Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists

September 5, 2016

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 5, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, addressed the Islamist Islamic Society of North America on September 3d. He told the assembled “American Patriots” — and reminded the rest of us — of the glories of Islam and how greatly it influences and therefore benefits Obama’s America. He did not suggest that only by the further recognition of Islamic supremacy and the further Islamisation of America will they achieve their goals. Today is Labor Day; the rest of us have much work to do to prevent it.

johnson-isna (1)

Here is the text of Secretary Johnson’s speech, with indented comments by ignorant Islamophobes Robert Spencer (RS) and your’s truly (DM).

[I]t’s a great privilege for me to be present in person here today, to speak to this full convention of the Islamic Society of North America. I’m told I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention. I welcome that, as you have welcomed me. I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.

President Obama has made it a priority for his administration to build bridges to American Muslim communities.

DM: Obama has “built bridges” to “moderate” Islamist organizations such as the Islamist Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-affiliated organizations. He has rejected organizations such as The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), which seek the reformation of Islam to respect and adhere to American values. AIFD and similar organizations are considered “Islamophobic” by CAIR, et al, who consider Islam perfect as it became when Mohammad left Mecca.

In 33 months as your Secretary of Homeland Security, I have personally visited American Muslim communities in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, rural Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Detroit, Dearborn, Chicago, Columbus, Houston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. I have come to know many of you, and I hope you know me.

DM: Indeed. They know him very well and like him. He and Obama have made great strides in furthering their notions of Islamic supremacy.

You have heard President Obama and me call out the discrimination and vilification you face in this current climate.

You have heard us say that the self-proclaimed Islamic State is neither Islam nor a state; that it is a group of terrorist[s] attempting to hijack your religion.

You have heard us, before multiple audiences of different political stripes, refuse to bend to the political pressure to call terrorism “Islamic” extremism. We know that ISIL, though it claims the banner of Islam, occupies no part of your religion, which is founded on peace.

DM: Do Secretary Johnson and Obama consider The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of Islamic terrorism, not to be Islamic? They should spend a bit of time reading the post-Mecca parts of the Quran, the Hadith and other Islamist texts. Indeed, they should watch this video which explains them:

After I am gone as Secretary, I hope you will always regard us as your Department of Homeland Security, aligned in interest with you for peace, the safety of your family, and the protection of your homeland. I hope you will always regard our new Office of Community Partnerships as your partner. [Emphasis added.]

DM: for that to happen, Hillary Clinton must become our next President and Donald Trump must not. Mr. Johnson despises Trump’s views on Islamist terrorists and on keeping them out of the country. Johnson seeks to have our elections considered critical infrastructure for DHS to “monitor.”

Tonight, in this last and biggest opportunity I will have as your Secretary of Homeland Security to address an audience of some 10,000 Muslim Americans all at once, I want to take our conversation to a new level. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Under Obama, DHS — founded shortly after the September 11, 2001 Islamist attack on America — has indeed become the Islamists’ DHS. Hopefully, that will change after the November elections.

A leader of this organization reminded me that, we spend a lot of time telling young Muslims in this country what you should not become. A more effective message is to tell you what, in this great country, you can become. We must not simply curse the darkness, but offer a candle.

Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens. Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism. Tonight I will simply address you as who you are, “my fellow Americans.”

Tonight I speak especially to the young people in this audience, and to your parents worried about your future.

Many of the young people in this room worry that, because of the current climate, your religion, your skin color, and your attire, you will never win full acceptance in this country.

I come before you tonight to assure you this is not true. Your struggle for full acceptance in this country is one you will win.

DM: Wouldn’t they have a better chance of being accepted as Americans by Americans if they accepted America — her Constitution and her laws, for example — and rejected Sharia Law and all that comes with it? Mr. Johnson did not suggest that.

How do I know this? Because my African American ancestors and I have traveled a similar road.

I hear your stories of discrimination, vilification, and of the efforts to tar you with the broad brush of suspicion.

I hear about the bullying and physical attacks that Muslims (and those perceived as Muslim) are experiencing nationwide.

DM: Many of those stories are fabricated by Islamists to support their notions about the pervasive nature of “Islamophic” hate crimes.

They are familiar to me. I recognize them. I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself. I see a similar struggle that my African American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.

Realize it or not, your story is the quintessential American story.

Your story is an American story, told over and over again, generation after generation, of waves of people who struggle for, seek, and will eventually win your share of the American dream. Know the history of this country and you will know that — whether it’s Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Muslim Americans — this will be true.

RS: Yes, you remember when Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans flew those planes into the towers, and bombed the Boston Marathon, and murdered 13 Americans in cold blood at Fort Hood, and four in Chattanooga, 15 in San Bernardino, and 49 in Orlando, and tried to commit mass murder at Garland and so many other places. You remember those global terror organizations made up of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Irish, etc. committing acts of violence around the world, and threatening the imminent conquest of the U.S. and the rest of the free world.

RS: The Obama administration’s solicitude is entirely one-way, toward Muslims as victims of discrimination, which is false and inaccurate in the U.S. anyway. Meanwhile, the jihad advances, as do Islamic supremacist attempts to assert Sharia norms over American norms. Johnson had nothing to say about such things, or about the unaccountable phenomenon of so many Muslims in the U.S. adhering to the version of Islam that he assures us is un-Islamic. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Please see also, The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric.

The arc of the American story is long, it is bumpy and uncertain, but it always bends toward a more perfect union.

DM: The Obama administration has sought a “more perfect union” with Blacks by supporting Black Lives Matter. It has thereby helped to kill many Blacks.

Some of you are frustrated that you have been publicly denouncing violent extremism for years, sometimes at your own peril, and have not been recognized for it.

DM: But not Islamist terrorism.

Some of you are discouraged that you must continually point to the patriotism of American Muslims, by pointing to your military service, and to those American Muslims who have died in combat for our country….

DM: Only if Obama, as I suggested here in jest that He had just done, recognizes Sharia Law as supreme in His America, will ISNA, CAIR, as well as similar Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Islamist groups be proud, patriotic “Americans.” It will take a village the total Islamisation of America. The rest of us? We don’t want it.

Conclusions

The notion of Islamic supremacy permeates the post-Mecca Quran and other Islamist writings, as explained in Dr. Warner’s Hijrah video provided above. When non-Muslim westerners go to Muslim countries, we are expected and required to adhere to their “superior” Islamic conventions: no booze, no “immodest” garb for females, and the like. If we don’t comply, we are jailed and/or expelled. We claim no superiority for western civilization and make no effort to demand that its norms be accepted or even to require their  recognition. Perhaps we should.

The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric

September 3, 2016

The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 3, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

According to a leading Pakistani imam, Islamists need to convince western civilizations that Sharia law is good and that we need it to root our the evils which possess us. His wise words must be music to Obama’s ears.

In a recent article, leading Pakistani cleric Maulana Zahidur Rashdi noted that Islam and the West are indeed in a clash of civilizations, as argued by U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The article, titled “The Cultural and Civilizational Struggle Between Islam and the West,” was published by Roznama Islam, an Urdu-language daily published from Karachi and Lahore, which is known for advocating Islamist causes and pro-jihad arguments.

Maulana Zahidur Rashdi is a leading Islamic scholar who frequently writes in newspapers and has visited several countries to preach Islam, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bangladesh, Iran, Kenya, Iran, Uzbekistan, India, the U.K., Canada, the U.S., and others.

. . . .

“[Our Intellectuals See It Not As A War Of Civilization But As] A War Of Interests … Between The Developed And The Developing Countries, In Which Muslim Countries And Nations Are The Underdogs Due To Lack Of Progress”

“‘Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said that those Muslims who believe in shari’a should be expelled from America. Before this, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump had too demanded a ban on the entry of Muslims into America. Newt Gingrich… has said in an interview: Western civilization is in a state of war. Shari’a is not compatible with the Western civilization, and we will gladly accept those Muslims who do not believe in shari’a. Newt Gingrich has also proposed monitoring mosques in America along with imprisoning individuals who visit websites of extremist organizations.

Accordingly,

“The West’s standpoint is very clear in that it is not ready to accept the enforcement of shari’a. In response to this, it is our responsibility to point out the errors of the Western civilization based on the common collective interests of human society and revealed [Islamic] teachings, to clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and to bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

President Obama has contended that America should not bar immigrants or refugee seekers who favor the imposition of Sharia law; that’s not who we are. Perhaps He does not want to stop His thus far successful efforts to end our terrorist shortage. In July of last year, Obama

condemned the terrorist attack in France that killed 84 people and denounced politicians who have suggested that Muslims be subjected to extra scrutiny in the United States because of their religion.

“In the wake of last night’s attacks, we’ve heard more suggestions that all Muslims in America be targeted or tested for their beliefs,” Obama said. The president appeared to be referring to former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s call on Fox News to deport all Muslims who follow sharia law.

Without mentioning Gingrich by name, Obama called his suggestion of a religious test “repugnant and an affront to everything we stand for as Americans.” [Emphasis added.]

“We cannot give in to fear or turn on each other or sacrifice our way of life,” Obama said. “We cannot let ourselves be divided by religion, because that is exactly what the terrorists want.”

Alas, some Muslims reject governmental adoption of Sharia law. Raheel Raza recently took issue with CNN commentator Sally Kohn, who had tried to defend Sharia law.

Raza’s response came after Kohn recently pretended to be an Islamic theologian and lectured the public on how “progressive” sharia law allegedly is:

There is a difference between personal, spiritual Sharia and the political incorporation of Sharia into law,” Kohn stated. “And within both, there are progressive interpretations as well as more fundamentalist conservative interpretations. So the word Sharia doesn’t mean one thing.” [Emphasis added.]

Kohn then blasted Donald Trump for “not knowing” what sharia law really stands for. This is likely when Raza’s radar went up, considering that the Muslim activist has first-hand knowledge about sharia law and the threat it poses.

Raza, who at great personal risk travels the world to educate people on the dangers of sharia law and who has worked for decades to wrestle her faith from the hands of extremists, thinks it odd that a progressive would defend the very Islamic tenets that promote homophobia, anti-Semitism, and the subjugation of women.

In an open letter to Kohn published on the Huffington Post, Raza writes:

Political commentator Sally Kohn has made several statements regarding sharia law, which were not only offensive but dangerous. In using her voice to propagate this liberal apologist position, she is doing a great disservice to progressive reform-minded Muslims like myself. Her words are an affront to me, a female Muslim activist, as I have made it my life’s mission to educate others on this topic and to wrestle back my religion from the clutches of extremists who wish to make sharia the law of the land. And I would be happy to debate her on this topic. [Emphasis added.]

As an openly gay woman, Ms. Kohn would be killed, jailed or persecuted under sharia law. As a devout Muslim woman, I – along with many true progressive Muslims – rightly view sharia, as it is practiced today, as an archaic distortion of Islamic law.

In a very diplomatic way, Raza suggests that perhaps Kohn doesn’t know as much about Islamic law as she thinks she does, and then offered up the following “brief lesson in sharia”:

What many sharia laws and statutes have in common are the following. They are:

· Homophobic
· Anti-semitic
· Anti-women
· Advocate amputations and stoning
· Preach killing of apostates
· Uphold the Blasphemy Law (which could get me killed)

“This homophobic, anti-woman, repressive sharia is no longer confined to the mosque or to majority Muslim nations,” Raza writes before providing the example of England’s 100 sharia councils that have been allowed to harm women in the West.

“As a woman, and as someone who enjoys the freedoms and liberties that are systematically assaulted by sharia law, Sally Kohn needs to think twice before defending this oppressive, perverse practice.”

“Words are powerful — so Sally, I beg you and others to stop defending the indefensible and to stand with us, not them,” the Muslim activists concluded.

It is typical of progressives, so willfully blind, that they hurt the very people they claim to champion. Sadly, progressives like Kohn would rather propagate left-wing lies about Islam without regard to how many people get hurt in the process, than actually learn from the people who know best.

Obama may think that Sharia law is good and that we need it, but rejects any “honest discussion” about it.

Would Iman Obama agree with Sally Kohn and Pakistani imam Rashdi that western cultures need the enlightenment that Sharia law brings? Then, perhaps we could become enlightened and progressive (but I repeat myself) like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. Saudi Arabia recently sentenced a man to ten years in jail and two thousand lashes for “tweeting” about being an atheist.

The hardline Islamic state’s religious police in charge of monitoring social networks found more than 600 tweets denying the existence of God, ridiculing Koranic verses, accusing all prophets of lies and saying their teaching fuelled hostilities…

Turkey is enjoying an epidemic of child rape. The Islamic Republic of Iran likes to have mass executions and, when convenient, throws homosexuals off tall buildings.

gays off hall building

Stoning, pursuant to Sharia law, is also popular in Iran.

Of course, it has to be done only in conformity with Iran’s Sharia law, generally after a “confession.”

And on and on and on. Never mind, though, Iran is very technologically advanced, doubtless due to scientific guidance provided by its ayatollahs based on the teachings of Mohammad. Indeed, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi recently promised that the “Hidden Imam” will arrive soon, and in “a vessel like a space ship.

Islamic Hijrah, migrating from Islamic countries to non-Islamic countries, is a way of conquest by political Islam — by Islamists. With it, comes Sharia law. If you haven’t the time or inclination to watch any of the other videos, please watch this one. Yes, it’s thirty minutes long, but well is worth the time.

Perhaps, by extending hands of welcome to more Islamist immigrants and refugees who seek to conquer us and “help” us by bringing Sharia law with them, we will accept that only based on Islamist teachings can we

clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and . . . bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

Obama would be very proud of them, and of us for imposing no religious ideological tests.

Pakistani Cleric Defends Clash Of Civilizations Theory: ‘Even Now Our Intellectuals Are Not Ready To Accept The Struggle Between Muslims And The West As A War Of Culture And Civilization’

September 2, 2016

Pakistani Cleric Defends Clash Of Civilizations Theory: ‘Even Now Our Intellectuals Are Not Ready To Accept The Struggle Between Muslims And The West As A War Of Culture And Civilization’ MEMRI, September 2, 2016

29757

In a recent article, leading Pakistani cleric Maulana Zahidur Rashdi noted that Islam and the West are indeed in a clash of civilizations, as argued by U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The article, titled “The Cultural and Civilizational Struggle Between Islam and the West,” was published by Roznama Islam, an Urdu-language daily published from Karachi and Lahore, which is known for advocating Islamist causes and pro-jihad arguments.

Maulana Zahidur Rashdi is a leading Islamic scholar who frequently writes in newspapers and has visited several countries to preach Islam, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bangladesh, Iran, Kenya, Iran, Uzbekistan, India, the U.K., Canada, the U.S., and others.

Following are excerpts from his article:

“[Our Intellectuals See It Not As A War Of Civilization But As] A War Of Interests … Between The Developed And The Developing Countries, In Which Muslim Countries And Nations Are The Underdogs Due To Lack Of Progress”

“‘Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said that those Muslims who believe in shari’a should be expelled from America. Before this, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump had too demanded a ban on the entry of Muslims into America. Newt Gingrich… has said in an interview: Western civilization is in a state of war. Shari’a is not compatible with the Western civilization, and we will gladly accept those Muslims who do not believe in shari’a. Newt Gingrich has also proposed monitoring mosques in America along with imprisoning individuals who visit websites of extremist organizations.

“The statement of the former speaker of the house is not the first such statement regarding this matter. Rather, statements of this nature have previously come from numerous American and European leaders. However, Newt Gingrich’s statement is unique in that a few points have been said bluntly without being diplomatic:

“One, Western civilization faces a state of war at this time. Two, Islamic shari’a is not compatible with Western civilization. Three, the Muslims believing in shari’a laws are not acceptable to the West. Four, the progressive thinking the West speaks of means abandoning shari’a regulations and laws, and the West will not accept anything less than this.

“Even now our intellectuals are not ready to accept the struggle between Muslims and the West as a war of culture and civilization. They say that this is not a civilizational struggle, but rather a war of interests and a struggle between the developed and the developing countries, in which Muslim countries and nations are the underdogs due to lack of progress and have been left behind due to not cooperating with Western society in civilizational progress.”

“Anything That Is Light For Islam Is Called Darkness In The West; And Anything That Is Called Light By The West Is Declared Darkness And Ignorance By Islam”

“However, Newt Gingrich has bluntly clarified that this is a civilizational war in which, on the one side, stands Western culture and civilization, which has enveloped most of the regions and cultures of the world due to scientific progress, military supremacy, economic domination and media control; whereas on the other side is the Islamic civilization, which is fighting a war for its survival and advancement with full force. The point is that this war is now becoming clear and it is written on the wall that in the future, of these two, only the civilization that is better able to solve problems faced by the human society will lead it. This is not only our claim, but a principle of nature and a necessity of the historical process.

“The former speaker’s statement that there is no compatibility between Western civilization and shari’a also warrants special attention. It is of concern to those among our intellectuals who have been engaged over the past two centuries in efforts to transform Islam according to [the standards of] Western civilization, and seek out interpretations of Islamic principles and laws that show them to conform with Western civilization’s principles and laws. These intellectuals cannot understand the simple fact that Islamic culture and civilization is based on the teachings of the Koran and the Sunnah [traditions of Muhammad] and wahi [revelations]…

“Allah says… ‘This Book we have revealed on you for the reason that you bring out people from the darkness towards light.’ In other words, according to Islam, pursuing the revealed teachings is called light and progressive. Whereas, for the West, rejecting and abandoning the shari’a directives is progressive. In other words, anything that is light for Islam is called darkness in the West; and anything that is called light by the West is declared darkness and ignorance by Islam. Therefore, it is meaningless and useless to search for the path of compatibility and understanding between the two. This is the reason that the West is not ready under any condition to tolerate Islamic shari’a to any degree and to allow enforcement of shari’a directives and laws even in the environment of Muslim countries…”

“This situation demands that instead of wasting time condemning and rationalizing the statements of Western leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, these statements are viewed as the reality on the ground and that a correct path is charted for leading Muslims. For a long time, I have been telling intellectual circles and educational centers of Muslims that the growing international struggle between Western civilization and Islamic civilization should be clarified at the intellectual and scholarly level… It has become essential to state in clear terms which matters are acceptable within the limits of the teachings of the Koran and the Sunnah and what flexibility exists to accept some matters.

“The West’s standpoint is very clear in that it is not ready to accept the enforcement of shari’a. In response to this, it is our responsibility to point out the errors of the Western civilization based on the common collective interests of human society and revealed [Islamic] teachings, to clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and to bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

Source: Roznama Islam (Pakistan), August 6, 2016.

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.

‘Homeland’ elections czar picks sides: Trump policies ‘un-American’, ‘irresponsible’

September 1, 2016

‘Homeland’ elections czar picks sides: Trump policies ‘un-American’, ‘irresponsible’, The American Mirror, Kyle Olson, August 30, 2016

If the Department of Homeland Security attempts to seize oversight of American elections from states in the name of national security, Hillary Clinton will have the new “Elections Czar” in her corner.

The Washington Examiner reported on Tuesday:

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

It would be difficult to view Johnson merely as a keeper of election integrity, given his negative comments about Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Johnson tore into Trump during an appearance on MSNBC in December, deeming his policies “irresponsible,” “unconstitutional,” and even “un-American.”

Johnson said:

“As the secretary of Homeland Security, I have avoided responding to the political season and what candidates have said running for president. However, I believe that it’s the responsibility of those of us in national security and homeland security when a leading candidate for office proposes something that is irresponsible, probably illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to international law, un-American, and will actually hurt our efforts at homeland security and national security, we have to speak out.

“So we’re in an age right now that involves terrorists-inspired as well as terrorists-directed attack. The Islamic state has targeted the Muslim community. So it is all the more important that we reach out and build bridges to American Muslims, and American Muslim communities.

“We’ve been doing a lot of this lately. And it’s important that we continue to do that working with the Muslim community, not driving them away, not vilifying them, not driving them into the shadows is absolutely critical to our national security efforts.

“So, those of us in government have to speak out about this proposal, this idea.”

Johnson was objecting to Trump’s idea to closely scrutinize Islamists in America for potential radical tendencies.

So does Johnson want to preserve the integrity of elections, or or want to ensure his candidate wins?

Adapt Mexico’s Immigration Policy

September 1, 2016

Adapt Mexico’s Immigration Policy, American ThinkerDaniel John Sobieski, September 1, 2016

One hopes that during his visit with Mexican President Enrique Pena Lieto, Donald Trump reminded him of Mexico’s hypocrisy on border security and immigration control. Trump should remind those who alternately accuse him of a racist immigration stance and then flip-flopping when he softens it that border security could be achieved simply by adapting Mexico’s policies.

In 2014, Breitbart News reported that Mexico deported more illegal aliens than did the United States as part of its strict control of its borders:

From January to December, Mexico deported 107,199 Central Americans immigrants by land, while the U.S. only deported 104,688 illegal immigrants during that time period. Of those deported by land from Mexico, 43,456 are from Honduras, 41, 731 are from Guatemala, 20,988 are from El Salvador and 1,024 are from Nicaragua, information released by the Guatemalan Migration Office to Mexican news outlets reveals.

Appearing on Fox News, Chris Cabrera of the National Border Patrol Council noted that it is a felony just to cross the border into Mexico illegally. There is no green card, no food stamps, or pathway to Mexican citizenship. And. as Investors Business Daily has observed:

Mexico’s legal immigration policies are designed to provide the country with the skill sets that the country needs. There’s no talk of letting in those who’ll do the work that Mexicans won’t do. Mexican immigration law accepts those who have the “necessary funds for their sustenance” while denying entry to those who are not healthy or would “upset the equilibrium of the national demographics.”…

There will be no fundamental transformation of Mexico under the Mexican constitution. While we invite illegal immigration with jobs, service in the U.S. military, driver’s licenses and discounted college tuition denied U.S. citizens from another state, Mexico slams the door.

Article 32 of Mexico’s constitution bans non-native-born residents from holding sensitive jobs and joining the country’s military in peacetime. Article 33 gives the president of Mexico the right to deport foreigners at will without the deportation hearing that 90% of our illegals fail to show up for. Foreigners are prohibited from participating in Mexican politics “in any way.”

All Donald Trump has to say is that we are going to do what Mexico does — have a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal immigration that protects the country’s demographics and economic and political stability. As Victor Davis Hanson notes at TownHall.com:

Mexico has zero tolerance for illegal immigrants who seek to work inside Mexico, happen to break Mexican law or go on public assistance — or any citizens who aid them.

In Mexico, legal immigration is aimed at privileging lawful arrivals with skill sets that aid the Mexican economy and, according to the country’s immigration law, who have the “necessary funds for their sustenance” — while denying entry to those who are not healthy or would upset the “equilibrium of the national demographics.” Translated, that idea of demographic equilibrium apparently means that Mexico tries to withhold citizen status from those who do not look like Mexicans or have little skills to make money.

If the United States were to treat Mexican nationals in the same way that Mexico treats Central American nationals, there would be humanitarian outrage.

Needless to say there are no sanctuary cities in Mexico for immigrants from Central and South America. As Human Events has noted, Mexico keeps track of everybody within its borders. There are no visa overstays or foreigners working illegally in Mexico:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91)….

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.

All that Trump needs to do is point out that if it’s good enough for Mexico, it’s good enough for the United States.

Birth of a Policy Wonk: Trump Gets Into the Weeds on Immigration

September 1, 2016

Birth of a Policy Wonk: Trump Gets Into the Weeds on Immigration, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, September 1, 2016

trump wall

The full text of Trump’s speech is here.

****************************

While Hillary Clinton hunkers down under a nonstop barrage of email releases, avoiding press conferences while doing a desperate distaff impression of Richard Nixon (“I am not a crook!”), Donald Trump won the daily double on Wednesday, appearing presidential in his visit with President Nieto in Mexico City and then coming back to deliver a substantive speech (almost dizzyingly so) on immigration in Phoenix.

Indeed, I can’t remember a more highly detailed speech on one subject area by a presidential candidate in my lifetime. And we thought Trump was weak on policy. He’s out-wonking the wonks with his ten-point plan on immigration, no matter how you fall out on them.

You could almost call it “Birth of a Policy Wonk” with the onetime gambling plutocrat taking off his gold lamé tuxedo to reveal the tweedy duds of a Johns Hopkins poli sci prof. Well, not quite. Donald will always be Donald and he did roam off prompter a few times, though not far. Still, credit where it’s due. He had a lot to say. (Critics immediately got on the air to ask him to explain more, even though the speech was already an hour and fifteen minutes long. If he had spoken for fifteen hours, they would have asked for thirty. And that’s before George Stephanopoulos gets into it.)

But before examining those ten points, let’s take a step backwards and tip the hat further to Donald for his overall theme—the rule of law. Most of all, Trump wants us to enforce our existing immigration laws. Who’d a thunk it?  Certainly, not Clinton. Enforcing the law is not her long suit. But we know that, so on to the ten points.

ONE—THE WALL: He wants to build the promised wall with the best technology and protection against underground tunnels. No surprise here.  And he still, despite his morning visit south of the border, wants Mexico to pay for it. (Shrieks from the media, but actually this is a giant canard. Illegal aliens send some $25 billion a year in remittances back to Mexico. Start taxing that and Mexico has paid for the wall in no time—without having to say one word to their government.)

TWO—END CATCH-AND-RELEASE:  This alone could change everything.  Why did it ever exist in the first place?  The Obama (and undoubtedly Hillary) endorsed catch-and-release always seemed something out of Orwell. Scratch that—Lewis Carroll.  (“I caught you sneaking across,” said the Mad Hatter. “Now you’re released… Here’s a hundred dollars and a house. And would you like a cup of tea?”) Bravo to Trump for ending it.

THREE—ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CRIMINAL ALIENS: Did you know there were two million of them  inside this country? Are we crazy?  Trump wants to pass Kate’s Law—named for Kate Steinle, the young San Franciscan who was murdered by one of these characters —which imposes severe punishment on illegal alien recidivists. The idea was first proposed by Bill O’Reilly. Trump can count on some positive coverage there to make up for Megyn Kelly.

FOUR—SANCTUARY CITIES ARE OUT:  And good riddance too. Their funds will be blocked if they don’t comply. But will San Francisco have the cash to clean up its poop problem? Trump didn’t say.  (Just kidding, of course, but it is a problem.)

FIVE—UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS CANCELED: These are by you-know-who. This is where Trump also said he would enforce all existing immigration laws and add to ICE personnel, etc. to make sure they can be enforced.

SIX—SUSPEND THE ISSUING OF VISAS FROM PLACES WHERE ADEQUATE SCREENING CANNOT OCCUR:  aka the Islamic Middle East.  This is the “extreme vetting” proposal made by Trump in his recent foreign policy speech.  It makes sense but he has not addressed the more complicated issue of Western Europe, where second-generation Muslims are shooting up nightclubs and slicing the necks of priests. Do we withhold visas from France, Belgium, etc.?  Something has to be figured out.

SEVEN—OTHER COUNTRIES MUST TAKE THEIR PEOPLE BACK WHEN WE ORDER THEM DEPORTED:  Donald, the enforcer. He might even be able to make this work.

EIGHT—BIOMETRIC ENTRY-EXIT VISA TRACKING:  This one’s extremely important since half our illegal aliens come in by overstaying their visas, including many of the most dangerous jihadi-types. High time we did this.  Maybe Apple or Google could help. (Yeah, right.)

NINE—TURN OFF THE JOBS AND BENEFITS MAGNET: This is self-explanatory.

TEN—REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICA AND ITS WORKERS: ditto.

In all there’s nothing in Trump’s ten proposals with which I disagree. Notably missing is what to do with the eleven million (or whatever the real number is) existing illegal aliens, other than the criminal element that would be immediately sent out. No mass deportations in evidence despite much of the post-speech media coverage, even on the increasingly confused Fox News, focusing on Trump supposedly not softening on immigration.

Trump said we should deal with that population after everyone felt the border was genuinely secure. He implied that could take a while. Again, I concur.  This the humane way to do it. Seal the border tight.  Get rid of the unsavory.  (People who come here illegally and then commit crimes are definitely unsavory.) Then see what our country looks like. Everyone may feel generous at that point.  Ann Coulter may be freaking out, but so what?  She’ll still sell more books than ninety-nine percent of authors.  (Yes, I’m jealous.)  Trump’s approach is just fine.  Cross your fingers (and mark your ballots) so he has a chance to put it into action.

The full text of Trump’s speech is here.

Trump’s Triumphant Trip to Mexico

September 1, 2016

Trump’s Triumphant Trip to Mexico, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, August 31, 2016

Lately, Donald Trump seems to be recovering his momentum. After appearing mostly flat-footed since the GOP convention, he is back to his old table-upsetting self–today, with a quick trip to Mexico to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto. The meeting implicitly gave Trump the status of a head of state, and much of the news coverage, like this headline at CNN, puts a positive spin on Trump’s mission:

build that wall

Of course we have a right to build a wall. I don’t see how anyone could argue to the contrary. In fact, federal law already requires a wall to be built; the Obama administration is simply ignoring the statute. If this is the ground the battle is fought on, Trump can’t lose.

Byron York sees the Mexico junket as a big win for Trump:

Indeed, it was a big win — a very big win — for Trump. Going into a meeting with the potential for disaster — who knew how Pena Nieto would receive the world’s most controversial presidential candidate or what embarrassments might lie ahead? — Trump came out of the meeting looking very much like a potential President of the United States. Standing beside the Mexican leader in front of a green-gray granite wall reminiscent of the United Nations, Trump presented the picture of a statesman.

Less than 24 hours earlier, Trump was reciting “The Snake” before a rowdy audience in Everett, Washington. In Mexico, he looked like a world leader.

Given that Mexico’s President extended the invitation to meet, accepting it was, I think, an easy decision. There was no need to accomplish anything in particular:

After the hour-long session, Trump benefited enormously from the conventions and practices of international relations. There they were, the president at one podium and the candidate at another, translators translating, the assembled international press watching. When it came time to talk, Pena Nieto observed the niceties of diplomacy, treating Trump as a quasi-president already.

Score one for Donald.

Full: Donald Trump and Mexican President Nieto Hold Press Conference 8/31/16

September 1, 2016

Full: Donald Trump and Mexican President Nieto Hold Press Conference 8/31/16, Right Side Broadcasting via YouTube

(Trump’s statement begins at 45:34. — DM)

 

Cartoons of the Day

August 31, 2016

H/t Joop

is kurds

 

H/t Indyfromaz

extremists (1)

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

separated-at-mirth-1