trade instant citizenship to illegal immigrants if they’ll agree to serve in the U.S. military.

Serving in the military is a high calling and a privilege—certainly not something to be treated as a bargaining chip in immigration politics. Yet these congressmen are trying to sneak this provision into the larger National Defense Authorization Act, which lays out the budget for the Department of Defense.

What’s more, the immigrants in question would be those who are brought to the U.S. as children—often called DREAMers (after the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).

“Allowing unlawful immigrants to join the military in exchange for citizenship is a radical and perverse incentive that would encourage more illegal immigration of children,” write Heritage experts David Inserra and Cully Stimson.

One of the problems with any amnesty-based immigration policy is that it encourages more illegal immigration. Offering a shortcut to citizenship in return for military service is no different.

And not only would this plan worsen immigration problems; it would also create new security concerns. Inserra and Stimson warn:

They would be required to take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” even though they are still technically citizens of other countries. And although there have been non-citizens who have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces in the past, the nation is engaged in a unique type of war today against a non-state actor that cannot be easily identified. Additionally, since very little may be known about these individuals, the risk of recruiting dangerous individuals increases. This risk is amplified by the fact that the promise of backdoor instant citizenship may draw individuals who do not actually believe in the mission of the U.S. military.

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedIn

Senate Dems Ready to Smash 1st Amendment for TV, Radio, Internet

US ConstitutionNo, the bill doesn’t enforce open censorship yet, but that’s never how it starts. As the recent hysteria over the fake story about Ukraine Jew registration reminds us of the real history of anti-Semitism, you first start identifying and marginalizing your targets before you start killing them. So likewise, the he Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 demands the tracking of so-called “hate speech” without any enforcement yet.

From Inside Radio:

If Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) were looking for a way to rile talk radio hosts, their Hate Crimes Reporting Act seems like a good way to get the job done.  With bills in the House and Senate, the lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to “analyze” media outlets — including radio — to determine if they’re working to “advocate and encourage” hate crimes.

Tying their bill to this week’s alleged white supremacist shootings in Kansas, Markey says it is “critical to ensure the internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech.”  He brushes aside expected First Amendment arguments, saying “criminal and hateful activity” isn’t covered by the Constitution.  The bill would look closely at discussions related to gender, race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation.   It doesn’t propose any specific penalties but instead would collect information and report the findings to congressional oversight committees.  The NTIA last did such an analysis in 1993.

Amalgamating “criminal and hateful activity” is an obvious ruse. Tautologically, criminal activity is illegal. But there are all kinds of hateful activity, especially speech, that are completely outside the range of government jurisdiction. In the case of speech, this point is embodied as the fundamental law of the land in the First Amendment.

Basically, Markey wants a tax-fed and official version of the Southern Poverty Law Center. We pay taxes to the government supposedly bound by the First Amendment and the government manufactures libel to blame Christians for alleged “hate crimes” (while actually inspiring hate crimes). It gives the government a new tool to force an “orthodoxy” on the populace in the name of a recent crime that had absolutely nothing to do with talk radio.

Consider how insane Markey’s and Jeffries’ priorities are. The internet is full of porn that could be used to inspire all sort of sexual violence. And, in fact, people convicted of sexual violence are virtually always found to be heavy porn viewers. But is any of that being targeted by Liberals? Of course not! The First Amendment, probably inaccurately, is played up as an absolute protection.

But messages about gender or sexual orientation can be targeted? That is insane.

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedIn

Republicans Wimping-Out On Repeal Of ObamaCare?



Allow me to be as clear as possible right here at the beginning of this commentary.  I don’t like ObamaCare at all, not in the slightest, in any way—shape or form.  Period!  Got it?

ObamaCare is a Marxist/socialist/statist policy and I hate it.

Vladimir Lenin, himself, said:  “Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.”

Ole Vlad knew exactly what he was talking about. ObamaCare warms the cockles of the hearts of all the Marxists in the Democratic Party and believe me, there are a host of them!

There is NOTHING good about ObamaCare.  It is a cancerous assault on the freedom of Americans and it needs to be gone and, frankly, all those who supported it and voted it through the Congress need to be gone along with it.

Here in North Carolina, we’re doing our dead level best to rid ourselves of every Democrat who supported ObamaCare and/or Obama.  At the moment, our chances for success look very promising.

” ObamaCare is a curse! Take your lives and your homes back. Do it now, before it is too late. Take action now. Save yourselves, and your loved ones. Get unstuck, be informed, get peace of mind, stop the depression and anxiety, take charge of your lives for once. Do it now!

Look.  ObamaCare has not even begun to affect your life yet.  The law is so large, so intrusive in your private life that you are just not going to believe the depth of government meddling that attends ObamaCare.  It has yet begun—but it’s coming, I assure you.

And now the GOP is backing away from a total repeal of ObamaCare.  Especially the establishment Republicans.  Now their battle cry is “Repeal and Replace!”

WHAT?  Repeal and Replace?  Are they completely nuts!?

Recently, Rush Limbaugh said:  “The Republican establishment obviously has a campaign game plan involving ObamaCare, and it does not include repealing it, folks.  The Republican establishment apparently doesn’t want to campaign on repealing it.  They want to campaign on fixing it.”

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedIn