As much as I like Pope Francis sometimes, there are times I just shake my head at what he says.

Because I’m Catholic, Pope Francis is the head honcho of my denomination, so he is basically the top authority of the church today. He has great moments…like his famous “Who am I to judge?” quote (as much as I don’t really like the LGBTQ agenda, my faith reminds me that I am not the final judge of people…and I mean, why would I want to be the final judge anyways?). However, this article doesn’t rub me the right way. As a Christian, of course I want to help people. However, I don’t believe it to be conducive to actual refugees if we don’t enforce good immigration laws. If we have bad immigration laws, we let in terrorists and other criminals that aren’t probably going to be too picky when choosing their targets…their targets could be both current citizens and immigrants…so in my opinion, if we really want to help refugees who truly need asylum, we must make sure the people they are escaping can’t get here and cause more problems of the problems that refugees were trying to escape in the first place. If those problems followed refugees, it would be counter-intuitive. Thus, enjoy this article I found on the NZ Conservative Coalition!

Pope Francis: Rights of Migrants Trump National Security Concerns ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ…… —

They apparently are blind to how cool the USC mascot is.

While I was growing up, my family always loved watching USC because we thought their mascot was cool…I mean, it was a real person with a real sword riding a real horse. How much cooler could it get (in my opinion, the answer to that question is Florida State’s mascot because they have a flaming spear, among other things, but that story’s for another day)? The mascot is a horse, so I am baffled that they could even consider the mascot to be racist…but these are leftists we’re talking about. Anyways,enjoy this article I found on the NZ Conservative Coalition blog!

Liberals Now Want USC Mascot To Change Name Because It’s Similar To Name Of Robert E. Lee’s Horse — Young Conservatives

The Tolerance Paradox

I saw this article on the NZ Conservative Coalition a bit more than a week ago, and I love the point it makes about the idea of tolerance. In essence, it is argued that you cannot have a completely tolerant society. If you do, those who are intolerant of the tolerant will eventually make it so you can’t be tolerant. In the end, I suppose it means that we can be tolerant of many things, but we must draw a line somewhere and be intolerant of something. Enjoy!

Should intolerance be tolerated? — Your NZ

Khalid Sheik Mohammed

Another from a friend of my dad’s. I had no idea of this information (I mean, I was in elementary school then, anyways), but it’s interesting. Enjoy!

Stands the hair up on your neck…..

This takes about three minutes to read … it is worth every second.  This is something every person in America should understand.


The single most prominent characteristic of contemporary Liberal-Progressive America is that common sense has been abandoned to political correctness and “feelings.”

As President George W. Bush’s top speechwriter, Marc Thiessen was provided unique access to the C I A program used in interrogating top Al Qaeda terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (K S M).

Now, his riveting new book, “Courting Disaster:How the C I A Kept America Safe”  (Regnery), has been published.  Here is an excerpt from Courting Disaster:

Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi.  A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house.  It read: “I am with KSM.”

Bursting in, they find  the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks,

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom.   He is taken into custody.

In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable “pocket litter.”

Once in custody, K S M is defiant.  He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer.  But K S M is not taken to America to see a lawyer.  Instead he is taken to a secret C I A “black site” in an undisclosed location.

Upon arrival, K S M finds himself in the complete control of Americans.  He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be.  Despite his circumstances, K S M still refuses to talk.  He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.

He has trained to resist interrogation.  When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully, “Soon, you will know.”

It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques.  So he undergoes a series of “enhanced interrogation techniques” approved for use only on the most high-value detainees.  The techniques include waterboarding.  He begins telling his C I A de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets.  He holds classes for C I A officials, using a chalkboard to draw a  picture of al Qaeda’s operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics.

He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids.  He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications.  He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists.

K S M’s questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world.

In one of these reports, K S M describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the “Bojinka plot” to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean.  Years later, an observant C I A officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match K S M’s description of his plans for a Bojinka-style attack.  In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.

On the night of Aug. 9, 2006, they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects.   They find a U S B thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven Trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:


*  United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 PM



*  Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 PM



*  Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 PM



*  United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 PM



*  United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 PM



*  American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 PM



*  American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 PM


They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives.  And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared.

Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airline plot, most would not be able to tell you much.

Few Americans are aware of the fact al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude.   And still fewer realize the terrorists’ true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it:  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the C I A interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, C I A questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda.

Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Former C I A Director George Tenet has declared:  “I know this program has saved lives.  I know we’ve disrupted plots.  I know this program alone is worth more than what the F B I, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Former C I A Director Mike Hayden has said:  “The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer.  It really did work.”  Even Barack Hussein Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged:  “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.”  Leon Panetta, Obama’s C I A Director, has said: “Important information was gathered from these detainees.

It provided information that was acted upon.”

John Brennan, Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied:  “Would the U S be handicapped if the C I A was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities, I would say yes.”

On Jan. 22, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama issued Executive Order 13491, closing the C I A program and directing that, henceforth, all interrogations by U S personnel must follow the techniques contained in the Army Field Manual.

The morning of the announcement, Mike Hayden was still in his post as C I A Director.  He called White House Counsel Greg Craig and told him bluntly:  “You didn’t ask, but this is the C I A officially non-concurring.”  The president went ahead anyway, overruling the objections of the agency.

A few months later, on April 16, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama ordered the release of four Justice Department memos that described in detail the techniques used to interrogate K S M and other high-value terrorists.  This time, not just Hayden (who was now retired) but five C I A directors – including Obama’s own director, Leon Panetta objected.  George Tenet called to urge against the memos’ release.  So did Porter Goss.  So did John Deutch.  Hayden says:  “You had C I A directors in a continuous unbroken stream to 1995 calling saying, ‘Don’t do this.'”  In addition to objections from the men who led the agency for a collective 14 years, the President also heard objections from the agency’s covert field operatives.  A few weeks earlier, Panetta had arranged for the eight top officials of the Clandestine Service to meet with the President.  It was highly unusual for these clandestine officers to visit the Oval Office, and they used the opportunity to warn the President that releasing the memos would put agency operatives at risk.  The President reportedly listened respectfully, and then ignored their advice.  With these actions, Barack Hussein Obama arguably did more damage to America ‘s national security in his first 100 days of office than any President in American history.

How many people know this?  Only the few that read this email from beginning to end.

13 Things Americans Want

I got this from a friend of my dad’s, and though I’m quite obviously not a senior citizen, I can agree whole-heartedly with this whole list. Enjoy!

Babies with Down Syndrome deserve a chance at life.

This is also from the NZ Conservative Coalition, and I’ve seen it on several places on the Internet. I think it’s incredibly sad that people are aborting children with Down Syndrome. These are children who can live full lives and are often some of the happiest and nicest people around. And even then, a prenatal Down Syndrome diagnosis isn’t always correct. As the article mentions, there can be minsdiagnosises. With that, I think that these children should be given a chance to live. It all sums up to the only possible conclusion that we cannot abort these children. Enjoy!

Actual tweet from CBS News: Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion — Fellowship of the Minds

There’s more to pro-life arguments than solely religious ones.

I saw this one on the NZ Conservative Coalition blog. As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m Catholic, and I believe whole-heartedly in its stance on abortion. However, I also realize that if I frame my arguments against abortion with a religious tint, I know it won’t convince some people, so I’m prepared to describe my arguments to a secular audience. Unfortunately, because of my religious identity, it’s easy for some pro-abortion to dismiss my arguments as religious rigidity and zealousness. That’s why it’s important to have some non-religious proponents for abortion, but as you will see in this article, there are some who should logically support the pro-life stance but are swayed by the left. Enjoy!

Guest Post: Exit the Humanists, Stage Left — Whale Oil Beef Hooked | Whaleoil Media

%d bloggers like this: