Last Seen Blogs
derfilminmeinemkopf
Gedanken eines Filmfreaks
nysissyangela
Submissive
canavacci
Nefarious
enjoylifebb-damecomida-blog
ñaññaña
hanszack1902
Untitled
Text
Regarding Obama and Russian Hacking
January 14, 2017
Obama lost any credibility regarding the question of Russian hacking when he waited until after the election, and Clinton lost, before showing any concern about it and starting to have it “investigated.” No one believes that if Clinton had won, anything at all would’ve been said about it.
Another thing that would not have happened if Clinton had won is you wouldn’t find conservatives out rioting, destroying public and private property, because they think they have the right. And you wouldn’t find conservatives on campus going to cry rooms because they are unable to cope. But after eight years of being allowed, even encouraged by this administration, the left things they have the right to destroy for any reason whatsoever. Ferguson, Baltimore,, both example of where the left was allowed to burn, destroy, and kill, all in the name of their right.
Obama has a history of using government agencies to attack conservatives and for his own gain. So it’s not unreasonable to consider that Obama is using the CIA by any possible means, to discredit the election. This president will do whatever is necessary to discredit opposing views and he will do whatever he can to make governing of Donald Trump as difficult as possible. He is not concerned about America, he is still trying to change America as he promised when first elected. But the American people have rejected his policies and as a result Democrats have lost the presidency as well as majority in both houses of Congress.
Also, if Obama is so concerned about foreign governments hacking why were there no repercussions when China hacked the OPM and stole the records for 23 million people?
0 notes
Text
It isn't about Guns
It isn't about guns or being worried that people get killed. If it was the liberals would oppose abortion which kills millions of unborn babies in the U.S. alone each year. If it truly was a concern for safety liberals would bans cars, which are responsible for for more deathes each year than guns. While the liberals will act like they care about the welfare of others, what they really want is control of our lives, and they know the first step in total control is to ban guns.
Isn't it ironic that while the politicians and liberal Hollywood crowd denounce the ownership of guns, and even threaten gun owners, that they themselves have armed bodyguards to protect them? While they don't believe the individual has a right to protect themselves, they believe that they have the right to be protected with guns.
The trouble with liberals is that they are always looking for someone to blame when something happens, but they refuse to acknowledge the source, and then attack un-involved parties. The gun issue is a perfect example of this. When a crazy person takes a gun and kills people, who do the liberals blame? The shooter? Hardly. They first blame the NRA, and secondly the law-abiding American gun owner. Holding the shooter responsible is the last thing in their mind. After the recent school shootings the liberal even threatened to kill the NRA president. The press, controlled by liberals, didn't find this newsworthy. The NY newspaper that published the names and addresses of gun owners probably thought they were pretty smart. Unfortunately, what they did resulted in the break-in of at least one gun owners home where thieves tried to steal guns. Here, the liberals are too stupid to realize that by doing this not only did they tell the thieves where they guns were, but the told them which homes were not protected and would be better to break in to.
0 notes
Photo
When are all the liberals who promised to leave the U.S.A. if Trump was elected, leaving?
0 notes
Photo
It’s so obvious, yet they refuse to see it.
0 notes
Photo
Sad, but true.
0 notes
Photo
Another stupid liberal idea.
0 notes
Text
The Media’s Dishonest Reporting on Firearms
January 2, 2017
by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
If you ever have had any dealings with the Associated Press, you know it to be a placid, slow-moving bureaucracy. But it can spur itself into action, as when it revises its style book (the standard for newspaper editors) which it often does along ideological lines, e.g., barring the phrase “illegal immigrants” to describe illegal immigrants, or its recent insistence that services such as Uber and Lyft cannot be described as “ride-sharing” arrangements. (The Left has decided it dislikes the phrase “sharing economy.”) Some suggestions have not made it into recent editions, e.g., “A ‘burro’ is an ass; a ‘burrow’ is a hole in the ground. A good editor knows the difference.”
There is a change that I would like to see the AP and the New York Times and the rest of them make, one that might be a little more useful than splitting ideological hairs about what we call Uber: correcting how we describe firearms.
Newspaper accounts of firearms are almost always illiterate and inaccurate. If you see something described as an AK-47 being used in a crime in the United States, you can be almost certain that it is not an actual AK-47. (This is not helped by the fact that many different kinds of firearms are marketed under the name AK-47.) An AK-47 is a select-fire rifle, i.e., a rifle that can be fired in fully automatic or semiautomatic mode, chambered for the 7.62×39mm round. These are pretty rare beasts in the United States; what’s normally meant by “AK-47″ is a semiautomatic rifle styled like an AK-47 and/or operating with a similar mechanism, and this elides the fact that one of these things is a full-auto machine gun and one isn’t. Given the rather energetic efforts of the anti-gun lobby and the press to conflate automatic and semiautomatic weapons, one cannot help but think this is at least partly intentional. In any case, it is misleading and confusing, and therefore bad journalism.
Similar problems come up with other firearms. “Uzi” is a brand name for everything from submachine guns to wristwatches. Some Uzi firearms you can buy at your local gun shop, and some a private citizen cannot legally buy under practically any circumstance. A great many different firearms are sold under the “AR” designation as well. When Bushmaster rifles were the evil black gun of the moment, “Bushmaster” was similarly treated as though it were a particular kind of rifle rather than a brand name for many different rifles. There are many different kinds of Glocks.
Beyond using evocative and inaccurate brand and model names, the usual media practice is to use qualitative descriptors, many of which are meaningless (“assault weapon”) or generally misleading (“high-powered rifle”). That’s obviously unsatisfactory, too.
The best course of action would be for reporters and copy editors to commit an act of journalism and actually convey some accurate, relevant information about what is being discussed. The most straightforward way to do this would be to describe firearms by their caliber and action: .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle, .308-caliber bolt-action rifle, 9-mm semiautomatic handgun, .44-caliber revolver, etc. If the brand name is known and seems relevant, there’s no reason why that couldn’t be included, too: 5.56-mm semiautomatic Colt rifle, .40-caliber semiautomatic Glock handgun, etc. That a crime was committed by a man wielding a “high-powered Bushmaster” tells us almost nothing; better to tell us that a crime was committed by a man wielding a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle with a 15-round magazine.
You rarely go wrong by conveying too much information. Getting it right on firearms would require some work on the part of reporters and editors, but in these days of 27 genders we are entitled to expect the media to master a few details.
Read more
0 notes
Text
Prior Victim Of A Violent Burglary Shoots Intruder Who Wanted Seconds
August 8, 2016
JACKSON, MICHIGAN — A homeowner was forced to defend his life, family, and property when multiple intruders broke down the front door. For this homeowner, though, experience had proven that deadly force is the only acceptable response to home invasion. He shot his pistol at the intruders, critically striking one and sending the rest fleeing.
According to Michigan Live, this wasn’t the first time intruders had broken into the home. In one previous occurrence, they broke in and brutally beat the homeowner. The homeowner, at the time, only had a few hunting rifles and not much in terms of self defense. A prior veteran of the Army for eight years, he reflected that one violent incident is all it takes to prove you can’t count on the bad guys to play nice.
He was understandably shook up about shooting one of the intruders. His son came over once he heard the news and helped his father.
“And people want to ban guns, huh?” his son said. “My father would be dead right now.”
The injured intruder was treated at a nearby hospital where he is currently undergoing surgery and is expected to make a full recovery. Once he recovers, he will be charged with his crimes.
For a house with a history of being broken into and robbed, the criminal element that has been targeting him surely knows what to expect if they try again.
A nearby neighbor did a brief interview with a Michigan news outlet where he described the dangers potential criminals will face when coming through this neighborhood.
Read the whole story.
1 note
·
View note