Armed Citizen Stops Suspect's Furious Assault on a Cop
- Get link
- Other Apps
ISIS Sets ‘Honey Traps’ to Ensnare and Execute Homosexuals
In its crusade against homosexuals, the Islamic State is now resorting to sting operations, using jihadists posing as gay men to coax out offenders and execute them.
According to reports, a special unit of militia has been formed within ISIS to deal specifically with the eradication of homosexuals from Syria, Iraq and Libya. One method employed is for militiamen of the Caliphate to send anonymous invitations for blind dates for men only; those who respond are summarily executed.
According to dissident groups working in the area, ISIS religious police have also begun pretending to be gay men in order to ferret others out, before arresting and executing them.
The ISIS regime views sodomy as the most deplorable practice, one punishable by death.
The terrorist group has already published a series of graphic videos showing the murder of supposed gay men, who are often thrown from tall buildings and stoned to death. Some clips show large crowds gathered to watch the executions and pelt the men with stones.
As recently as this past week ISIS released disturbing photographs of four men being killed for their sexuality in Libya. One of the accused was hurled from a two-storey building and then stoned. The other three were made to kneel in a courtyard and then shot in the back of the head by two masked executioners.
In limited cases captured homosexuals are blackmailed and forced to pay a ransom, but for the majority the sentence is death.
In February, some Islamic State militants threatened online to take over Rome and “throw homosexuals off the leaning tower of pizza,” along with implementing sharia law in the Italian capital.
The proposal met with waves of ridicule at the time, since the Leaning Tower is not of “pizza” but of “Pisa,” a Tuscan city some 215 miles northwest of Rome.
Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome
Read the whole story
· · ·
Armed Citizen Stops Suspect’s Furious Assault on a Cop
AP Photoi/Seth Wenig
On Tuesday, an armed citizen drew his gun and intervened to save an Oklahoma City police officer who gotten separated from his fellow officer during a foot chase and was allegedly being savagely beaten by a burglary suspect.
The incident happened at approximately 2 pm.
According to News 9, Rookie Officer Adam Eller and field training officer Sgt. Michael Lambert” responded to a burglary call, then became separated while chasing suspect Jermaine Williams on foot.
Eller was able to corner Williams in a driveway, only to have Williams allegedly fight instead of comply with arrest orders. During the fight Williams “was able to take Eller’s police baton and then proceeded to strike him over the head somewhere between six and 12 times.”
As the fight continued an armed citizen approached the two with his gun drawn. He told the suspect he was going to shoot if he did not stop hitting the officer. Williams complied.
Williams was taken into custody and booked into jail. Officer Eller was rushed “to OU Medical Center with serious injuries, but was released on Wednesday and is expected to make a full recovery.”
The name of the citizen who intervened to save the officer has not been released.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at <a href="mailto:awrhawkins@breitbart.com">awrhawkins@breitbart.com</a>.
Read More Stories About:
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Monday on “CBS This Morning,” former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said if we don’t keep the pressure on ISIS and Al Qaeda “we are going to see another 9/11 style attack.”
In responding to comment yesterday by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson who said a lone-wolf terrorist could “strike at any moment,” Morell said, “I think what the administration is trying to do is trying to set expectations for the American people. They’re basically saying there’s going to be another attack and we need to understand that when it happens.”
Discussing his concerns about another 9/11 scale attack Morell said, “One of the key lessons, you have to keep the pressure on them. If you keep the pressure on them you make it very difficult for them to plot, to plan, to attack. Because they are worried about their own security. As soon as you take the pressure off, they start read building. We’ve seen that over and over and over again. So if we dont keep the pressure on them we are going to see another 9/11 style attack.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
Read More Stories About:
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 13
WWII Allies Missing from Russia’s Victory Day Extravaganza
There was a significant absence in Moscow on May 9. Even though it was the 70th anniversary of the official end of the European front of World War II, the leaders of the victorious allied powers decided not to attend the Victory Day parade due to increasing tensions with Russia over Ukraine.
Russia always displays its military might on Victory Day, the day the Allies accepted the unconditional surrender of the Nazis. Russia takes great pride in the celebrations, since it was the USSR that barreled into Berlin and raised the sickle and hammer over the Reichstag on May 2, 1945.
The 70th anniversary was no different. Over 16,000 troops and 250,000 others marched down Red Square along with monstrous army vehicles and weapons, including the newest Armata T-14 tank. Chinese President Xi Jingping, the highest ranking foreign official at the celebration, sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Other leaders who attended included Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Cuban leader Raul Castro, Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, and Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un was scheduled to attend but cancelled at the last minute. Ambassador John Tefft represented America while the UK sent Winston Churchill’s grandson.
A year after Russian forces first invaded Ukraine, the West continues to put distance between itself and Putin. The governments passed numerous sanctions against Russian officials and oligarchs in the past year. Putin’s inbox filled with declines from Western leaders to join him at the parade.
“With a view to Russia’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, taking part in a military parade appears not appropriate,” explained German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, when she turned down Putin’s invitation.
Merkel attended a small-scale celebration on May 10. She placed a wreath at the grave of the Unknown Soldier. But she also used the trip to lash out at Putin over Ukraine and history.
“We have sought more and more cooperation in recent years,” she exclaimed at a press conference after the two spoke privately for two hours. “The criminal and illegal annexation of Crimea and the warfare in eastern Ukraine has led to a serious setback for this cooperation.”
Putin shot back by reminding Merkel that “German companies had profited immensely over the years in the Russian market.” Germany is one of the largest importers of Russian energy. They receive 38 percent of their natural gas, 35 percent of oil, and 25 percent of coal from Russia.
Russian involvement was immensely crucial in the Allied victory over Germany. The Western front stretched the Allies thin, especially since America needed forces in the Pacific. The Russians provided the much-needed strength in the East. Russia continues to emphasize its role as a liberator, especially when it comes to Poland. However, Josef Stalin invaded Poland on September 17, 1939, and split up the country based on the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. While they changed sides and liberated the Nazi concentration camps, Merkel reminded Putin what Stalin did after the war.
“I would like also to recall that the end of World War II did not bring democracy and freedom for all in Europe,” Merkel told Putin.
It should be noted the 1st Ukrainian Front liberated Auschwitz, but these soldiers fought with the Red Army.
President Franklin Roosevelt and United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill allowed Stalin to retain the land he illegally gained under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He promised to allow Poland to choose its own fate, but it did not take long for both leaders to realize he fooled them in the same way Hitler fooled Neville Chamberlain, Churchill’s predecessor.
With support from the Russian communist party, the communists in Poland produced a puppet government. Poland was not an official member of the USSR, but a satellite state. The Allies also split Germany, with the USSR implementing Communism behind the iron curtain. Merkel lived behind that curtain during the first half of her life.
Despite the absences of the Allies, Putin did thank them in his speech.
“Our fathers and grandfathers went through unbearable suffering, deprivation and losses,” he said. “We are grateful to the people of Great Britain, France and the United States for their contribution to victory.”
But Putin could not resist and blasted the West for their sanctions.
“We have seen attempts to create a unipolar world, we see gaining momentum as a force of bloc thinking,” he claimed. “Our common goal should be the development of a system of equal security for all states. Systems, adequate to modern threats, built on regional and global, non-bloc basis. Only then can we ensure peace and tranquillity [sic] in the world.”
Read More Stories About:
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Why Muslims Cannot Poke Fun at Muhammad
Reuters
If the recent violent attack at Garland, Texas, reminds us of anything about Islam, it is that lampooning Muhammad is no laughing matter for radical Muslims—or even for moderate Muslims, for that matter.
In a recent Asia Times piece, economist David P. Goldman analyzes why Muslims—unlike Jews and Christians—have such a hard time poking fun at their prophets.
Goldman begins by reminding readers that no Muslim believes that Muhammad is God, or God’s son, but simply a prophet—a mouthpiece of Allah. This distinction is important, since Muhammad is comparable to Moses for Jews or Saint John the Evangelist for Christians, but not to Yahweh or Jesus Christ.
Muslims believe that Muhammad is the author of the Koran, as many Jews believe that Moses is the author of the Torah and many Christians believe that John is the author of a chunk of the New Testament, including one Gospel, three letters, and the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation).
It’s not that Christians and Jews take their religion less seriously, Goldman insists, or that the Bible and the Torah are less sacred in the Judeo-Christian tradition than the Koran is for Muslims. “If a Torah scroll is dropped accidentally during Jewish services, Jewish law binds the congregation to a month of fasting,” Goldman adds.
Yet for both Jews and Christians, God engages man in a dialogue and pushes for a response, at times even an argument, and humor “arises from the impossible tension between an infinite God and finite man,” he says.
This is so clearly the case that the Judeo-Christian tradition is almost unimaginable without the dimension of wit. “Humor is intrinsic to Christianity,” asserted the celebrated Danish theologian SorenKierkegaard.
There is, in fact, nothing blasphemous about Jews making fun of Moses or Christians engaging in witticisms about Saint John, but for Muslims, “to make light of Muhammad is to impugn Allah.” Even though Muslims don’t believe that Muhammad was anything other than human, he becomes indistinguishable from the deity because his personality was subsumed into the sacredness of his role.
In essence, Goldman argues, the fundamental difference is that “there is no divine-human encounter in Islam, no revelation, only the selection of a human mouth as the loudspeaker by which Allah declares his Koran.” Because of this, Allah “remains utterly remote from humans, unconstrained in power and arbitrary in his actions.”
This rigid attachment to Allah’s arbitrary will and the blind reverence it inspires, Goldman suggests, not only eliminates any real development of doctrine; it also has more sinister consequences. He notes that the majority of Muslims in almost all the most populous Muslim countries believe that apostasy should be punished by death.
There is, to be sure, a vast difference between the many moderate Muslims who would never think of taking up arms against the organizers of a cartoon-drawing contest and the radical jihadists for whom immediate recourse to AK-47s is a knee-jerk reaction.
Nonetheless, Goldman proposes, the organizers of the Garland event, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, and the anti-jihad activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have made their point: “To placate Muslims in their resistance to modernity would require the West to give up being the West.”
Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome.
SHOCKING: Radical Imam Calls For The Death Of Muhammad Cartoon Event Organizer On Live TV
SHOCKING: Watch This Radical Imam Call For The Death Of Muhammad Cartoon Event Organizer
Liberty Alliance
Read More Stories About:
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
On Monday’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough warned if President Barack Obama remains steadfast in trying to get a nuclear deal with Iran regardless of the circumstances, his legacy could be tarnished because it led to a nuclear Iran.
“President Obama has to realize that if he carries through with this deal, and Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon – George W. Bush’s tarnished is chaos,” Scarborough said. “Barack Obama’s legacy in the Middle East will be a nuclear Middle East – from Iran, to Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to the UAE.”
Scarborough’s co-host, Mika Brzezinski rejected Scarborough’s skepticism of the deal and what may result from it.
Partial exchange as follows:
SCARBOROUGH: Our question is do we listen to our neighbors some do we listen to our friends, do we listen to our allies or do we just move forward with a nuclear deal that is going to create a nuclear Middle East? If the president’s legacy — wants a big deal for his legacy, if he doesn’t do this right –BRZEZINSKI: I don’t think he wants a deal for his legacy. I think he wants the deal to promote the potential for not going to war. Because if we listen to the neighbors and allies, what do you think the next step would be? War.SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no.BRZEZINSKI: There is not a deal that is going to be trusted.SCARBOROUGH: You know, it’s amazing that the only answer the White House and their allies have is you have to have this deal or we’re going to war.BRZEZINSKI: No, I’m just putting it into perspective.SCARBOROUGH: No, that’s not putting it into perspective. That’s twisting and distorting the reality on the ground. I agree – I can’t believe I’m saying this — with Howard Dean.BRZEZINSKI: Oh, my lord.SCARBOROUGH: He said the best thing we could have done is walked away from the bad outlines of the deal, where the Iranians seem to keep pushing us and pushing us and pushing us and going back home and saying that what we’re saying here is not the truth. And the sanctions were in place. We could have walked away and gotten a better deal. They need this deal. We don’t need the deal.BRZEZINSKI: We’ll agree to disagree there.SCARBOROUGH: And we’re sitting here in a Manhattan studio debating this? The very people whose lives and national security depend on this — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, UAE. They’re scared to hell, they’re scared to death of this deal. So who are you going to believe?
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Read the whole story
· ·
NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell stated that “there’s no other way to interpret” Saudi Arabia skipping out on a summit of Arab leaders at Camp David other than as a snub to the US on Monday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”
Mitchell remarked, “Saudi Arabia’s king, Salman is the man who’s not coming to dinner. America’s most important Arab ally has pulled out of a Camp David summit on Iran to be held later this week. President Obama called the meeting to address concerns of Arab leaders over a potential nuclear deal with their neighbor Iran. Only two of the six Gulf states who were invited are going to be there.”
She continued, “The White House trying to claim this is not a snub. Certainly, the Saudis are saying it’s not a snub, but there’s no other way to interpret it.”
AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace said, “It’s a really confusing situation. Because on Friday, you had the White House actually announcing that the king was coming, not just for the summit, but also for a bilateral meeting with the president on Wednesday. They announced that on Friday, and then on Sunday, we hear from the Saudis that the king actually is not coming. So, it’s hard to really understand how the White House could get confused on this, how they could have gotten wrong information about the king’s plans, but they say this is not a matter of substance, that there are Saudi officials that are coming who have good relations with the White House, and will be represented. But it just adds to this impression this summit just isn’t going to have the gravitas and the significance that the president would hope.”
Pace added, “it’s not as though these countries aren’t sending people who are real players, and in some times, really the officials that are running policy in these countries. But look at the optics of this. The president, first of all, is bringing these leaders to Camp David, it’s the presidential retreat. He rarely goes up there, he rarely holds meetings. So, there was significance around the setting, first of all. And some of this was simply the optics of having the president standing side by side with Gulf leaders, sending that message, in that picture to Iran, to other countries in the — other actors in the region that the US would have these countries’ backs. Now, he’s really not going to have that moment.”
Pace concluded, “Bilateral meetings are not announced from the White House unless all of the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. So, the fact the White House would announce that the bilateral meeting was happening. Then officials say they — this happened on Friday, and then officials say Friday night they started to hear from the Saudis that maybe the king wouldn’t come. So, it’s a huge unanswered question about how this happened, whether it was simply miscommunication, or whether there was a change in Saudi thinking and a decision to snub the White House.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Read the whole story
· ·
The snub began with the Saudis, and spread to Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. These nations say they will still send lower-ranked representatives to Obama’s summit meeting. The Saudi snub is particularly pointed because King Salman was supposed to have a one-on-one meeting with President Obama before the summit began. A modicum of face-saving was provided by the Saudis, who cited the beginning of a humanitarian cease-fire in Yemen as the official reason their monarch would not travel to Washington.
As it stands, only the monarchs of Qatar and Kuwait still plan to attend Obama’s summit, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Fox News describes the White House as “scrambling Monday to put a positive face” on the reconfigured summit, but the scramble seems to involve Obama spokesmen looking reporters straight in the eye and denying what everyone knows: the snub is a signal of displeasure over Obama’s posture with respect to Iran and its nuclear program.
“I don’t think they have a deep respect, a deep trust for Obama and his promises,” Emirates University professor of political science Abdulkhaleq Abdullah told Fox News. “There is a fundamental difference between his vision of post-nuclear-deal Iran and their vision. They think Iran is a destabilizing force and will remain so, probably even more, if the sanctions are lifted. … They’re just not seeing things eye to eye.”
The summit is clearly still important to the Gulf states; they evidently want to send the Obama Administration a message about what they expect to hear. The Emirates’ ambassador to the United States put it plainly: “I think we are looking for some form of security guarantee, given the behavior of Iran in the region, given the rise of the extremist threat. In the past, we have survived with a gentleman’s agreement with the United States about security. I think today, we need something in writing. We need something institutionalized.”
A Saudi official added, in equally blunt fashion, that his country is looking for a defensive agreement and military hardware comparable to what the United States shares with Israel. Israel just happens to have an effective missile defense system, called Iron Dome.
“Senior Arab officials involved in organizing the meeting said not enough progress had been made in narrowing differences with Washington on issues like Iran and Syria to make the Saudi ruler’s trip worth it,” writes the Wall Street Journal. They might grow even more annoyed, and suspicious, if the White House keeps pushing its “all is well” spin to the media.
The White House apparently planned to use this summit to sell the Gulf states on the virtues of its nuclear deal with Iran, with a particularly hard sell on Obama’s favorite talking point about how a bad deal is better than no deal. The summit audience evidently wishes to let it be known they expect more than stale talking points.
Remember how President Obama’s campaign and its supporters assured us his suave, debonair, internationalist perspective would make the world love us again, after eight allegedly uncomfortable years under unilateral cowboy George W. Bush? Instead, the world’s loss of respect and trust for America under Obama is palpable. It has gotten so bad that not even Obama-friendly U.S. media can paper it over any more. In fact, that might be one of the reasons the Gulf states decided to deliver this particular message – they knew it would penetrate Obama’s media shield.
Professor Abdullah from Emirates University is further quoted on this point by the Associated Press. He told the AP that “Gulf ties with the United States remain strong, but they have been strained during Obama’s tenure,” citing recent comments by President Obama to the effect that governments like Saudi Arabia’s should quit worrying about Iran and deal with unrest at home. Those comments were clearly taken as a backhanded insult. “You just pre-empted the whole meeting with this kind of statement,” as Abdullah put it.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Zimmerman was sprayed with glass from his vehicle’s windshield and other debris in the Orlando suburb of Lake Mary, said his attorney Don West.
“His injuries would be considered minor,” West said. “The bullet missed his head. I think it broke a window and lodged in his vehicle.”
The Lake Mary Police Department said in a Twitter post that officers had responded to a shooting involving Zimmerman. The tweet provided no other details, and a spokeswoman didn’t return multiple phone calls.
Zimmerman was released from a hospital. He thinks he may know who is responsible for the shooting and is cooperating with authorities, West said.
Zimmerman was acquitted in 2013 of fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, in a case that sparked protests and national debate about race relations. The Justice Department later announced it was not bringing a civil rights case against Zimmerman.
Since then, Zimmerman has had several brushes with the law, including:
- He was charged with aggravated assault after being accused of throwing a wine bottle at an ex-girlfriend, Brittany Brunelle. The case was dropped in January after she recanted her story and refused to cooperate.
- Following another domestic confrontation, he was arrested on charges of aggravated assault, battery and criminal mischief after his then-girlfriend said he pointed a gun at her face during an argument, smashed her coffee table and pushed her out of the house they shared. Samantha Scheibe decided not to cooperate with detectives, and prosecutors didn’t pursue the case.
- Zimmerman was accused by his estranged wife of smashing an iPad during an argument at the home they had shared. Shellie Zimmerman initially told a dispatcher her husband had a gun, though she later said he was unarmed. No charges were filed because of a lack of evidence. The dispute occurred days after Shellie Zimmerman filed divorce papers.
- Last September, a driver said Zimmerman threatened to kill him, asking “Do you know who I am?” during a road confrontation in their vehicles. The driver decided not to pursue charges, and police officers were unable to move forward without a car tag identified or witnesses.
—
Schneider reported from Orlando. Curt Anderson contributed from Miami.
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 14
According to the FBI, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty nearly doubled from 27 to 51 between 2013 and 2014. That is nearly one murdered police officer a week during 2014, which was also a little over a year after the mainstream media began its coordinated hate campaigns to demonize America’s law enforcement officers.
The FBI report is a terrible and tragic setback for police officers. Losing 27 fellow officers in 2013 was a tragedy. But it was also a 35 year low. Things were unquestionably moving in the right direction. Since 2011, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty had been on the decline.
Suddenly in 2014, everything changed for the worse. The number jumped back up to the highest number since 2011. What also changed for the worse is the mainstream media’s obsession with smearing police officers as hyper-militarized racist occupiers on the hunt for black men.
The seeds of this hate campaign were planted as early as 2009, when, without caring about the facts, President Obama publicly lashed out against a white police officer for arresting Professor Henry Louis Gates, a black Harvard professor. The officer did nothing wrong.
Things were ratcheted up a notch in early 2012 after George Zimmerman, a Florida community watchman, shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
Before the facts could get in the way of the community organizing, racial tensions were intentionally enflamed by the President with the help of his “race man” Al Sharpton, and an obliging media. Before a jury acquitted Zimmerman the following year, all of that time was used by the media (especiallyCNN and NBC News) to launch numerous toxic racial and anti-police narratives.
Although he is Hispanic, Zimmerman was labeled a “white man” by almost all of the media. The man shot and killed while attacking Zimmerman was black. For the better part of a year, the “open season on black men” narrative was everywhere in the media, and it was frequently tied to the local police.
Again and again the message went out that if Trayvon Martin were white, Zimmerman would have immediately been arrested by the police, not released.
The media relentlessly suggested Zimmerman had been given a pass by a racist police force that had no interest in properly investigating a black man’s murder. ABC News, CNN, and NBC Newswent so far as to fabricate evidence against Zimmerman — and by extension the police who “overlooked” it.
Not to belabor the point, but Zimmerman was not white, the forensic science backed his self-defense story, a Justice Department investigation found no evidence Zimmerman was motivated by racism, and after months of the media attempting to float the idea that Zimmerman was cozy with the Sanford Police, we learned that even that was a lie.
Although every Media Narrative surrounding Zimmerman was premised on a lie, the media still used the case to further the racially-inflammatory idea that the police intentionally target and persecute blacks with racial profiling.
CNN even floated the idea that cops are “subliminally racist.”
This cynical and intentional stirring of the racial pot against the police by the media and President Obama occurred throughout most of 2012 and 2013.
Once the Zimmerman case ran out of Narrative steam after his acquittal in July on 2013, the media’s hate campaign against police officers moved to coverage of the New York City mayor’s race. Here’s de Blasio stirring up hate against the police just hours after Zimmerman’s acquittal:
—
—
Throughout the summer and fall of 2013, the tip of de Blasio’s campaign spear was to demonize the police as racial-profiling racists who use the stop-and-frisk policy to persecute black people.
The national media obviously ate it up, poured gasoline all over it, which in turn stoked hate and mistrust and fear…
By the end of 2013, the Obama administration and its media allies had turned America’s police officers into racist assassins.
The following year, 2014, we had riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, and a near-doubling of the number of police officers killed in the line of duty.
Coincidence?
Or just good old-fashioned community organizing?
This post has been updated.
Read the whole story
· · ·
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment