Dr. Jasser reacts to the attack in Nice, France on Your World 07.15.2016, Fox News via YouTube, July 15, 2o16
Archive for the ‘Islamic immigration’ category
GOP platform gets Trump-ified
July 13, 2016GOP platform gets Trump-ified, The Hill, Jonathan Easley, July 13, 2016
CLEVELAND — Donald Trump is putting his stamp on the official policy platform of the Republican Party.
Now, the party has fully embraced one of Trump’s most controversial proposals, explicitly calling for a wall that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”
**********************
Republican Platform Committee members on Tuesday voted to include language calling for the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
And in a nod their presumptive presidential nominee’s support for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, they also endorsed language that would impose “special scrutiny” of foreign nationals seeking to enter the U.S. from “regions associated with Islamic terrorism.”
Both provisions are departures from the GOP platform of 2012, when Republicans nominated Mitt Romney for president.
That party platform then called for completing “double-layered fencing” on the border, which was ordered by Congress in 2006 but never completed. It was silent on any special scrutiny of Muslims or other people from countries associated with Islamic extremism.
The language on a border wall is a significant shift away from the “autopsy” report written by the Republican National Committee after Romney’s defeat. That report emphasized the need for the party to appeal to Hispanic voters to win back the White House.
Platform Committee members described the endorsement of Trump’s immigration proposals as evidence the party is fully embracing him on the issues that have energized his supporters and infuriated his critics.
“Back on June 16 of 2015, Donald Trump proposed this, and it resonated with the people of America,” said Stephen Stepanek, a committee member and delegate from New Hampshire who endorsed Trump last month.
“So not only is the Platform Committee recognizing the position Donald Trump has held throughout the primary process, it has been endorsed by the American people, who have overwhelmingly supported his positions and overwhelmingly made him the presumptive nominee.”
Trump and his supporters have largely kept a low profile as the committee crafts the policy platform, which delegates will consider at the Republican National Convention next week.
But they have made their marks on issues like immigration and trade that have been the cornerstones of Trump’s campaign.
The only mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the international trade deal crafted by the Obama administration that Trump vehemently opposes — was stricken from an early draft of the platform.
The language on the border wall passed unanimously through a subcommittee and did not attract any opposition or amendments at the full committee hearing.
It passed easily on Tuesday without any additional debate.
The only change to the immigration plank came when Trump supporter Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of State who helped write part of Trump’s immigration plan, interjected to ensure the platform would refer to “illegal aliens” rather than “illegal immigrants.”
Getting the wall built into the platform is a big win for the Trump campaign as it seeks normalize the proposals that some party leaders have been loath to embrace.
“The Romney campaign was very heavy handed about influencing the platform,” said Oregon delegate Russ Walker, who was on the Platform Committee in 2012 and this year.
“It’s far less that way this time from the Trump campaign. What’s happened is the current Platform Committee is in sync with Trump and using language in the platform to say the things they’ve wanted to say for some time.”
Trump’s promise to build a wall to keep people from illegally crossing into the U.S. has been one of the primary drivers of his insurgent campaign and a flashpoint for controversy.
And the committee has reworded its policy document to match the presumptive nominee’s campaign promises.
The 2012 platform said the double-layer fencing “must finally be built.”
The working draft of this year’s platform called for “construction of a physical barrier,” but Trump supporters saw that language as being open to weaker interpretations.
Now, the party has fully embraced one of Trump’s most controversial proposals, explicitly calling for a wall that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”
Kelly Armstrong, a Platform Committee member and delegate from North Dakota, told The Hill, “I support the presumptive nominee, and so putting language in there to support his proposals is a good idea.”
“At the end of the day, a strong immigration policy is something Republicans will support, and we’ll support our nominee’s positions on that.”
But some Republican critics of the plan say it’s impossible to build a border wall on the rough terrain along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) told The Hill in an interview on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that adopting the wall into the party’s platform doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.
“It doesn’t really matter,” Simpson said. “You still have to appropriate money for it. Mexico’s not going to pay for it. There are places where a wall is appropriate, but you’re not going to build a wall down the whole 2,300 miles on the border.”
The platform does not address Trump’s promise that Mexico will pay for the wall.
And some Republicans have warned that the proposal will further turn away Hispanic voters.
Following the 2012 elections, the Republican National Committee issued an assessment meant to keep Republicans from losing the White House race again.
The RNC report warned that minorities “wrongly think Republicans do not like them or want them in the country.”
Now some fear Trump’s vow to build the wall, as well as his saying that most Mexican immigrants bring crime over the border, has reversed any progress the party has made.
“I’ve found you can’t look at the Hispanic voters monolithically — there are plenty of folks who came here legally who respect that process and do not appreciate people who ignore that process,” said Giovanni Cicione, a Rhode Island delegate on the Platform Committee. “That being said, those same people probably have relatives here illegally, so it becomes a difficult question.”
But most Republicans on the Platform Committee dismissed those worries.
“I’m not concerned about that,” said Darcie Johnston, a Platform Committee member from Vermont. “That’s more of a press narrative.”
For the most part, delegates on the panel viewed their votes as a reflection of proposals that have widespread support among grassroots conservatives.
They say they believe that bringing the platform in line with Trump on immigration will unite the party and capitalize on enthusiasm from the base.
“By the time we leave the Platform Committee meeting and by the time Republican delegates leave Cleveland, we’ll go home united and ready to support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton,” said Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, a delegate on the committee.
“You’re going to see a very united Republican Party,” she continued. “So many [delegates] have already come around. … A number of individuals are no longer talking about how they wish their candidate had won. They’re talking about what can we do to help Donald Trump.”
Hillary’s ‘Serious Lack of Competence’ Cost lives at Benghazi
June 29, 2016Hillary’s ‘Serious Lack of Competence’ Cost lives at Benghazi, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, June 29, 2016
Hillary’s actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.
The foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”
************************
Former CIA officer D. W. Wilber noted in The Hill Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions leading up to the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya as a whole were “lunacy on a grand scale”: “Additional security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to the United States.” Hillary’s “trust in the various militia factions to set aside their longstanding differences and establish a governing body in the war torn country illustrates another amateur mistake.” But it wasn’t. It was a professional mistake.
In reality, Hillary’s actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.
This is the kind of disastrous miscalculation preached by establishment foreign policy wonks including the likes of the puerile and silly Will McCants (and the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution in general), Max Abrahms (and the Council on Foreign Relations in general), and a host of others that the State Department and other foreign policy entities hire by the pound.
The foreign policy establishment is a bipartisan creation, and both parties refuse to challenge its hegemony. The Republicans, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings showed Tuesday, continue instead to let Hillary and Obama off the hook, and don’t even come close to challenging the entrenched foreign policy bureaucracy. Breitbart News noted that the final report from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)’s committee refused “to blame President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as refus[ed] to say directly if Clinton lied to the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.”
The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible.”
Bozell detailed the many failures of Gowdy’s inquiry: “The causes, events and circumstances regarding the attacks on the American personnel and facilities at Benghazi are still a mystery to the American people. Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer. Why did this administration deliberately lie about the video? No answer. Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the multiple failures of the military? Should the Secretary of State be held responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department decisions? Not according to this report. They wouldn’t even state that Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by committee members, prove she had! But they did blame a ‘rusty bureaucratic process.’”
That “rusty bureaucratic process” is a product of the foreign policy establishment that led us into this mess. Hillary Clinton is just their most prominent exponent — which does not in the least exonerate her. It’s just to say that not only does Hillary Clinton’s influence over the U.S. government in whatever capacity need to be decisively rejected; the whole foreign policy establishment needs to be swept out, cherished and unquestioned assumptions rejected, and the edifice remade by people who are more realistic and unafraid to base policy on unpleasant realities rather than upon politically correct wishful thinking.
Even worse, right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of those slain there recounted that Secretary of State Clinton spoke to him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.” And she did. The filmmaker, who went by several different names, had a record full of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on the Internet – which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious video to YouTube.
For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the U.S. for Obama’s war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the technicality of the probation violation (while thousands of more serious probation violators walked the streets), but for insulting Muhammad. His arrest was a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. He was nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.
That, too, was a reflection of the foreign policy establishment’s determination to compel Americans to stop doing anything and everything that any Muslim might construe as offensive to Islam. Reflecting the establishment policy also were Hillary’s fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” In response to that, Donald Trump recently opined that Hillary was “in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”
Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?
Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.
The foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”
Stop Importing Jihadists: Sharia Supremacists Have No Right to Enter the U.S.
June 29, 2016Stop Importing Jihadists: Sharia Supremacists Have No Right to Enter the U.S., Breitbart, Jim Hanson, June 29, 2016
[T]he practice of Sharia is simply not compatible with life in the U.S. It is also the dividing line between Medieval Islam, with its abhorrent practices such as death for homosexuals; stoning for victims of rape; forced marriages and genital mutilation for girls; and Modern Islam, which could properly be called post-Sharia.
********************
Donald Trump lit off a firestorm with his call for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. The deadly threat of Islamist terror and the migrant violence in Europe make a ban on Muslim immigration seem like a reasonable solution.
But we have Muslim allies, the King of Jordan for example, who would be affected by such an action. So if banning all Muslims is not the perfect solution, how can we deal with the ones who are a serious problem without alienating our allies?
The Center for Security Policy just released a white paper detailing how to do that entitled “Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.” It explains how existing laws can be used to stop allowing Muslims from coming to this country who do not share our American values. This does not mean all Muslims, but it is a significant number who believe the totalitarian Islamist code called Sharia should be placed above the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. citizens have rights. But clearly, there are no rights for non-citizens to visit or migrate to the United States. It is a privilege. We need to make sure that anyone coming here doesn’t believe their mission is to bring with them an antiquated and barbaric system to impose on us. We have the authority under current law to stop members of totalitarian ideologies from infiltrating and working to subvert our free system.
The problem is not Muslims per se; it is Islamic Supremacists who push the totalitarian ideology called Sharia. Unfortunately, this is a significant number of Muslims worldwide; a Pew International poll shows more than half of them believe Sharia should be the law of their land. Most also believe this law should apply to non-Muslims, as well. That could hardly be more un-American and we have every right to tell those folks “That’s not how we do things here.”
There are differing versions of Sharia, but they agree that the practice of all aspects of life is governed by the unassailable word of Allah and not one single bit of it may be questioned. That includes an ironclad prohibition on any man-made law superseding Sharia and a requirement for believers to actively work to impose it everywhere. This makes it impossible for a Sharia-adherent Muslim to swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution or any other country’s governing document. There can be no agreement to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Caesar must submit to Allah.
That single fact makes it prudent to restrict immigration by anyone who holds those beliefs. We have done this previously to stop totalitarian communists and fascists from infiltrating with a mind to undermine our society from within. That subversion is actually the very goal articulated by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood for its operations here in the United States: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house.”
It makes perfect sense to say to a group that wants to destroy us “from within” that “you are not welcome to come in.”
The dividing line we need to use for making policy is Sharia; the practice of Sharia is simply not compatible with life in the U.S. It is also the dividing line between Medieval Islam, with its abhorrent practices such as death for homosexuals; stoning for victims of rape; forced marriages and genital mutilation for girls; and Modern Islam, which could properly be called post-Sharia. The problem is Modern Islam does not truly exist yet. There are Muslims who do not practice or believe in the barbaric acts Sharia requires, but they are technically apostates, defectors of Islam, and the penalty for leaving is death.
The current state of play has members of the medieval form acting as the loudest voices of the “Muslim” community. Those who wish to practice a modern version do so at their own peril: they face shunning at best and death at worst. The medieval practitioners are aided in this effort by vast support; even the U.S. government has embraced them both abroad, by supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and here at home, in the form of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others.
Our U.S. government has a responsibility to safeguard this country and our way of life. That includes banning those who wish to destroy us from entering the United States. We must add Sharia to the list of totalitarian ideologies that trigger this prohibition. This will help all Americans including Modern Muslims who just want to live in peace in the land of the free.
Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor
June 27, 2016Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, June 27, 2016
Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others. It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.
Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife. Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.
***********************
I have written a follow-up article to my March 18, 2016 piece with the sarcastic title, “Are DHS Leaders Seeking an MVP Award From ISIS? – The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, why exactly did USCIS managers block a team of ICE agents from entering their facility?”
I began my original commentary by saying that I was not trying to go “over the top” with the title of my article and that I had not lost my mind but that I was infuriated that a manager of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) would block ICE agents from entering that facility.
It is worth noting that both USCIS and ICE are component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
At the time I wrote my original article, the actual identity of the manager who blocked five ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents was not known, however, it has been disclosed that the manager is Irene Martin.
It must be noted that these ICE agents were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the office that they sought to enter was located in San Bernardino, the very same city where less than 24 hours earlier, on December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook carried out a terror attack that resulted in the murder of 14 and the wounding of 22 innocent victims.
Furthermore, Enrique Marquez, the individual the ICE agents were hoping to locate at the office, was believed to have provided the weapons used in carrying out that terrorist attack. They had discovered that Marquez was scheduled to appear for an interview that day in conjunction with the application he filed for his wife to provide her with lawful immigrant status.
The agents were not only concerned about questioning and arresting Marquez because of the crimes he was alleged to have already committed in providing weapons and possibly other material support to the two terrorists, but the agents were greatly concerned that Marquez may have provided similar assistance to other terrorists who had not yet carried out additional attacks. Time was obviously extremely critical and potentially innocent lives were hanging in the balance. The clock was ticking and time was not on the side of the agents — or of possible additional victims, for that matter.
As for the supposed “marriage” between Marquez and his “wife” Chernykh, they have subsequently been charged with conspiracy to commit immigration/marriage fraud. I addressed this issue in my May 3, 2016 article, “Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family.”
On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case, “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.”
Additionally, it must be pointed out that if ICE agents had information about anyone who was seeking an immigration benefit for an alien, even if terrorism is not a component of the case, the adjudications officers should welcome any information that would provide relevant information about the bona fides of the petition/application that is to be adjudicated. Immigration fraud is a felony without any other factors being involved. Furthermore the 9/11 Commission noted that immigration fraud and visa fraud were key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists.
I am intimately familiar with these issues inasmuch as I served as an adjudications officer for one year, many years ago. I volunteered to be a part of a pilot project that paired adjudications officers with Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to uncover fraud. During that assignment my colleagues and I collaborated closely with the agents. When I became an INS Special Agent I worked closely with the adjudications officers who, back then, were referred to as Examiners.
However, in this case, Ms. Martin refused the ICE agents entry into her facility for reasons that have never been made clear. This is especially insane given the nexus this all has with a terror attack that was conducted in the very same city as her office less than 24 hours earlier.
On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), requested that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up. On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.
That OIG report noted, in part:
At approximately 12:20 p.m., December 3, 2015, less than 24 hours after the shooting, HSI was notified that the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), San Bernardino, CA, had developed information that Mariya Chernykh, a Russian national attempting to adjust her immigration status, was married to EnriqueMarquez, an associate of Syed Rizwan Farook, and that she had an appointment at 12:30 p.m. on December 3, 2015, at the USCIS Office, San Bernardino, CA.
The JTTF believed that Marquez might accompany her to the appointment. HSI dispatched a team to go to the USCIS office to prevent any possible further attacks as well as to detain Marquez and Chernykh for questioning.
The OIG report noted that the five ICE agents were wearing tactical gear and that they explained the importance of their mission and that time was critical. They were delayed by approximately 30 minutes and when they were finally admitted into the offices, they were brought to an interview room.
This is how the GAO report described this meeting:
The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.
The OIG report also noted that Ms. Martin made statements that were contradicted by statements made by others — she apparently lied to OIG investigators. Such lies are felonies and also subject employees to dismissal.
USCIS adjudicates more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. This process has serious national security implications.
Page 47 of “9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph that draws a clear nexus between immigration fraud and national security:
“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.
The administration has apparently decided to take action concerning Ms. Martin, however, it is not the action that would make sense. But then when has this administration taken actions that makes sense especially where immigration and terrorism are concerned?
In my March 18th article I sarcastically suggested that whoever interfered with the ongoing terror investigation should be given the Most Valuable Player Award by ISIS. So far ISIS has not weighed in, but, unbelievably, on June 23, 2016 Fox News reported, “Immigration boss who barred feds from terror suspect up for award, but agency won’t say why.”
Here is an excerpt from report about the egregious actions of the administration:
Irene Martin heads the San Bernardino U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, where last December, she allegedly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents from the man authorities say supplied the firepower in the deadly attack a day earlier. Although an Inspector General’s report found she acted improperly, and then lied to investigators, FoxNews.com has learned she has been nominated for the Secretary’s Award for Valor.
Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others. It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.
Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife. Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.
Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported
June 23, 2016Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, June 23, 2016
The Tsarnaev brothers (inset) who committed the Boston bombings were in the U.S. because their father is an asylum-seeker; they are not even included in the count.(Photo: © Reuters)
The obvious conclusion from the fresh data is that counter-terrorism efforts should be laser-focused on immigration and screening policies, particularly in regards to Muslim countries that are terror hotbeds, since over 65% of cases involved foreigners who came to the United States.
**************************
New data from the Senate Judiciary Committee reveals that 40 refugees have been arrested on terrorism-related charges since 9/11; a number far higher than the State Department’s previous estimate of a dozen.
Clarion Project reported in November 2015 that a little-noticed poll showed that 13% of Syrian refugees express favorable feelings towards the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). The Obama Administration plans to resettle between 8,000 and 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year. It is about half way towards that goal, having resettled about 4,000.
The new congressional numbers show that 580 individuals have been convicted on terrorism-related charges since 9/11, with 131 convictions happening since early 2014 when ISIS burst onto the scene.
Of the 580, at least 40 are refugees (a little less than 7 percent of the total) and 380 are foreign-born (65.5% of the total). The top countries of origin are Pakistan (by far), followed far behind by Somalia, Yemen, Colombia and Iraq.
The convicts are most commonly associated with Al-Qaeda or one of its branches. The second most common allegiance is to Hezbollah, followed by the Colombian FARC narco-terrorist group; Hamas; Lashker-a-Taiba; the Taliban (if you combine the Afghan and Pakistani branches); the Tamil Tigers; the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia; ISIS and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The obvious conclusion from the fresh data is that counter-terrorism efforts should be laser-focused on immigration and screening policies, particularly in regards to Muslim countries that are terror hotbeds, since over 65% of cases involved foreigners who came to the United States.
That number doesn’t include convicts whose parents came into the U.S. and may have brought ideas that helped radicalize their children. A clear example is Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s father, who has praised the Taliban and is now known to have served as an official in a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organization in 1997.
The Washington Post has also addressed some misconceptions and semantics games when it comes to the security issues surrounding the estimated 800,000 refugees who have come into America since 9/11. Counts of terror-linked refugees may not include asylum-seekers and their families who are in the U.S. but have not yet acquired the refugee label.
The Post mentions that the Tsarnaev brothers who committed the Boston bombings were in the U.S. because their father is an asylum-seeker and they are not included in the counts.
In addition, the aforementioned numbers do not include information about those arrested but not convicted and those under investigation. A senior FBI official said in 2013 that there are dozens of counter-terrorism investigations into refugee suspects. That was before the dramatic spike in radicalization sparked by the success of ISIS and its declaration of a caliphate.
As Clarion explained, the U.S. can benefit from accepting some properly-vetted Muslim refugees, including those from Syria. A ban on all Muslim immigration isn’t feasible (putting aside the moral question), but a vetting process aimed at detecting Islamists is. Such ideological vetting can help genuine moderate Muslims by identifying them and possibly expediting their processing.
Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney had great success in detecting extremists by tracking associations with Islamist movements and institutions until the overlapping extremism of political correctness and Islamism stopped him from continuing. Almost every time someone is arrested on terror-related charges, we hear about previous signs of extremism such as attending a radical mosque or a social media posting.
The new data shows that the majority of terrorist convicts come from foreign countries, and a small but worrisome percentage are refugees. It isn’t Islamophobic or bigoted to recognize the intersection between national security and immigration and make proper adjustments to reflect reality.
Horror and Hush-Up in Twin Falls, Idaho
June 22, 2016Horror and Hush-Up in Twin Falls, Idaho, Town Hall, Michelle Malkin, June 22, 2016
Something wicked happened in Idaho’s rural Magic Valley. The evil has been compounded by politicians, media and special interest groups doing their damnedest to suppress the story and quell a righteous citizen rebellion.
On June 7, a brief news item appeared on local Twin Falls, Idaho-based KMVT about a “reported sexual assault that possibly occurred near the Fawnbrook Apartments” five days earlier. Unconfirmed accounts of the alleged crime on conservative-leaning websites, plus reports from area members of anti-jihad activist Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America group and longtime watchdog Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, culminated in coverage on the powerhouse Drudge Report.
The social media groundswell, untethered from the constraints of political correctness, forced government authorities to respond.
Police and the local prosecutor’s office grudgingly confirmed that an investigation had begun into the incident. The victim: A mentally disabled 5-year-old girl. The alleged perpetrators: Three boys, ages 7, 10 and 14, from Sudanese and Iraqi immigrant families (predominantly Muslim) who have been in the country for less than two years — all but confirming that they are refugees.
What happened? The case is under seal because it involves minors, but prosecutor Grant Loebs said there is videotape of the alleged sexual assault (a fact which local activists first divulged). Two of the boys are in custody. It’s not clear what happened to the third.
Here’s the sickening thing: The people who should have been asking tough questions — like, you know, mainstream journalists — have spent more time attacking local whistleblowers and bloggers than they have spent demanding answers and holding public officials accountable.
Why? Consider the backdrop. Residents in Twin Falls have been worried about the impact of an increasing influx of refugees, many from jihad-coddling countries, over the past several years. Their concerns about crime, welfare, health care, and schools echo those of communities across the country who are bearing the coercive brunt of Beltway bleeding hearts’ refugee resettlement policies enacted in a shroud of secrecy.
Members of the Twin Falls City Council smugly likened refugee resettlement critics to “white supremacists.” Regional newspapers including the Idaho Statesman and the Spokane Spokesman-Review rushed to discredit the on-scene reporting of internet writers such as Leo Hohmann, who had interviewed a witness to the crime for World Net Daily.
“Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who lives at the complex” told Hohmann that she spotted one of the boys “taking pictures with a camera” outside the apartment complex’s laundry room. She went inside and found the 5-year-old naked with two of the younger boys naked standing over her. “The worst thing was the way they peed all over her clothes,” she recounted.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments