Archive for the ‘Islamist terror attacks’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Obama’s Parting Shot at Israel

September 22, 2016

Obama’s Parting Shot at Israel, Front Page Magazine, Ari Lieberman, September 22, 2016

unobama

Obama’s last address before the UN General Assembly was typically and predictably condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous and vainglorious. He used the opportunity to perform some electioneering and take a swipe at Donald Trump. “Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” he said in a not too subtle reference to Trump’s promised plans to secure the southern border with the construction of a wall and restrict immigration from high-risk countries.

France, a NATO ally that has partnered with the U.S. to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Islamic extremism in Mali, was also derided. Though he did not mention France by name, he criticized “liberal societies” for their “opposition to women who choose to cover themselves.” This of course was a veiled reference French laws banning Burkas and Burkinis, items of Islamic clothing that are oppressive to and denigrate women.

Of course, Obama made no mention of the Paris and Nice massacres. Nor did he note that as a result of Muslim violence, 70 percent of Europe’s Jews won’t be attending synagogue during the Jewish High-Holy Days. Obama did of course heap praise on Indonesia, a Muslim nation that discriminates against minorities and the LGBT community, still maintains so-called “blasphemy” laws, and imposes draconian Sharia law in some districts. This year, a 60-year old Christian-Indonesian woman was given 28 lashes for selling alcohol. This is the model nation that the president touts before the world community.

The vainglorious president also took the opportunity to tout his disastrous Iran deal, noting that the United States “resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.” Obama, however, failed to note that he inked the worst deal in U.S. diplomatic history and likely the worst deal since the 1938 Munich Accord. He also omitted the fact that the infusion of $150 billion into Iran’s anemic economy will enable the mullahs to continue to sow misery throughout the region.

Of course, no Obama speech would be complete without the perfunctory assault on Israel. What better place to attack the Jewish state than before a body that is today’s greatest purveyor of anti-Semitism, where anti-Israel invective flows like water and where the Jewish state is incessantly vilified?

Recognizing of course that referring to Jews as “apes and pigs” is a national Palestinian pastime, Obama reminded the Palestinians to play nicely before directing his invective against Israel.

“Surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land,” he said.

There are two egregious problems with Obama’s statement. First, it is insufficient for the Palestinian Authority to merely “recognize the legitimacy of Israel.”

Israel has made clear that the PA must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The PA has rejected this demand outright because they envision a future Palestinian state, exclusively for Palestinians, in Judea/Samaria and an entity that calls itself “Israel” composed of Jews as well as Palestinian Muslims, thereby negating the Jewish character of the state.

That represents the crux of the problem. Palestinian Muslims will never recognize the indigenousness of Jews in their ancestral land. Any peace agreement without such recognition is inherently flawed and sets the stage for more bloody conflict. In terms of strategy, there is absolutely no difference between the PA and Hamas. Both aspire to the ultimate goal of establishing a Muslim Arab state from the River to the Sea. The only difference is tactics. The PA has adopted a more practical and deceitful approach toward achieving their ultimate objective (though every once in a while they slip and reveal their true colors) while Hamas is frighteningly and brutishly honest.

The second problem is that Judea and Samaria is neither “occupied” nor is it “Palestinian land.” It is a territory that is the subject of a bonafide dispute between two parties with competing claims.

From a legal perspective, Israel’s claim has more merit. In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Israel/Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. General Assembly resolutions have no binding legal authority. The Jews accepted partition, but the Arabs rejected it. Had they accepted it, the matter would have been settled and an agreement would have validated the GA resolution and made it legally binding under international law.

During the War of 1948 that followed, Jordan seized Judea and Samaria as well as the eastern portion of Jerusalem and annexed these territories. Only Pakistan fully recognized Jordan’s illegal annexation, while England’s recognition was limited to Judea and Samaria. The territory was occupied by Jordan for 19 years and during those 19 years, Jewish institutions were reduced to rubble while Jewish headstones in the Mount of Olives cemetery were used to build latrines for the Jordanian army.

In June 1967, Jordan’s monarch, fed on a steady diet of fantasy-like falsehoods of Israel’s impending demise, attacked Israel with Hawker Hunter jets and artillery. Israel responded to the provocation and liberated Jerusalem as well as Judea and Samaria in a matter of days.

The UN considers war and conquests therefrom to be illegal, but Article 52 of the UN Charter provides an exception to the illegality of war in cases involving self-defense. The Six-Day War was as clear as they come in terms of self-defense. Israel acquired these lands through defensive conquest. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been compelled to return territories — acquired in the course of a defensive war — to an aggressor entity.

Following the war and after many months of haggling, the UN Security Council, which has the power to establish international law, passed Resolution 242. The resolution called upon Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Notably, the word “all” was deliberately omitted thus giving implicit recognition to Israeli territorial conquests. One can reasonably argue that Israel has fully complied with Resolution 242 by virtue of its withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, some 40 percent of Judea and Samaria and Quneitra on the Golan Heights, and that no further territorial withdrawals are required.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that two Jewish commonwealths existed on territories now claimed as “occupied” hundreds of years before Mohammedan colonizers set foot on the land. It would be more precise to refer to the territories as “re-occupied,” in deference to the indigenous inhabitants of the land.

Obama likely knows all this but couldn’t resist taking a parting shot at Israel. That he would choose to do it in a forum that is infamous for its anti-Semitic vitriol speaks volumes of the man.

Categories: Abbas, Islamist terror attacks, Israel - Jewish state, Israeli settlements, Obama and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terrorists, Two state solution, United Nations
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

September 22, 2016

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

bad-mix

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

ticktock

 

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Humor, Islamic refugees, Islamist terror attacks, Islamist vetting
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Weaponized Immigration

September 22, 2016

Weaponized Immigration, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, September 22, 2016

gh_1

The United States is at war with international terrorists, who, as the 9/11 Commission noted, must first enter the United States in order to attack it.

Consider the preface of the official government report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” that begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Furthermore, although much has been made of the lack of integrity with respect to the U.S./Mexican border, the9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel observed that most terrorists had entered the United States through international airports and then committed visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud to embed themselves in the country.

Page 54 of the report contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot,” which makes these issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

On Saturday September 17, 2016 terror attacks put international terrorism and immigration on the front page of newspapers across the United States and onto the “A Block” of television news programs.

On the morning of that last Saturday of summer, a bomb hidden in a garbage can detonated along the route of the “Seaside Semper Five,” a five-kilometer run and charity event along the South Jersey Shore waterfront to raise money for members of the United States Marine Corps and their families.  Fortunately, because the crowds were much greater than expected, the event was late in starting and so no one was injured.

On that Saturday evening, a bomb, constructed in part of a pressure-cooker, exploded in a dumpster in the Chelsea section of Manhattan where it had apparently been planted.  Shortly after the explosion rocked that trendy neighborhood of Manhattan a second bomb of similar construction was discovered just blocks away.

Both of these bombings and that third, unexploded bomb have been attributed to Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized United States citizen who legally immigrated to the United States from his native Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, on that same Saturday evening, in Minnesota, allegedly Dahir Adan, an immigrant from Kenya, went on a violent rampage in the Crossroads Center shopping mall in St. Cloud, stabbing 9 innocent people.  His rampage ended when a police officer, Jason Falconer, confronted him.  Adan lunged at Officer Falconer who fired in self-defense, undoubtedly preventing a far worse attack.

According to an article published on September 19, 2016 in a local newspaper, the Star Tribune, during the attack Adan was wearing a security guard uniform and asked at least one of the victims if he was a Muslim.  Additionally, Adan was reported to have referred to Allah during the attack.

News reports assert he was 22 years old and beginning his third year at St. Cloud State University and was a member of the tight-knit Somalian immigrant community.

Information about the identity of this apparent terrorist was not provided by law enforcement authorities, but by his father who claimed that his son came to the United States some 15 years ago.

Aliens who enter the United States surreptitiously without inspection could be said to have entered the United States through America’s “back door.”  Most terrorists, however, enter the United States through America’s front doors located at the 325 ports of entry that are operated by CBP (Customs and Border Protection).

Both Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan were admitted into the United States through America’s “front door.”

Given the severity of the threats America and Americans face and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission it is incomprehensible that the failures of the lawful entry system and the systems by which applications for lawful status are adjudicated would face extreme scrutiny with the goal of insuring that these systems have real integrity.  Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Politicians from both political parties have repeatedly called for providing lawful status for unknown millions of illegal aliens whose true identities, backgrounds and possible affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations are unknown and unknowable.  There would be no way to interview millions of such aliens and certainly no way to conduct any field investigations.  This would create an open invitation to massive levels of fraud.

Should any doubt remain about the abject lack of integrity in the adjudications process, consider that on September 19, 2016 Fox News reported, “Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation” that focused on the findings of the Office of Inspector General for the DHS concerning how hundreds of aliens facing removal deportation had, instead, been granted United States citizenship.  These aliens were originally from countries identified as being “Special Interest Countries”- that is to say that these countries are associated with terrorism.

The report noted that of those who were able to game the naturalization process, some went on to acquire jobs, including in law enforcement where U.S. citizenship is a pre-requisite.

Not long ago I wrote an article about a naturalized Somali immigrant who had “made it” to the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists List.” The title of my piece was, “The Immigration Factor –Naturalized U.S. Citizen Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.”

The FBI is greatly concerned about this individual who is charged with providing material support and resources to al Qaeda and al Shabaab, a Somali-based terrorist organization.  Additionally, he had worked as a cab driver in Washington, DC and has an intimate knowledge of DC’s infrastructure and government buildings.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to admit Syrian refugees who, according to FBI Director, James Comey, cannot be vetted.  Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of such refugees admitted into the United States by more than 500%.

Clinton wants to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status which would require that USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to adjudicate all of these applications.

USCIS is the division of the DHS that is charged with adjudicating all of those applications for various immigration benefits including granting political asylum and conferring United States citizenship upon aliens.  This is the very same inept and and incompetent agency that naturalized hundreds of deportable aliens.

Repeatedly Hillary and her open borders / anarchist accomplices have invoked the issue of “compassion” to justify admitting huge numbers of refugees who cannot be vetted and providing illegal aliens who entered the United States covertly with lawful status, even though there would be no way to verify their identities, backgrounds, affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations or even determine when they actually entered the United States.

Terrorists have come to see in our compassion vulnerabilities they can exploit and use against us.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” included this paragraph:

“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.

It is time for our government to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and disarm the terrorists who would kill our citizens and destroy our nation by depriving them the opportunities to enter the United States and embed themselves throughout our country.

Categories: Dept. of Homeland Security, Hillary Clinton and immigration, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamist deportations, Islamist terror attacks, Islamist vetting
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Robert Spencer: After Muslim stabs non-Muslims in Minnesota mall, Minnesota Muslims play the victim

September 22, 2016

Robert Spencer: After Muslim stabs non-Muslims in Minnesota mall, Minnesota Muslims play the victim, Jihad Watch, September 22, 2016

mall-st-cloud-minnesota

A Muslim stabbed ten non-Muslims in a Minnesota mall, and you know what that means as far as the mainstream media is concerned: Muslims are victims. Hamas-linked CAIR has been quick to claim victim status, whining about an anti-Muslim “backlash” that seldom, if ever, materializes after Islamic jihad attacks. And Minnesota’s governor is calling for “religious and racial tolerance,” which is always demanded of the victims and targets of jihad, never of its perpetrators.

And so we come to a particularly egregious example of this victimhood posturing from the Associated Press: “Minnesota Somalis recount racial tensions after mall attack.” We’re told that “the aftermath of Saturday’s attack at Crossroads Center Mall in St. Cloud also is testing longstanding efforts to improve strained relations between thousands of Somalis and other residents in the city. Several Somalis said they saw pickups driving through predominantly Somali neighborhoods the night after the attack, waving confederate flags and honking.”

Really? Did anyone report seeing these strange Confederate pickup trucks besides these “several” unnamed Somalis? Is Minnesota, the home of Keith Ellison and Al Franken, really full of racist, redneck, pickup-driving yahoos? Isn’t it a marvelous coincidence that these perfect central-casting racists just happen to confirm mainstream media myths about how opposition to jihad terror and the Muslim migrant inundation is nothing more or less than racism?

With all due respect to the venerable Associated Press, I don’t believe these Confederate-flag-waving neanderthals exist. After all, there are precedents for Muslims telling tall tales to advance the myth that they are facing widespread hatred and discrimination in the U.S. and the West. Hate crimes are currency in today’s politically correct, victim-oriented environment. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

This kind of thing happens quite frequently. The New York Daily News reported that “a woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.”

And recently in Britain, the murder of a popular imam was spread far and wide as another “Islamophobic hate crime” – until his killer also was found to be a Muslim. The Mirror reported that the imam “was targeted because he had made efforts to turn youngsters away from radical Islam.”

According to The Detroit News, a Muslim woman, Saida Chatti, was “charged with making a false police report after she allegedly fabricated a plot to blow up Dearborn Fordson High School to retaliate against the November terrorist attacks in Paris….Police say Chatti called Dearborn investigators Nov. 19, six days after Islamic extremists killed 130 people in Paris.”

And similarly in Britain, a Muslim woman was “fined for lying to police about being attacked for wearing a hijab. The 18-year-old student, known only as Miss Choudhury, said she was violently shoved from behind and punched in the face by a man in Birmingham city centre 10 days after the atrocities in the French capital on November 13.”

And so now Somali Muslims are living in fear of Minnesota Confederates? Pull my other leg. Meanwhile, AP isn’t finished with its tall tales. It says: “It’s still unclear what led 20-year-old Dahir Adan to stab several people with what appeared to be a kitchen knife before he was confronted and killed by an off-duty police officer.” No, it isn’t. According to an initial report, as he stabbed people, Adan was making “references to Allah,” and he asked at least one of his potential victims whether or not he was Muslim — which recalled jihad attacks in Kenya, Somalia, Mali, and Bangladesh where victims were quizzed about religion and Muslims were set free.

In any case, AP wants you to know that Muslims in Minnesota are afraid. It wants you to stop being a racist, bigoted Islamophobe who dares to get angry about jihad stabbings.

Meanwhile, what about the non-Muslims who are living in fear after Adan’s attack, and the New York and New Jersey jihad bombs, and Fort Hood and Boston and Garland and Chattanooga and Paris and Brussels and San Bernardino and Orlando and Nice and all the rest? They aren’t worthy of write-ups from the Associated Press.

Categories: CAIR, Islamisation, Islamist hoaxes, Islamist terror attacks, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Media and Islamist terror, Minnesota
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

NY Times: ‘Militant Violence’ Vanishing. Really?

September 21, 2016

NY Times: ‘Militant Violence’ Vanishing. Really? Clarion Project, Meira Svirski, September 21, 2016

nyslimes(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Writing in a joint op-ed yesterday in The New York Times, after a weekend that saw four Islamist terror attacks in the U.S., the mayors of New York City, London and Paris made an astonishing statement:  “In our experience, they wrote, “militant violence is vanishingly rare.”

Only they didn’t write that. A correction appeared today at the end of the article noting that the phrase was added by an editor without the approval of the authors.

In the article, titled “Our Immigrants, Our Strength,” Bill DeBlasio, Sadiq Kahn and Anne Hidalgo, mayors of NYC, London and Paris respectively,  argue that, “Investing in the integration of refugees and immigrants is not only the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do. Refugees and other foreign-born residents bring needed skills and enhance the vitality and growth of local economies, and their presence has long benefited our three cities.”

Just to make sure the Times’ readers didn’t get nervous about an influx of refugees, a zealous editor added the sentence about vanishing “militant violence” (code word for Islamist terrorism).

While one can argue the point the authors are making — that “policies that embrace diversity and promote inclusion are successful” (ask voters in Germany who recently gave Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door policies an enormous thumbs down) — no one can say that “militant violence” in the world is vanishing.

In fact, London’s Mayor Kahn said the day after the NY/NJ bombings that urban dwellers might as well get used to terror attacks, because they are now “part and parcel” of city life.

The Democratically-aligned mainstream media’s desire to shape world events by whitewashing reality or by shockingly adding words, opinions or (in this case) entire sentences to falsify the narrative seems to have gotten out of control this election season.

Consider the following facts (which are not an endorsement of any particular candidate, but rather an indictment of the mainstream media):

When Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump expressed his support for profiling to weed out terrorists, CNN added the word “racial” to Trumps comments. Headlines on CNN screamed: “Trump says ‘racial’ profiling will stop terror” and “Donald Trump defends racial profiling in wake of bombs.” (Trumps actual words were: “As you know in Israel they profile, they’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do,” Trump said. “And they’ll profile, they profile. They see somebody who’s suspicious, they profile, they will take that person and they’ll check [them] out.”)

When Trump called the bombing in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan a “bombing,” the press blasted him for not calling it an “explosion” in the early stages.” When Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton did the same thing (called out the explosion as a bombing), CNN removed that sentence in her statement.

Speaking on Meet the Press,  NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd said, “My friends won’t even read any — if I do interviews with Trump. They won’t read them. And basically, they would like to censor any stories about Trump and also censor any negative stories about Hillary. They think she should have a total free pass because as she said at that fundraiser recently ‘I’m the only thing standing between you and the abyss.’”

On PBS newsman Bill Moyers’ website, acclaimed journalist Neil Gabler wrote of the media bias against Trump, “Call it partisan bias if you like. I call it journalism.”

Univision and Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos, who is against Trump, advocated that journalists be partial when it comes to covering Trump. “Neutrality is not an option,” he said.

CNN contributor and progressive activist Sally Kohn argued that the atmosphere on college campuses that has prevented those from expressing views that run contrary to the “progressive agenda” is a good thing. Kohn was commenting on tactics such as disruptive protests and hostility from peers and professors. “If they feel like they can no longer speak against positive social change, good,” she said.

A society and its press that makes it its project to distort reality and stomp on the free expression of opinions will end up being tyrannized by those very concepts.

Lack of free speech and expression are the hallmark of fascism and totalitarianism. But before a society gets to that rock bottom, a lot of blood can be shed.

Ironically, today marks the 34th annual International Day of Peace. While the world today is far from attaining international peace, a small step in that direction would be a commitment to honesty and fair play by the media, on college campuses and in our country at large.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Islamist terror attacks, Media, New York Times
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cops nab NY bomber as more suspects keep coming to US

September 20, 2016

Cops nab NY bomber as more suspects keep coming to US, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, September 20, 2016

This would not be a good day to slander the flag as an act against the police.

It was the police who came to the rescue after a series of bombings that shook New York City and New Jersey over the weekend. This would be a good day to honor all members of Law Enforcement. Within 24 hours they caught and arrested suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami.

Even BLM (Black Lives Matter) and other cop-hating associates may want to give it a rest. But that is unlikely, as illustrated at Monday Night Football where the Chicago Bears hosted the Philadelphia Eagles, and three members of the Eagles raised their fists at the playing of the national anthem. They were making a statement.

On a day like this it means they take the side of the bomber. Or maybe this is the result when players take too many shots to the head.

The rest of us – how about a shout-out for job well done to our heroes? This includes the officer who took down a knife-wielding Somali in Minnesota.

Back to New York, after setting off bombs in Seaside Park, NJ and later in and around Manhattan’s Chelsea district, the suspect was chased down and nabbed in Linden, NJ. He was wounded during a gunfight, which also injured the officer who first identified him and gave chase.

So much like Israel? Well, yes. In so many respects, America is tasting the jihad that the Jewish State must swallow every day.

Trump’s immediate reaction to the terror was to double down on the theme that launched his campaign.

He said, “We better start getting tough, folks” (against free-for-all immigration). Then he tweeted: “Once again someone we were told is ok turns out to be a terrorist who wants to destroy our country and its people. How did he get thru the system?” Yes, Hillary also made some comments. But nobody cares.

What comes next, I suppose, for Trump and for those who knew he was right from the start, well, get ready for the charge of Islamophobia.

But Ahmad Khan Rahami is today’s poster boy for the jihad that has entered the United States of America, coast to coast.

Ahmad was invited. Ahmad was welcomed. That’s how he got through the system.

Pity The New York Times and Christiane Amanpour over there at CNN that they had to lead with someone named Ahmad. There was no choice. Even lying, backstabbing, deceitful journalism has to come clean once in a while especially when the terror is staring them right in the face, right there at home.

They have no choice but to spill the beans, as much as they’d prefer once in a while to name the suspect Bill or Joe or Chuck.

Sometimes, yes. But mostly it’s Ahmad. That’s the safe bet. This one came from Afghanistan. He is a naturalized American citizen, naturally.

So for the police, no matter how many Ahmads they collar, it will never be enough. More are coming. This means more terrorists and more terror cells.

This means more no-go zones, just like Europe.

Obama is bringing in 100,000 from all over but mostly from Syria. As we wrote here the other day, Liberals delight in this act of careless generosity.

Reckless immigration lets them feel good about themselves.

They felt awfully good at that New York party where Streisand and other Progressive fat cats honored Hillary and poked fun at Trump…Trump and his supporters, whom Hillary comically defined “a basketful of deplorables” for being so “Islamophobic.” The people laughed.

All that took place only a few blocks from Chelsea and the Islamic bombing in that neighborhood.

The same Progressive darlings, days later, ran to the police for safety and cover.

They also stopped laughing.

Categories: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Islamist terror attacks, Obama and Islamic refugees
Tags: , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Dr. Jasser discusses Trump’s comments on the attacks in NYC and MN 09.19.2016

September 20, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses Trump’s comments on the attacks in NYC & MN 09.19.2016 via YouTube

Categories: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Islamist terror attacks, Islamist vetting, NY-NJ Bomber, Obama and Islam, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Insistent Blindness of the Elite

September 20, 2016

The Insistent Blindness of the Elite, Counter Jihad, September 19, 2016

“[F]or Mayor Bill de Blasio and top city officials, terrorism was the word that could not be spoken on Sunday,” the New York Times reports.  It has become a familiar pattern.  After San Bernardino, we were told not to jump to conclusions about what turned out to be — exactly as expected — an act of jihad by Islamist terrorists.  After the Fort Hood shootings, we were told by the elite that this was really an act of workplace violence.  The first person to disagree was the shooter, for whom it was an act of jihad.  It took six years for President Obama to admit that it was a terrorist shooting.

De Blasio must have felt the irony of his position particularly strongly.  On Sunday he attended a forum with London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to hold the post.  The two of them gave a grand show on the importance of tolerance and  understanding, especially where Muslims are concerned.  The forum, called “Building Inclusive and Progressive Cities,” was a perfect picture of the world these elites wished that they lived in instead of the one they actually inhabit.

The elites are unified in their rejection of reality.  The media waded into the Presidential campaign to chide candidate Donald Trump for characterizing the bomb blast in New York as a bomb — which of course was always the most likely thing for it to be, and indeed what it turned out to be.  The press went so far as to edit out candidate Hillary Clinton’s exactly similar wording, just so they could continue chiding Donald Trump for his jumping to a perfectly correct conclusion.

And now the FBI have come forward and declared that they are concerned about a possible terror cell, just as expected.  And is there a religious connection?  Yes, just as expected.

cstuiqjxgaalujb

Is there a connection to al Qaeda or the Islamic State (ISIS)?  “The official added that it ‘really doesn’t matter whether its inspired or directed’ by ISIS or al Qaeda. ‘We’re way past that. The intent and capability are there regardless.’” (Emphasis added.)

Granting that a capable terrorist cell with murderous intent would be dangerous regardless of its inspiration or direction, it really does matter that we apparently can’t admit the truth.  The most frequently quoted line fromSun Tzu’s classic text on war is this:  “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”  If we refuse to know the enemy, we endanger ourselves.

The elite refusal to speak the truth about the cause and the scale of the problem is only going to worsen the problem.  Longtime security analyst “Wretchard” explains the dynamic:

The announcement that a certain Ahmad Rahami is a person of interest in the NY bombings will have the effect of making those who urged the public not to anticipate the outcome look like fools.Given previous evidence, GIVEN a bombing or public attack the prior probability some sort of Islamic plot behind it was very high. Past frequencies informs the prior. By ignoring this the PC brigade was almost certainly going to discredit themselves.

The argument they really should be making is that an overwhelming majority of Muslims are law abiding peaceful people. This is an entirely different assertion from saying that given a bombing, the parties behind it are unlikely to be Islamic.  It is perfectly possible that say … only 1 in 50,000 Muslims are terrorists while it being simultaneously true that once you observe a bombing, knife attack or mass execution the perpetrator is say 90% likely to identify as Muslim.

Knowing that, you can begin to speak seriously about both the scale and the source of the problem.  No one is arguing that every Muslim is a terrorist.  The argument, and the evidence, is that there is a special problem associated with Islam as it exists right now.  There is no answer to the terror problem facing the West today that does not grapple with those problems in Islam.  It does not matter how much you wish that the answer were “tolerance and inclusion.”  Tolerating these differences opens us to violence.  Including more Muslims in our cities, without dealing with these problems in the faith, is only going to increase the incidence of terrorism in our nations.

As long as our elites keep trying to convince us that this obvious truth is not true, they will continue to lose the trust of the people.  Political movements against this willfully blind elite are already sweeping Europe.  It may well be soon that “the elite” are no longer elite in any sense of the word.

Categories: Islamist terror attacks, Mental blindness, NY-NJ Bomber
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Homeland Security’s Alarming Message on Immigration-Terror Links

September 2, 2016

Homeland Security’s Alarming Message on Immigration-Terror Links, Counter Jihad, September 2, 2016

Please see also, Droves of African Migrants in Mexico Awaiting U.S. Asylum Under Secret Pact. — DM)

Two former Obama administration officials, Betsey Cooper and David Benjamin, published what is meant to sound like an authoritative rebuttal to the Donald Trump immigration speech.  Instead, it raises questions about whether the Obama administration even understands the dangers facing it on immigration and its link to terrorism.

Of course, in the wake of the Ben Rhodes scandal on the “Iran deal,” we can never be sure if the Obama administration’s allies are serious about what they put forward as ‘authoritative rebuttals.’  Just as with Rhodes’ management of the Iran debate, this may simply be an attempt to set up an echo chamber designed to prevent a real discussion of the risks.  However, if this article represents the real opinion of administration insiders, it shows an alarming failure to understand what is going on with immigration and terror.

Let us go through a few of the major errors of thought on display.  Number one:  Donald Trump, more than the failures of our system, is responsible for public concern.

The inescapable message is that the nation’s $25 billion-a-year immigration system cannot identify and keep out bad actors. And while the killings in San Bernardino and Atlanta have undoubtedly sharpened Americans’ fear of terrorist attack, Trump’s rhetoric is clearly having an impact: A Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll showed that 79% of Republicans favor limiting the flow of refugees and migrants and imposing stricter border controls to help prevent terrorism.

Indeed, major and obvious failures of the system ought to call into question the validity of the system.  It does seem that we are spending a vast amount of money on a system that does, in fact, fail to identify and keep out bad actors.  The response to this that strikes them as the “most obvious counter” is ridiculous:  that the real killers have gone through even more DHS vetting than ordinary refugees and immigrants.

The most obvious counter to Trump’s narrative is to note that not a single terrorism-related death since 9/11 was caused by foreign operatives coming into the country to cause violence—from Fort Hood to Orlando, the killings were all caused by citizens and green card holders.

Why should that make anyone feel better?  The process of getting a green card, or citizenship, is even more invasive than anything involved in getting a visa.  Indeed, the biggest problem of all is the one they merely wink at:

[R]adicalization is not a hereditary affliction—indeed, most parents of extremists have been aghast at their children’s deeds…

In fact, second-generation immigrants are more than twice as likely to become radicalized as their parents.  That being the case, it doesn’t matter how good your vetting of immigrants might be.  It is their children, perhaps not even yet born, who are most likely to turn against a Western system.  This problem has been carefully studied by numerous perfectly mainstream media outlets and scientists, and there is no good solution for it.

That a first generation of Muslim immigrants is often succeeded by a radical second generation has been documented by Foreign Policy, PBS, and by statisticians in Denmark.  The first generation came to America or to Europe for reasons they felt strongly enough to make the move.  They understood they were electing to move to a society that was less Islamic, and accepted the trade off.  Their children, born in the West, did not experience the realities that made their parents leave the old world.  They reject the laws and customs of their new society as being opposed to their Islamic identity.  The Danish statistics found that second-generation Muslim immigrants are 218% more inclined to crime than their parents’ generation.

If the children are the greatest threat, how can vetting the parents even help?  By the same token, if the green card system doesn’t work at identifying bad actors, let alone the process of obtaining citizenship, why should we have any faith in the visa system?  The whole system is a failure, not just the visa process.  Every part of the system of immigration has failed.

That said, the visa process is also a failure.  The visa system has two major problems, neither of which do they acknowledge.  The first one is that all the various steps that they talk about at such length require access to records that do not exist.  “Before prospective visa holders even arrive at a U.S. Embassy or consulate for an interview, their names, photographs, fingerprint and other data such as marriage licenses are first validated,” we are told.  Now, photographs and fingerprints can be validated in the absence of records by taking new ones.  How do you validate a “marriage license” from Syria right now?  Its records have been destroyed in the war, and its few remaining public officials are (a) too busy fighting a war to handle records requests, and (b) no longer in any sense an American partner, as we have long opposed the Syrian regime for waging chemical warfare on its own population.  They have no reason to help us, and even if they wanted to help us, they have no power to help us.

The vetting process on visas is thus completely worthless if there are no records that would identify someone as a problem, nor records against which we can check their claims.  The second problem, though, is that refugees admitted first to Europe won’t require a visa anyway.  Under the visa waiver program, anyone holding a passport from most European nations are admitted with no visa scrutiny at all.  All that happens in these cases is a reference to “Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record information,” databases that depend entirely on what the refugees told their original country of refuge.

What is wrong is not that there isn’t a huge and expensive system with lots of box-checking steps.  What is wrong is that all those steps by all those bureaucrats have no connection to reality.  The connection between terrorism and immigration is undeniable.  It is only made stronger by the fact that the second generation turns out to be more often committed to terror than the original immigrants.  It is only made worse by the fact that the more thorough processes for green cards and actual citizenship show regular failures in identifying bad actors.

The system is a failure.  The only thing that is unclear is whether the Obama administration understands even that it has failed, let alone why it has failed.  We cannot begin to fix it until we acknowledge the problem.

Categories: Dept. of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamist radicalization, Islamist terror attacks, Islamist vetting
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dr. Jasser discusses the 10K Syrian refugees admitted into U.S. & examines the importance of vetting

August 30, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses the 10K Syrian refugees admitted into U.S. & examines the importance of vetting, Fox News via YouTube, August 29, 2016

Categories: Christians, Islamist terror attacks, Obama and Christians, Obama and Islamists, Refugees
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »