Call me crazy, but perhaps she shouldn't have stepped over that barricade in the first place. Linda, maybe you should try that next time.
Her lawsuit claims:
Stasi's injuries, the complaint says, left her "severely injured and damaged, rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled." Additionally she suffered "severe nervous shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset."
She was also unable to malign massacre victims for several days afterwards.
UPDATE #3: The Foreigner isn't a gun guy, and is receptive to reasonable gun control measures. But I get where Schlichter's coming from:
So we are in a place where the MSM celebrates a Jew being murdered for standing up for his faith. And they expect me to disarm? @benshapiro
[Tashfeen] Malik, 27, belonged to an educated, politically influential family from Karor Lal Esan in Layyah district. Malik Ahmad Ali Aulakh, one of her father’s cousins, was a provincial minister from 2008-13.
Residents said the Aulakh family is known to have connections to militant Islam.
As they like to say at Obama's Department of Homeland Security, nobody who lies about their address and has connections to militant Islam could be a bad person!
Nevertheless, as an atheist myself, I can sympathize with the desire for solutions over platitudes. And so in the spirit of that, I make a simple proposal following the terrorist attack at San Bernardino:
End ALL Muslim immigration. NOW.
Because the time for meaningless platitudes is indeed over.
UPDATE: Just tracked down one more of those jerks who offers "thoughts and prayers" during mass casualty events.
I mean, what a total asshole, amirite?
And for the sake of completeness, this monster's latest violation of all that is good and politically-correct:
The coordinated attack [on offering "thoughts and prayers" for victims & their families] seems to have three goals: One, to simply bait and troll religious people, Two, to show how trite and silly common people are with their second-hand sentiments (and how elevated the critic of such sentiments is), and Three, that while the rightwing can only offer "thoughts and prayers" in response to a mass shooting, leftwing politicians offer action...
Has condemning thoughts and prayers solved mass shootings yet? Seemed like a real winner yesterday.
What the writer of the piece fails to understand is that during war, one does not invite foreign nationals from hostile countries to settle in one's territory because of the obvious security threat. What is less obvious is that Japanese-Americans -- not foreign nationals, but American citizens -- required internment. (Particularly since German-Americans and Italian-Americans were not subject to the same requirement.)
I contend that citizens of Western nations have a right to have a say in their countrys' immigration policies, and are well within their rights to reject immigration of refugees who are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-atheist.
There's been a certain amount of hyperbole on this blog of late regarding refugees from Syria. This has been somewhat unavoidable, given the fact that virtually every day over the past week some monstrous new outrage has been perpetrated by Muslim radicals somewhere across the globe.
So it must be said that, of course, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But it must also be admitted that Western nations will not merely be accepting "widows and orphans." It is therefore inevitable that there will be some finite number of terrorists mingled within the cohort of refugees that are granted asylum. So the question is: How can we estimate this number?
As can be seen, 13% of Syrian refugees have a favorable or partly favorable view of ISIS. If America accepts 10,000 Syrian refugees, 1,300 of them will view the terrorist group favorably to some extent. I contend that, at the very least, such views will not be conducive to good citizenship among these thirteen hundred people.
(Obviously, the situation faced by Germany is far worse, which can expect 104,000 of 800,000 Syrian refugees to have somewhat favorable views of ISIS.)
However, only 4% of Syrian refugees view ISIS with full approval, so America can expect to receive only 400 hardcore ISIS supporters. (While Germany faces the nightmarish prospect of receiving 32,000 ISIS partisans concentrated within a far smaller geographical area -- a veritable small invasion force, should it ever be so motivated.)
But most likely, support for ISIS will not translate into action for the vast majority of even hardcore supporters, so only a small fraction of America's 400 (or Germany's 32,000) can be expected to turn to terrorism.
I'm tempted to put that fraction at 1%, but that would simply be a wild guess.
POSTSCRIPT: The above analysis makes a number of assumptions:
1) There are no ISIS infiltrators mingled in with genuine refugees. I believe there will most certainly be a few, but I have no basis whatsoever for estimating their number.
2) The refugees have zero support for other terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or al-Nusra. It is clearly nonsensical to suppose so, but the poll did not ask refugees whether they supported other terrorist groups, and more importantly, the refugees were not asked about their support for ALL terrorist groups in general.
Given that al-Qaeda & al-Nusra is said to be more popular that ISIS among Syrian refugees, I think it reasonable to add 25% to the final numbers (425 hardcore terrorist supporters in the U.S., and 40,000 in Germany).
(If I was hyping the numbers I suppose I could double them, but it must be remembered that a large number of ISIS supporters will most likely view al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups favorably as well. Due to the considerable overlap, the stated additional 25% seems more reasonable.)
3) Governments are completely ineffective in screening against ISIS supporters. An indeterminate number will no doubt be weeded out, should members of the bureaucracy be inclined to do so.
However, I'm left with a disquieting thought: In some PC quarters, firebrands and holders of extreme views are thought to represent a more "authentic" (and therefore, more desirable) type of Islam. And so I ask: Is it possible that portions of the bureaucracy might in fact positively select IN FAVOR of individuals predisposed to conducting terrorist acts against their newly adopted countries?
POSTSCRIPT: I know nothing about the provenance of these photos, and some skepticism is in order. But even assuming the worst (ie: that they're faked or exaggerated), the larger point that terrorists wish to gain entry into America still nonetheless holds true.
Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan. [emphasis added]
Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks [by Muslim death squads in Paris], say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims...
Summing up American views of Obama's Syrian refugee relocation plan:
"Children of pigs and apes! I'm just a harmless widow, with nowhere else to turn. I solemnly promise not to slaughter you the way my late, beloved husband did during the heroic Charlie Hebdo attacks. By Mohammed's beard, I swear it!"
"Apparently [Republicans] are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America. At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of 3-year-old orphans. That doesn't seem so tough to me." [Emphasis added]
Said the big, tough guy who imprisons makers of crappy YouTube videos.†
But Barack Obama did say something I found myself agreeing with:
"We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic," Obama said. "We don't make good decisions if it's based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks."
There, you're absolutely right. No reasonable person could disagree with tha--- OH FUCK!!!!! DID THAT NICE YOUNG TSARNAEV REFUGEE-BOY JUST BLOW THAT MAN'S FUCKING LEG OFF?!?
Why, yes. Yes, he did.
Your transparent guilt-trip only works when people stop caring about their loved ones, Barry.
Let me know when that happens.
† And who's protected by a large Secret Service detail. And who pisses his pants when answering questions from Fox News...
UPDATE (November 22, 2015): Legally, the Tsarnaev family were permitted to remain in the U.S. not because they were refugees but because they claimed political asylum.
The ultimate point still holds: They were granted residency for humanitarian reasons, and repaid America's kindness by butchering Americans.