According to Hillary Clinton, girls shouldn’t be worried about an effective economy, prevalent jobs, a good education, smart foreign affairs, lower taxes, immigration, or any of the other major issues facing our nation. The main reason to dislike Donald Trump (only for girls) is that he has called women fat or ugly before. Do you think his comments should be disqualifying? Leave your comments below.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
However, the Department of Homeland Security does not provide the security the rest of us need and want; instead, it does its level best to diminish it. Providing a reasonable level of security would contradict Obama’s view of Islam, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Refugee Fraud
On September 22nd, members of the U.S. Congress made public an internal Department of Homeland Security memo in which it was acknowledged that Refugee fraud is easy to commit and much tougher to detect:
The U.S. has relaxed requirements for refugees to prove they are who they say they are, and at times may rely solely on testimony. That makes it easier for bogus applicants to conspire to get approved, according to the department memo, which was obtained by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees. [Emphasis added.]
“Refugee fraud is easy to commit, yet not easy to investigate,” the undated memo says.
The memo said there are clear instances where “bad actors … have exploited this program,” gaining a foothold in the U.S. through bogus refugee claims.
The revelation comes just a week after the administration said it was boosting the number of refugees it wants to accept next year to 110,000, up from 85,000 this year. Officials also said they’ll take more Syrians than the 12,000 they’ve accepted so far this year — and they are on pace to resettle as many as 30,000 in 2017. [Emphasis added.]
The President’s decision to increase overall refugee resettlement – and specifically that of Syrian refugees – ignores warnings from his own national security officials that Syrians cannot be adequately vetted to ensure terrorists are not admitted. Revelations about fraud, security gaps, and lack of oversight have demonstrated that the program is creating national security risks,” Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Bob Goodlatte said in a letter to Homeland Security on Thursday. [Emphasis added.]
The Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledged that she had never seen the internal DHS memo. Why not? Isn’t ICE in charge of enforcing “our” immigration laws?
Countering Violent Extremism
The video provided above explains how CVE has been implemented thus far.
George Selim, director of the Office of Community Partnerships at DHS, was repeatedly asked by members of the House Homeland Security Thursday why he could not provide a document outlining the organization’s $10 million plans for countering the spread of terrorism.
. . . .
Selim finally admitted the plan is not finished, stating that a finalized version is “nearly ready.”
He added that he didn’t want to give the impression that the organization is without any strategy after being up and running for a year, and stressed that he takes the use of taxpayer dollars seriously.
Congress appropriated $10 million in funding to the Countering Violent Extremism initiative, which can issue grants to nonprofit organizations working in local communities to prevent radicalization. [Emphasis added.]
But when asked by Rep. Barry Loudermilk R-Ga., to provide evidence that the program was not a “black hole” for taxpayers, Selim could only answer that he has seen positive changes “anecodally” and could not provide any metrics for success.
“I can’t sit hear before you today and definitively say that person was going to commit an act of terrorism with a pressure cooker bomb, but we’re developing that prevention framework in a range of cities across the country,” said Selim.
When asked whether any of the funding provided to DHS for its “countering violent extremism” was being given to terror-linked groups, Mr. Selim responded that
there is no blacklist of non-governmental organizations prohibited from applying for federal funding in the government. He did not say whether their current vetting process has ever mistakenly funded groups that jeopardize national security when questioned, but argued there is always room for improvement when a program is in its infancy. [Emphasis added.]
Mr. Selim’s reply was not responsive; there may be no Federal blacklist, but that an NGO is not on one should not authorize DHS to fund it. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is, of course, one of the principal Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organizations upon which the “countering violent extremism” farce relies. Secretary Johnson recently delivered an address to the Islamic Society of North America, which is similarly linked. The countering violent extremism farce focuses, not on root problem of preventing Islamist terrorism, but on rooting out “Islamophobia.”
Here’s a video of Dr. Zuhid Jasser’s testimony before Congress on September 22nd
on Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror. This hearing examines the threat of radical Islamist terrorism, the importance of identifying the threat for what it is, and ways to defeat it.
Former Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra at the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency of the House Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress. Congress must ask the Obama administration about PSD-11, which made official the US Government’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups. [emphasis added.]
In His efforts to push the narrative that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, Obama has (a) shared His erroneous perception of the Islamic State and (b) tried to suggest that the Islamic State is the only entity which diverges from “true” Islam. His argument as to (a)
is a strawman argument: the real question isn’t whether ISIS “represents” Islam, but whether ISIS is a byproduct of Islam. And this question can easily be answered by looking not to ISIS but Islam. One can point to Islamic doctrines that unequivocally justify ISIS behavior; one can point to the whole of Islamic history, nearly 14 centuries of ISIS precedents.
Or, if these two options are deemed too abstract, one can simply point to the fact that everyday Muslims all around the world are behaving just like ISIS. [Emphasis added.]
For example, Muslims—of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, in Arab, African, Central and East Asian nations—claim the lions’ share of Christian persecution; 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in are Islamic. In these countries, Muslim individuals, mobs, clerics, politicians, police, soldiers, judges, even family members—none of whom are affiliated with ISIS (other than by religion)—abuse and sometimes slaughter Christians, abduct, enslave and rape their women and children, ban or bomb churches, and kill blasphemers and apostates.
. . . .
Or consider a Pew poll which found that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS. Similarly, 81% of respondents to an Arabic language Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State. [Emphasis added.]
Do all these hundreds of millions of Muslims support the Islamic State because they’ve been suckered into its “narrative”—or even more silly, because we have—or do they support ISIS because it reflects the same supremacist Islam that they know and practice, one that preaches hate and violence for all infidels, as America’s good friends and allies, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar—not ISIS—are on record proclaiming? [Emphasis added.]
It is this phenomenon, that Muslims the world over—and not just this or that terrorist group that “has nothing to do with Islam”—are exhibiting hostility for and terrorizing non-Muslims that the Obama administration and its mainstream media allies are committed to suppressing. Otherwise the unthinkable could happen: people might connect the dots and understand that ISIS isn’t mangling Islam but rather Islam is mangling the minds of Muslims all over the world. [Emphasis added.]
Hence why White House spokesman Josh Earnest can adamantly dismiss 14 centuries of Islamic history, doctrine, and behavior that mirrors ISIS: “That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true.” Hence why U.S. media coverage for one dead gorilla was six times greater than media coverage for 21 Christians whose heads were carved off for refusing to recant their faith.
As to (b),
The powers-that-be prefer that the debate—the “narrative”—be restricted to ISIS, so that the group appears as an aberration to Islam. Acknowledging that untold millions of Muslims are engaged in similar behavior leads to a much more troubling narrative with vast implications. [Emphasis added.]
Conclusions
Obama has what one might wish were a unique world view. However, as Obama has not yet discovered, wishing that something were true does not make it true. He elucidated His world view in His recent address to the United Nations.
U.S. President Barack Obama sang his swan song this week at the United Nations, and seemed baffled by the stubborn refusal of the world to reform itself in his image and on his say-so. [Emphasis added.]
How can there still be “deep fault lines in the international order,” Obama wondered aloud, with “societies filled with uncertainty and unease and strife?”
Shouldn’t his identity as a man “made up of flesh and blood and traditions and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world” have served as a shining and irresistible example of blended global peace? How can it be that, after eight years of his visionary leadership, peoples everywhere aren’t marching to his tune of self-declared superior “moral imagination”? [Emphasis added.]
It is indeed a “paradox,” Obama declared.
In his preachy, philosophical and snooty address to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, Obama expressed deep disappointment with the world. Alas, it seems peoples and nations are just not sophisticated enough to comprehend his sage sermonizing, smart enough to follow his enlightened example, or deep enough to understand his perfect policies. [Emphasis added.]
Why does the world not snap to order as he imperiously wishes and drool in his presence?
. . . .
The words “enemy, “threat” or “adversary” do not appear even once in Obama’s 5,600-word address. They are not part of his lexicon, nor are concepts like “victory” for the West or “beating” the bad guys. He won’t even names foes, such as “radical Islam” or “Islamist terror.”
All this high-minded intellectualizing, self-doubt and equivocation leave the U.S. with little ability to actually drive towards a more ordered world and provide a modicum of global security.
Instead, we have only Obama’s “belief” that Russia’s imperialist moves in Ukraine and Syria, China’s power grabs in Asia, and Iran’s hegemonic trouble-making in the Middle East (and by inference, Israel’s settlement policies in Judea and Samaria) will “ultimately backfire.”
Obama has many such unsubstantiated and illusory “beliefs.” It is very important for him to tell us what he “believes,” and he does so repeatedly. Clearly, he believes in the overwhelming potency of his own beliefs, despite the global security collapse. In fact, the U.N. speech reads like chapter one of the expected Obama memoirs, which surely will be filled with more inane “beliefs” and other ostentation. [Emphasis added.]
Fortunately, Obama will soon leave the presidency.
It falls to Congress and the next president to redirect U.S. policy and hopefully base it less on whimsical, wayward beliefs and more on a hard-nosed, forceful reassertion of Western interests.
Unfortunately, Hillary shares many of not most of Obama’s delusions.
Fortunately, Trump does not and seems to have a pretty good chance of becoming our President.
The blurb beneath the video states, “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers are in freefall. Steve Green walks us through how dramatically the election map has changed in the past few weeks.”
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.
Creeping totalitarianism creeps up on us. So fewer eyebrows are raised now when Hillary says something like this, “As Michelle Obama said at the Democratic convention, it is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four years of their lives.”
Michelle Obama did indeed say that. “This election, and every election, is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives. And I am here tonight because in this election, there is only one person who I trust with that responsibility, only one person who I believe is truly qualified to be President of the United States, and that is our friend, Hillary Clinton”
Children would be better off raised by wolves than shaped by Hillary Clinton.
But elections are not supposed to be about who gets to “shape our children”. They’re how the adult voters select representatives to handle their affairs. Michelle and Hillary’s formula is creepy.
Children are shaped by their parents, not by Hillary Clinton luring small children into her gingerbread house.
But we heard this already from Melissa Harris-Perry on MSNBC, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
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 ChicagoBears 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.
Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.
***********************
What’s going on at CNN in terms of their “hard news” editing process these days? The latest questionable achievement in journalism coming out of Atlanta caught my attention by way of Scott Adams’ Twitter feed yesterday, highlighting an instance where The Most Trusted Name in News ran a chyron which rather pointedly edited comments made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. While discussing the issue of profiling and once again using Israel as an example, The Donald failed to use a word which would have made the comment far more incendiary to the Left, so CNN took the liberty of inserting it for him.
You’ll notice the difference between the caption and the actual text of the remarks comes down to one word. The Hill highlights precisely how they molded the narrative.
CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration, and is running headlines reporting that the GOP nominee is advocating “racial profiling”.
But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted, however, shows that Trump never put the word “racial” in front of “profiling.”
“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”
Even if this were examined in a vacuum, that’s a fairly egregious bit of editing. Just as with American law enforcement agencies, Israel’s defense forces engage in profiling. Using patterns and prior records of criminal activity (or terrorism in the case of Israel) is how you maximize your chances of success. But when you stick the word “racial” in front of it you have yourself a liberal talking point which is a sure fire way to gin up the base and get out the vote for Democrats.
But we don’t have to look at this in a vacuum. It’s even more remarkable when we consider this chyron edit as part of a larger pattern. Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.
Now add it in with the recent incident where CNN blurred out the logo on a Trump shirt being worn by a subject being interviewed for a story having nothing to do with the election. These aren’t things that just happen by accident in an operation of that size and reach. There’s a culture in every newsroom and it bleeds over into the published product they put out. Of course, CNN isn’t alone in this pattern. Just look at the CBS incident last week where their evening news segment edited out a critical three seconds of an interview with Bill Clinton when he talked about his wife’s history of fainting spells. Sure, they wrote that off as having been done purely in the interest of time, but is anyone actually buying that?
CNN can’t afford to deliver the impression that they’re trying to put a thumb on the scale this close to the election. Their place in the food chain is supposed to be the “hard news” middle ground between MSNBC on the Left and Fox News on the Right. But there’s something going on behind the scenes at that network, and they owe their viewers an explanation for how this keeps happening and what they plan to do to correct it.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton referred to the explosions in New York City as “bombings,” then attacked her Republican rival, Donald Trump, for using the word “bomb” before authorities had publicly confirmed the facts of the attack.
Clinton was speaking with reporters on her campaign airplane, reacting to an explosion inside a dumpster in the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan that injured nearly 30 people. Another explosive device was reportedly found elsewhere in the city. A pipe bomb had exploded earlier in the day in New Jersey, and a mass stabbing attack had taken place in Minnesota.
Trump told a campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado: “Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what’s going on.” Journalists pounced on the statement:
(Video, apparently of the NY City Mayor at the link. I could not get it to load. — DM)
The Latest on NYC blast: Donald Trump declared “bomb went off” in Chelsea before officials released any details. https://t.co/T1Hbd5wRB2
Clinton: I’ve breen briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We’ve been in touch with various officials, including the mayor’s office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I’ll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts?
Reporter: Secretary Clinton, Do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump, immediately upon taking the stage tonight, called the explosion in New York a “bomb” … ?
Clinton: Well, I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. That’s why it’s critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to determine what did happen.
She then added: “I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.”
However, as Politico (to its credit) noted: “… the Democrat used similar words in her initial public remarks about Saturday night’s explosion in Manhattan.”
The New York explosions appear to have been caused by improvised explosive devices. The second device found in Manhattan was reportedly a pressure cooker, apparently similar to the type used in the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments