Dr. Carson Meets the Press

/in , , , /by

Now that a new Fox News poll shows Dr. Ben Carson tied for first place with former Florida governor Jeb Bush among all potential 2016 Republican presidential nominees, it’s time that he prepared himself for a full scale assault by the mainstream media and by the same establishment Republicans who nominated George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

Dr. Carson’s interview with Chris Cuomo of CNN is a perfect example of the inquisition he will face, only because he is a black conservative.  In that interview he was asked, “Do you think being gay is a choice?”  In response, Dr. Carson used the prison experience to support his point of view.  He said, “… a lot of people who go into prison straight – and when they come out, they’re gay.  So, did something happen while they were in there?  Ask yourself that question.”

That response was not sufficient to satisfy the mainstream media or gay activists.  Instead, if he had been adequately prepped he might have said, “There is some clinical research which tends to show that most homosexuals are apparently born with that sexual orientation.  However, we must also recognize that many men and women enter the prison population as heterosexuals, but then adopt a homosexual lifestyle while incarcerated… suggesting that, at some point, they chose to engage in homosexual behavior.  What this tells us is that there is much we still don’t understand about the homosexual phenomenon.”

As a non-politician, Dr. Carson can expect to be probed even more intensely than his Republican counterparts, even though several competitors are first-term members of the U.S. Senate.  Allow me to suggest some of the questions that will likely be put to Dr. Carson, along with some recommended responses:

Interviewer:  “Dr. Carson, you are an internationally renowned neurosurgeon.  Until recently you served as Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Center.  Serving as president of the United States is another matter entirely.  With your background, what makes you think that you should be considered as a viable candidate for president of the United States?

Dr. Carson:  “Well, I’m told that there are those who say that, given the mess that Barack Obama has made of things, he has essentially ruined things for any future black man who might have presidential ambitions, and that the American people may not elect another black president for generations to come.  I would remind them that, after Jimmy Carter earned a reputation as the worst president in U.S. history, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that he’d ruined everything  for all future white candidates.  Instead, four years later, the people elected a conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan, who not only ended the Cold War but implemented tax policies that gave us a period of economic growth that actually produced revenue surpluses by the mid-90s.”

Interviewer:  “In an April NPR interview, President Obama suggested that one of your rivals, Governor Scott Walker, should ‘bone up on foreign policy.’  What do you say to those who suggest that you would have even less experience in foreign affairs than Governor Walker?”

Dr. Carson:  “I would suggest that Barack Obama is the last person who should be questioning someone else’s foreign policy credentials.  For example, he spent most of his formative years, up to age ten, as a citizen of Indonesia; he has admitted that he visited Pakistan as a 20-year-old student and that he visited relatives in Kenya when he was in his mid-to-late twenties.  Visiting relatives and seeing the sights in foreign lands as a child and as a young man has nothing to do with assessing political and economic conditions.  In fact, if he’d learned anything at all from his travels he would have a far more positive view of American exceptionalism than he has today.”

Interviewer:  “In the history of our country, only twelve of our forty-four presidents had no military service.  You would be the first Republican since Herbert Hoover with no military service.  That being the case, how would you propose to win the respect of those in the military services as their commander in chief?”

Dr. Carson:  “The men and women of our armed forces are the finest that America has to offer.  And I can assure you that, regardless of whatever military experience a president may or may not have, the people in our armed services are more than capable of understanding when their commander in chief has their back and whether or not he commands their respect.  If I am given the opportunity to serve as their commander in chief, they will know that I will move Heaven and Earth to give them all the tools they need and that I will not send them on fools errands.  They can also be assured that, when I do what is necessary to retrieve a man who has been charged with desertion, the release of five of the worst of the worst Islamic terrorists will not be among my bargaining chips.”

Interviewer:  “Two of the early entrants into the 2016 Republican presidential primary are first term senators.  As a physician, you have even less political experience than they.  Don’t you think that the country needs and deserves a leader with far more experience?”

Dr. Carson:  “I would point out to you that Barack Obama was a first-term senator when he ran for president and his failures may cause some to think twice about electing another first-term senator, or a pediatric neurosurgeon.  However, it is important to realize that Obama’s failures are not a product of his inexperience.  He has failed because his ideas and his policies are wrong for this country.  In my thirty-six year career as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, I have been required to make more life-or-death decisions in a week or a month than a president might be called upon to make in two terms in the White House.  And,unlike Barack Obama, I have always been available when the really tough decisions had to be made.”

Interviewer:  “Dr. Carson, if you are the nominee of the Republican Party, your likely Democrat opponent will be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  How do you respond to charges that she is highly experienced in foreign affairs while you have little or no experience in that realm?”

Dr. Carson:  “Let’s look at the facts.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engaged in a very bitter campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination, a campaign in which the Clintons charged that the Obama people played the “race card” on them in South Carolina.  In the interest of party unity, Obama agreed to appoint Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.  He gave her a large staff and the use of an airplane and told her to just travel… which she did… while foreign policy was made at the White House by Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Susan Rice.  It’s impressive to hear Mrs. Clinton cite the number of miles she’s traveled and the number of countries she’s visited.  However, when asked to name one accomplishment she can point to as Secretary of State, Democrats are strangely silent.  As my colleague, Carly Fiorina, has correctly pointed out, Mrs. Clinton should understand that traveling is an ‘activity,’ not an ‘accomplishment.’ ”

Interviewer:  “It is quite clear to everyone by now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to wrap up Hispanics as yet another captive voting constituency.  In fact, they are talking about giving illegals Social Security cards, voter registration cards, free health care, free education, food stamps, and housing assistance.  Since Republicans can’t be expected to enter into a bidding war for the hearts and minds of Hispanics, if you are elected president, how would you propose to counter that effort by the Democrats?”

Dr. Carson:  “Your question presupposes that Hispanics would vote as a bloc for no better reason than that their votes are being bought.  If I were a Hispanic I would be highly insulted by that suggestion.  I believe that the members of our Hispanic population are among the hardest working people in America and I refuse to believe that they come to our country looking for a handout, rather than a hand up.  As a case in point, I would refer you to the personal story of Senator Cruz’s father, Raphael, who came to this country from Cuba with only $100 sewed into his clothing.  He took a job as a dishwasher and worked his way through college.  Now he has a son who is a Harvard Law School graduate and a candidate for president of the United States.  That is the American Dream that Hispanics seek and I will never be convinced otherwise.”        

Interviewer:  “You have been quoted as saying that you would not go to war with Russia over Ukraine, but that military action should not be taken off the table.  Armed conflict with Russia could conceivably pose the threat of a nuclear exchange.  If you believe that to be true, under what circumstances would you consider going to war with Russia?”

Dr. Carson:  “Look.  I don’t know of a single person in possession of his faculties who believes that the United States would ever launch a preemptive nuclear attack against another country.  But every country with nuclear weapons must know that, if they were ever foolish enough to launch a preemptive strike against the United States, retribution would be swift and certain.  In the United States, nuclear weapons are seen as a deterrent, not as tactical weapons.” 

Now that Dr. Carson is officially a viable candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, he should always be aware that every response to reporters’ questions must contain three elements: 1) a brief clarification of the issue at hand, 2) a clear and concise statement of his position on the issue, and 3) a solid shot across the opposition’s bow.  If the mainstream media insist on using Barack Obama as the standard by which Dr. Carson is to be judged, then the bar has been set very low.  He should take full advantage of that weakness at every opportunity.

The Logic of Testing  – Common Sense, NOT Common Core

/in , , , , , /by

Our Florida State and Federal legislators claim we must hold schools accountable for results so that they, the government, can cost justify the expense of education to the taxpayers.  Since 1985, they have increased their emphasis on testing, culminating in No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and Common Core.

Well, let’s see how that is working, exactly.  We have over 40 years of information shown on the CATO Institute chart showing the dramatic escalation of costs, while test scores have actually declined:

federal spending per student since 1970

Most logical people would conclude that increased spending on federal government programs has not been an effective tool to increase the effectiveness of our schools.  Logic is not all that common in government, however, and government programs don’t shut down just because they aren’t working.

This is especially evident in Florida, where testing now absorbs nearly 40% of class time available for learning, and billions of dollars are being spent on Florida State Assessments and Common Core.  These assessments are proprietary, however, and do not provide any comparison to other states; so much for accountability.

When actual, nationally normed tests are used to compare Florida’s students, year over year, to other states, we find the troubling truth.  The ACT is such a test and this how Florida’s students measure up over the last 20 years.  We are now a dismal 47th in the U.S.:

florida act scores

I attended our Lee County School Board meeting  where members were barraged with community complaints and tried to weigh options for the onerous burdens of the new bill, HB7069, recently signed into law by Governor Scott.   Similar discussions are being held at all school boards throughout the state.

The State bullies ignored the declining results reported by nationally normed ACT tests since 1998 and doubled down to erode accountability, reduce class time for learning, cede control to the state, dramatically increase cost, and endanger our children’s privacy rights.  They kept Common Core Curriculum and High Stakes Testing in place.

Let’s lay out the facts:

1.)    We don’t have the money to pay for schools to house our kids and yet the State wants us to build, maintain and update elaborate and expensive computer testing facilities.

2.)    The state wants us to pay about $34 per test for required state tests.

3.)    The tests are not validated and scores won’t be available until the middle of the next school year, yet the state wants them to be 30% of the student scores on end of course tests.  This means no report cards could be issued or decisions reached about student progress plans this year.

4.)    The FSA tests have disgracefully and repeatedly crashed, causing delays and confusion all over the state.  Starts and restarts themselves invalidate results.  Crashes were caused by the vendor, AIR, which was paid $220 Million to create and deliver this product.  No information has been presented from the state about recouping the millions of dollars schools lost in the crashes.

5.)    The tests will take about 9 days of student time if there was no conflict with sharing of computers.  Under current computer availability management, students are losing up to 40% of their class time to testing and delays.

6.)    We don’t see the test questions to see if they are appropriate or accurate and can’t use them to inform students.

7.)    Students taking tests on computers are being unfairly and inaccurately measured through the prism of their keyboarding skills, not their actual knowledge.

8.)    We know our children’s information is being data mined when they take tests on computers.

9.)    We have not been given any reason why tests must be given on computer.

10.)Pencil and paper tests are available to measure our students’ progress.

  1. They are MUCH less expensive
  2. They never crash
  3. It is difficult or impossible for the corporate cronies to data mine paper tests.
  4. Students can take them at their own desks without delays and confusion.
  5. Pencil and paper tests fairly represent the student’s knowledge, not their computer skills.
  6. Tests can be reviewed for accuracy and validity, and shared with teachers to inform instruction.

Given these facts it is clear.  Parents, teachers and local districts do not need the federal or state government to tell us how to educate our kids.  Our teachers are certified and the schools are accredited.  The STATE is NOT.  We need to restore local control by following this simple, “Common Sense, not Common Core” plan.

  1. Select from the best “off the shelf”standards which are available for free and not copyrighted
  2. Restore portfolio grading and eliminate high stakes tests
  3. Test on paper to reduce expense, eliminate data mining, and add back as much as 40% class time for learning

It’s a simple plan that will reduce bureaucracy, complexity, costs and inefficiency.  Tools to implement this are immediately available and are not copyrighted.  Our students will thrive in this environment and educational freedom will result in excellence.

Share this with your local school board now.

Vatican officially recognizes the “State of Palestine”

/in , , , , , , /by

There is no “State of Palestine” at this time. This is part of the ongoing pressure upon Israel to create one. Creating one will be a great victory for the global jihad force, as a “State of Palestine” will inevitably be a new jihad base for renewed attacks against what remains of Israel. Events will unfold just as they did when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza: while the international media hailed a new era of peace, the “Palestinians” gutted installations and prepared for jihad.

This recognition could end up being as large a blot on the Catholic Church’s record as the Inquisition and the many Catholic clerics all over Europe who went along with the Nazi program against Jews during World War II. The “Palestinians” make no secret on official PA TV of the fact that they share that same genocidal antisemitic bloodlust. This recognition only validates that bloodlust, and enables it.

For shame: “Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State of Palestine’ in New Treaty,” Associated Press, May 13, 2015:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Vatican officially recognizes ‘state of Palestine’ in new treaty.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Opinion: The Catholic Church Has Gone Socialist

Pope Continues his Leftward March, Will Officially Recognize Palestinian Statehood

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Jeffrey Tayler in Salon: “The left has Islam all wrong”

Hearing ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance Does Not Violate Rights of Atheist Students, Judge Rules

Ex-Nat’l Guardsman Given 20 Years for Trying to Join ISIS

Where Did the Islamic State Come From?

From Insurgency to Caliphate…

The Thinning Skin of America

/in , , , , , /by

While reading a column this week about the pernicious effects of “micro-aggressions” on the psychological development of America’s young men and women, I thought to myself: what has happened to this rugged country?

police speechThis idea, born out of academia, that “micro-aggressions” and “trigger words” can cause lasting damage to the “delicate” human spirit is surely an insult to the memories of the millions of Americans, my grandparents included, who suffered through the Great Depression, fought in the trenches, cities, beachfronts and the forests of the World Wars, and the many millions more who labored through a lifetime of arduous, back-breaking, manual labor without the benefits of advanced safety equipment or robotics.

Does anyone really want to live in a country where the language police stand ready to declare a word as “triggering” at a moment’s notice and to subsequently label and stain the speaker with an unflattering adjective, while having to immediately provide a “safe space” for the delicate flower on the receiving end?

Does anyone really want to live in a country where social and ideological pressure from academic elites and society’s “thought leaders” force people into group identifications and allegiances in order to demonstrate the implicit discrimination acting against us through “micro-aggressions”?

Does anyone really want to live in a country where controversial speech is labeled “provocative” because terrorist savages feel that gunning people down in cold blood is the appropriate remedy for being on the receiving end of words that offend them?

Should these panels of self-ordained “experts” on the use of language, and the psychological and sociological reasons for the use of the language, really be given such power? The power to mark someone with the Scarlet Letter for grievances against society either real, or imagined, is a dangerous one in the wrong hands. More dangerous is the power of savage violence to suppress speech, and to create a climate of fear indicative more of a third-world tyranny than the world’s most prosperous democracy.

The danger of restricting speech, both controversial and ideological, creates an obvious slippery slope with no clear defining limits to the speech dragnet. A growing number of Americans sense the danger of operating on this slope, but some do not. Sadly, many have bought into the false narrative that the enlightened “elites” in academia, the government bureaucracy, the cultural “thought leaders,” and the media should determine which form of speech is acceptable and which form should be restricted.

America is exceptional because anyone is free to openly speak about and celebrate our country and its political leadership. Or you are free to lob endless insults at both (free of threats), without fear of imprisonment or harm. Sadly, this is the historical exception, not the rule. In order to preserve this going forward, I have a suggestion: MAN UP!

Now, I understand that the use of “MAN UP!” rather “man up” can be perceived as potentially “micro-aggressive” because I used capital letters and an exclamation point. I also understand that it can be perceived as “triggering” because I used the word “man” instead of using the words “man and woman,” but I refuse to issue any faux apologies to placate the speech police crowd and their Hester Prynne end-game. I am the son of a resilient single mother, the husband of a first generation immigrant who fought against nearly insurmountable odds to become a successful mother and small business owner, the father to two strong and determined young ladies who never settle for second best, and the partner of a core group of determined and effective female political strategists who run my political organization. I will not now, nor ever, be lectured to by a group of academic elites, who haven’t accomplished an iota of what these powerful women have, about what constitutes both constructive and destructive interpersonal interactions.

We, as a country, need to man up. One could spend an entire lifetime pinpointing real and perceived grievances against America for reasons both legitimate and not, but the real question is – where is this getting us? Race relations, community strife and the balkanization of America into separate groups have all grown worse under this administration despite their rhetoric otherwise, and the constant attention they shower on identity politics. There are both angels and fools among us, the world is a tough place

We should focus more on what we can do to empower our young men and women growing up under tough circumstances and on how to teach them to take a punch and then get back up. A vibrant national school choice initiative, tax rates which give businesses the opportunity to expand into struggling cities, personal control over healthcare and health insurance and, most importantly, a reduced role of government in all of our lives which is stealing away the pride of ownership over our efforts, are but some of the steps we need to ensure that the next generation develops the resolve to fight on in the face of adversity and accept nothing less than the success they deserve.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review.

Egypt: Underage Coptic girl abducted, Muslim neighbor suspected

/in , , , /by

A 17-year old Coptic Christian girl named Tihani al-Nur Hakim was kidnapped in late April in the village of al-Kom al-Qibliyya in Samalout, Upper Egypt.

Her family accuses the next door neighbor, a Muslim man named Ahmed Khalifa.

An eyewitness said he saw the Muslim man seizing the girl.  Although the family planned on organizing a protest, village elders counseled against it, lest it backfire by provoking more of the area’s Muslims to retaliate against the Christian minority of the region, as often happens whenever Copts demand their human rights.

Two days earlier, a young Coptic man named Abu Noub Zarif Yusif also disappeared from the region and then reappeared saying that he had converted to Islam.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Egypt: Gunmen kidnap 8-year-old Copt from mother’s arms

Proposed EU Quota for Distribution of Illegal Migrants Draws Fire

/in , , , /by

The European Commission’s (EC) European Agenda for Migration has floated its proposals for dealing with the massive surge in illegal migrants being smuggled across the Mediterranean by human traffickers. That has created discord among the 28 EU members about the rescue burden placed on so-called front line countries in the Mediterranean like Malta, Italy, Greece and Spain versus the relocation burden on major members like Germany and Sweden. It has also given rise to UN criticism for a controversial plan to destroy the rickety boats of human traffickers in Libya and elsewhere in North Africa, originally proposed by EU Foreign Relations Commissioner, Frederica Mogherini. A side show has been the UN and European Parliament adverse comments of  the ’horrible’ national survey in Hungary opposing EU and UN setting allotments and quotas for distribution of asylees and refugees. Hungary’s PM Orban is a prominent member of the large center right European Parliament EPP coalition. The formal release of the EU Commission’s proposal is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13th.

We wrote in our NER article on this roiling debate in the May edition, “Stemming the Surge of Deadly Illegal Migration Across the Mediterranean”:

The EC proposed a pilot project to re-distribute 5,000 refugees who meet asylum requirements stranded outside the EU, as an attempt to fairly distribute the burden of asylees. That flies in the face of objections by major northern countries to further asylum quotas. In 2014, 626,065 refugees filed asylum claims, a 44% percent increase over 2013. As one example, Germany experienced a sharp rise is asylum requests over the first quarter of 2015 to 85,394, double over the same period in 2014. By contrast the U.S. received 47,500 asylum applications.

The majority of those asylum seekers hail from Kosovo, Syria and Albania. Germany currently has a backlog of over 200,000 applications. This has given rise to complaints by municipalities in Germany about the impact on facilities and community integration. In the most controversial proposal, the EC requested EU Foreign Relations Commissioner Federica Mogherini to develop rules of engagement enabling it to capture and destroy illegal smuggling vessels. Overall EC President Donald Tusk of Poland said the illegal migrant crisis is a” complex issue” that will “take time to tackle.”

The EUObserver reported  the leaked contents of the EC proposals and reactions:

Leaked documents, seen by EUobserver, indicate that both ideas are now back on the table in an effort to help ease pressure on select member states.

“The EU needs a permanent system for sharing the responsibility for large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers among member states,” notes the draft document.

Some 80 percent of all asylum applications are processed in six EU countries, with most refugees from Syria either ending up in Germany or Sweden.

Germany’s Angela Merkel reportedly backs the commission’s proposals but the issue has already generated a backlash elsewhere.

Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban on Friday described the commission plan as “mad and unfair”.

Earlier this month, he proposed setting up new national legislation to keep out immigrants even it runs counter to EU rules.

“If [other EU members] want to receive immigrants, they can do it. But then they should not send them back here, or through us,” said the Hungarian leader.

According to the leaked commission text, the EU executive wants member states to resettle around 20,000 new refugees every year, although the final figure could change.

An initial figure of 5,000 had been floated last month at the EU emergency summit, but was then dropped.

[…]

The number of relocated migrants to be taken in by each state would depend on the member state’s population size, economic strength, unemployment level and number of refugees already there.

“The commission will table legislation by the end of 2015 to provide for a mandatory and automatically-triggered relocation system to distribute those in clear need of international protection within the EU when a mass influx emerges,” notes the commission paper.

The proposed quota system would not be binding on Ireland, the UK and Denmark.

This has brought an immediate reaction from the newly elected Conservative government of UK Prime Minister David Cameron.  The Guardian reported:

“We will oppose any EU commission proposals to introduce a non-voluntary quota,” a spokesperson told the paper.

Britain is instead pushing for an UN-backed resolution to “destroy the business model of the traffickers” by sinking the boats and rubber dinghies used to ferry migrants across the sea.

The UK’s Royal Navy’s flagship HMS Bulwark and its three Merlin helicopters are already at port in Malta.

Debate at the UN Security Council session yesterday in Manhattan revealed criticism of the EU Foreign Commissioner’s proposal to attack the smuggler vessels engaged in trafficking of illegal migrants. The EU Observer reported:

Peter Sutherland, the UN special envoy on migration and a former EU commissioner, issued the warning at a meeting of the UN Security Council (UNSC) warned the EU that “innocent refugees”, including children, will be “in the line of fire” of any operation to sink migrant smugglers’ boats.

He noted that in the first 130 days of this year “at least” 1,800 people drowned in the Mediterranean Sea trying to get to EU shores.

“This total represents a 20-fold increase over the same period last year. At this pace, we are on course to see between 10,000 and 20,000 migrants perish by autumn”.

He said about half the people who make it have a legitimate need for EU protection.

EU Foreign Relations Commissioner Mogherini replied:

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini told the UNSC, also on Monday, that she’s been tasked “to propose actions to disrupt the business model of human trafficking networks across the Mediterranean”.

“We have in these [past] weeks prepared for a possible naval operation in the framework of the European Union Common Security and Defence Policy. The mandate of this operation is currently being elaborated with the EU member states”.

“We want to work with the United Nations, in particular with the UNSC”, she added.

She took pains to say the military plan is part of a wider approach.

She also pledged that “no refugees or migrants intercepted at sea will be sent back against their will”.

[…]

“This is not all about Libya, we know that very well. This can happen in other parts of the world. But we all know also very well that the vast majority of human trafficking and smuggling in these months is happening in Libya, or rather, through Libya”, Mogherini noted.

Given the divisions within the EU, it would appear the roiling political debate over how to handle the deadly illegal migrant surge of illegal migrants across the Mediterranean may be irresolvable. Much of the illegal migrant flight is driven by civil war and jihad conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Al Qaeda-linked terror groups in Africa. This despite the suggestions of  Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders that perhaps the only ways to deal with the surge is to adopt the Australian model of returning the stream of illegal migrants for possible relocation in North Africa and other areas in the Middle East. That is likely to be objected to by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees seeking to depopulate huge refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere across the Muslim Ummah. The Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council would clearly object to such a scheme involving the members of the GCC embroiled in a war against Iran–backed Houthi Rebels in Yemen.

The question is whether that means an increase in refugee resettlement  allotments  courtesy of the UNHCR  might be coming here in the U.S. The arrival of Syrian refugees in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is  already causing a rising debate among localities in the American heartland.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of illegal migrants picked up in the Mediterranean. Source: Migrant Offshore Aid Station

MIT’s Muslim chaplain raised money for al-Qaeda groups

/in , , /by

Everyone at MIT no doubt assumed that Laher was a “moderate.” To question that assumption would have been “Islamophobic.”

“Al Qaeda’s Base at MIT,” by Ilya Feoktistov and Charles Jacobs, Breitbart, May 11, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

At the end of April, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology unveiled a permanent memorial to MIT Police Officer Sean Collier. Officer Collier was gunned down by the Boston Marathon bombers, Chechen refugees Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, three days after they blew up the Marathon.

It is painful to learn that in the late 1990s, there were students at MIT who helped recruit for the Chechen jihad and raised funds for Al Qaeda-affiliated groups operating in the Tsarnaevs’ homeland. It is even more painful that the man who led this fundraising effort was still on MIT’s staff when Officer Collier was gunned down.

Suheil Laher had been MIT’s Muslim chaplain for almost 20 years. Today he continues to preach at the Islamic Society of Boston, the extremist mosque founded by MIT students near campus, where the Tsarnaevs worshipped during their radicalization.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance have just released a mini-documentary, “Al Qaeda’s Base at MIT,” showing how MIT Muslim chaplain Suheil Laher used his leadership of the MIT Muslim Students Association as a vehicle for raising money for Al Qaeda causes around the world. We especially focus on the Al Qaeda affiliate in Chechnya, which Laher and his associates lionized, even as MIT trusted him to be its Muslim students’ spiritual guide.

Suheil Laher came to MIT as a student in 1990 and by 1998, he became the MIT Muslim chaplain. By the year 2000, he also became president of a Muslim charity based in Boston called Care International, which was founded by Osama Bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam and was originally called “Al Kifah Refugee Center.” Care International was, in essence, a fundraising vehicle for mujahideen. After the leader of Al Kifah in Brooklyn, “the Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rehman, was convicted for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, Boston’s Care International took overas Al Qaeda’s main base in the United States. Laher, then, was quite an important figure in Al Qaeda’s leadership here. His perch at MIT meant that he had easy access to the best American Muslim minds – and their world-class technical skills.

As a religious scholar and an engineer, Laher was both the spiritual and technological leader of Care International. He pioneered the Jihadist use of the new Internet medium to fundraise and recruit for Al Qaeda causes online. Laher’s personal website prominently featured Abdullah Azzam’s notorious call to Jihad, a tract called “Join the Caravan:”

Beloved brother! Draw your sword, climb onto the back of your horse, and wipe the blemish off your ummah. If you do not take the responsibility, who then will?

That same Jihadist tract was found on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s computer.

Laher’s website contained a large collection of his writings and of sermons he gave in the Boston area. These sermons are replete with calls for Jihad, such as this passage:

When the Muslim lands are being attacked, and the Muslims are being raped and killed, the only solution prescribed by Allah is jihad. Jihad is for all times. […] Jihad does not stop. Those of us who have not yet managed to go and physically help our brothers and sisters should support […] our mujahidin brethren with prayer, with money, with clothes, by taking care of their families, and at some point in person. Otherwise, we must face the wrath of Allah.

One of the MIT students who answered Laher’s call to join the Jihad in person was a bright young biologist named Aafia Siddiqui. She started out as a passionate and prolific fundraiser for Care International, but by the time she was arrested by the FBI in Afghanistan in 2008, she was known as “Lady Al Qaeda” and had become the most wanted woman in the world. She is now serving an 86-year prison sentence for attempting to kill the FBI agents arresting her. Her belongings upon arrest included two pounds of cyanide and plans for mass casualty attacks on New York using chemical and biological weapons, as well as literature about the Ebola virus.

While Laher’s sermonspreached the general Islamic obligation to do Jihad, Care International’s website along with its newsletter “Al Hussam” (“The Sword”) promoted what Laher and his fellow Care leaders saw as the concrete performance of that responsibility. In the late 1990s, Care International focused its fundraising activity on the Russian breakaway republic of Chechnya. Specifically, Care International backed the Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists under the leadership of Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev.

Basayev can arguably be described as one of the cruelest Islamic terrorists in modern Jihadist history. Our documentary recounts one of his cruelest acts: the Beslan School Massacre. On September 1, 2004, during a ceremony marking the first day of school, Basayev’s men surrounded the school in the town of Beslan in southern Russia and took over 1,100 people hostage, nearly eight hundred of them children. They murdered several people on the spot in front of the children and herded everyone into a sweltering gymnasium, where the hostages were kept without food or water for three days as bombs were hung up from the rafters and basketball hoops above them. On the third day, the terrorists started setting off the bombs and Russian security forces stormed the school as shell-shocked children ran the other way and were shot in the back by the terrorists. Three hundred and eighty five people were murdered, among them one hundred and eighty six children. Subsequently, Shamil Basayev bragged about his “success” at Beslan and the fact that the attack only cost him 8,000 Euros to launch. He was killed by Russian security forces in 2006.

Care International raised huge amounts of money for jihad around Boston, $1.7 million according to Federal authorities. A large portion of this money came through checks that were specifically earmarked for “Chechen Muslim fighters.” Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, Care International hosted dispatches and communiques from Basayev and his forces in the field. A Care International “Al Hussam” newsletter praised a previous Basayev hostage operation against a Russian hospital’s maternity ward:

Minute by minute the whole world watched with agony, as some of the Mujahideen (not exceeding 80), under the leadership of Mujahid Shamil Basyev took 1500 Russians […] We cannot depend on anybody’s help; we have to fight evil with evil. The operation of the Mujahid Shamil Basayev is perfect proof.

How could MIT’s Muslim chaplain have led a group that applauded and funded such a savage?

In 2003, the FBI began investigating Care International for terrorism financing. At the same time, Basayev and his organization were designated as foreign terrorists. The flow of money from Boston to Chechnya stopped. After the Beslan Massacre, Basayev complained that the lack of funding prevented him from seizing more schools in Moscow and Leningrad. Because Basayev was not officially considered a terrorist before 2003, there was little the FBI could do to prosecute Laher and his fellow activists. Three Care leaders, including the group’s treasurer, received minor sentences for tax evasion. After being questioned by the FBI, Laher walked free and continued to influence students at MIT for more than another decade. His successor as MIT’s Muslim Chaplain, Hoda Elsharkawy, is herself closely linked through her husband to Laher and to Islamic extremism in Boston, which will be the focus of our future reporting.

While Laher officially stepped down from his post as MIT chaplain in 2014, he continues to preach at mosques in the Boston area, including the Tsarnaev’s own mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston – giving a sermon there as recently as May 1, 2015….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Haroon Moghul: Geller & Spencer are “the Anwar al-Awlakis of anti-Muslim terrorism”

Virginia Muslima, Islamic State supporter, gets 4 1/2 years prison for lying to FBI

Minnesota: Jihad terror recruit back in custody after violating release conditions

Jihad Watch: The most attacked site on the Internet

Why Are Feds Threatening to Black Out Times Square? by MARC SCRIBNER

/in , , , /by

Colleagues tipped me off to an absurd news story about how the federal government is threatening to punish New York City for its famously gaudy Times Square electronic billboards:

It is known as the “Crossroads of the World,” the “Center of the Universe” and “the Great White Way,” but Times Square could become like the “Black Hole of Calcutta” if the federal government has its way. . .

The feds say many of Times Square’s huge and neon-lit billboards must come down or the city will lose about $90 million in federal highway money.

The edict comes from a 2012 law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system. And that puts it under the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which limits signs to 1,200 square feet. It took the feds until now to realize that Times Square was included. . .

City Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg agrees.

“The signs in Times Square are wonderful. They’re iconic. They’re not only a global tourist attraction, they’re important to the economy,” Trottenberg said.

She said she’s not going to let it happen.

“We’re not going to be taking down the billboards in Times Square. We’re going to work with the federal government and the state and find a solution,” Trottenberg said.

Some have suggested that this is an example of regulators run amok. It isn’t. This is a classic example of Congress passing stupid laws, ordering regulators to implement them stupidly, and then forgetting about them until unintended consequences spring up down the line.

Allow me to explain what’s going on here, as virtually all the news articles and commentary out there provide next to zero context.

As the article noted, in the last surface transportation bill (the MAP-21 Act), Section 1104 created what is now known as the “enhanced National Highway System.” The enhanced National Highway System refers to MAP-21’s amendment to include, “Other urban and rural principal arterial routes … that were not included on the National Highway System before the date of enactment of the MAP-21.”

In a nutshell, this provision added roads that meet the definition of “principal arterial” to the National Highway System that were not previously designated as components of the National Highway System.

Why might someone want to do this? Because arterials that aren’t designated as part of the National Highway System are not eligible for federal Highway Program funding. Based on the current statutes and regulations governing National Highway System designations, roads evaluated to be principal arterials by the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Performance Monitoring System were automatically added to the National Highway System under Congress’s 2012 law.

This included some roadways in New York City.

Enter the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, the brainchild of President Lyndon Johnson’s wife Lady Bird. The law that unnecessarily imposes federal restrictions on outdoor advertisements within 660 feet of the National Highway System.

(As a curious aside, Republicans were so incensed by the Johnson administration’s statist foray into a trivial aesthetic issue that should have been left to the states and private citizens that then-Congressman Bob Dole introduced an amendment that would have replaced every instance of “Secretary of Commerce” in the bill with “Lady Bird.”)

The law prohibits “jumbo” billboards over 1,200 square feet within 660 feet of a National Highway System right-of-way, which now includes none other than Time’s Square. Obviously, this does not sit well with many New Yorkers, who are now facing the prospect of losing 10 percent of their federal highway funding thanks to two dumb pieces of legislation enacted almost 50 years apart.

But the most recent change occurred under the watch of one Polly Trottenberg. Trottenberg, now New York City’s transportation commissioner, was the Under Secretary for Policy at the US Department of Transportation when Congress passed and President Obama signed MAP-21 into law in 2012.

It was her job to understand the legislation and serve as chief advisor to the Secretary of Transportation on implementation. Apparently she missed a section and is now forced to reconcile her current outrage as a local official with her past incompetence as a federal official.

Federal regulators are not “abusing” their authority by attempting to de-glitz Times Square. The problem is an unintended statutory conflict, and it rests at the feet of Congress. As Jake Flanagan notes, the Federal Highway Administration has bent over backwards not to turn off the lights or impose the Highway Beautification Act’s 10% highway funding penalty.

That said, there are basically three options for New York and the feds going forward:

  1. Revert the impacted principal arterial National Highway System designations, although removing these roadways from the National Highway System would cost those corridors federal-aid highway funding;
  2. Attempt to carve out a regulatory exemption for the impacted roadways, although an expansive exemption would likely earn the ire of the scenic highway lobby (yes, they exist) and is likely an unlawful expansion of regulatory power; or
  3. Convince Congress to create a statutory exemption for these types of gaudy but culturally significant mega-advertisements in the next surface transportation reauthorization or MAP-21 extension.

Personally, short of repealing the Highway Beautification Act, I find the third option to be the most appealing. Congress should accept responsibility for this legislative absurdity and fix it.

Marc Scribner

Marc Scribner is a Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where a version of this post first appeared.

Pamela Geller’s critics are proving her point

/in , , , /by

“The fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice.” The proper response to them is not surrender and submission.

“Pamela Geller’s Critics Are Proving Her Point,” by David French, National Review, May 7, 2015:

Let’s be clear: The great freak-out over Pamela Geller’s “draw Muhammad” contest isn’t about love for Islam or for robust and respectful religious pluralism. Indeed, many of those expressing anguish over blasphemy against Islam show no such concern over even the most vile attacks on the Christian faith. Beyond that, they’re among the leaders in movements designed to banish religious liberty — including Muslim religious liberty — to the margins of American life.

Instead, the fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS.

That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladlyburn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy.

Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations.

The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture:

That’s a staggering level of support for a man who not only targeted innocent men, women, and children in the West, but who allied himself with the most medieval Muslim regime in the world: the Taliban. And, ominously, his support waned only as his power waned.Islamists have a new jihadist idol — ISIS.

Further, our elites also know that while ISIS’s brutality certainly repels many Muslims, it attracts many others — that there are Muslim young people who are so captivated by images of beheadings and burnings that they’ll defy the law and their own nations to make their way to the jihadist battlefronts of Iraq and Syria.

Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

In a sane world, our national elites would not only rally unequivocally around free speech, they would point to the events of Garland, Texas, as perfectly symbolic of the way we handle threats against our Constitution and our culture — by defeating our enemies and defending our liberty. Instead, they express fears that provocative speech not only threatens our troops abroad but our cities here at home.…

Islam has a serious problem. Silencing Pamela Geller isn’t the solution.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media shares same goal as jihadis: they want to silence Pamela Geller

“Victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ aggression”

Watch Video: Pamela Geller Spars with Judge Jeanine Pirro Over Free Speech

Saturday Night Cinema: Out of the Past

The Real Hero of Garland

“Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong”

Florida event featuring Geert Wilders canceled for fear of Islamic jihadists

Transforming Education Beyond Common Core: Arne Duncan’s “Classroom of the Future”

/in , , , , , /by

Last month, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan described his “vision for the classroom of the future” in what he hoped would be the first of many posts on the site called Bright (at medium.com), which is funded by the New Venture Fund, a non-profit that supports public interest projects in education, global issues, public health, and other issues.

The classroom of the future, wrote Duncan, would involve the “digital revolution,” as he presented reasons quasi-syllogistically: “In the United States, education is meant to be the great equalizer.  Technology has the potential to bridge gaps for those who have the least.  Simply put, technology can be a powerful tool for equality as well.”

Of course, many would differ with him about the major premise: that education is meant to be the great equalizer, at least in the way that Duncan and this administration think of it – as ending the achievement gap, with that duty falling to the federal government.  Other departmental missives have promoted the same goals.  Duncan has put pressure on states for “equitable funding” of school districts to overcome racial disparities, and has called for increased federal funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to overcome disparities of the “tax base” in communities.

Similarly, the Department recently cast the opting-out of Common Core tests as a lack of concern about “underserved populations,” recalling the comment made by Duncan in 2013 about Common Core opponents being “white suburban moms.”

The Department has been redefining education, emphasizing behavior and attitudes over academics, and even casting awareness about racial and ethnic identity as overlooked evidence of intelligence.  Education is no longer about teachers imparting knowledge to their students.  Linda Darling-Hammond, leader of Obama’s education transition team and developer of one of the two Common Core national assessments, has repeatedly disparaged traditional assessments that objectively test students’ knowledge as skill and drill.  In this she follows progressive and radical educators who see their roles as developing agents of social change, agents who do not learn in the traditional Eurocentric linear and logical way, but emotively and tactilely.

Replacing our traditional ways of learning, through reading, writing, and study—contemplative and solitary activities—are the communal and hands-on activities promoted in Common Core and now digital learning.  Both Common Core and digital learning serve to obscure a large part of the reason for the achievement gap: reading ability.  Students who are poor readers lag in other subjects.  To cover up this inability, Common Core emphasizes “speaking and listening skills,” (with points given for behavior and attitudes, such as the ability to work with “diverse” groups) and group work, where lagging students are coached along by others as they do “close readings” of short passages.  This ensures that all students have mastered the same (minimal) level of knowledge. Similarly, games offer an opportunity to hide differences in ability.  Information is delivered through images and sound, not words on a page, and at a pace that the student directs.  Duncan writes that technology is “helping teachers to use their time and talents more effectively to personalize learning for students — tailoring the pace, approach, and context of the learning experience to students’ individual needs and interests.”

Additionally, technology alters the relationship between teachers and students, leveling the relationship even further than the currently fashionable one of teacher as “facilitator.”  The student presumably gains the information on his own and applies that knowledge to “real-world” problems.  Duncan writes:

Until recently, the main function of public education has been to convey knowledge in one direction, from teachers to students. But with the growth of the Internet and mobile technology, our relationship to knowledge has fundamentally changed. To succeed in today’s world, our students need to be adept at not only recalling information, but using their knowledge to conceive, create, and employ solutions to real-world problems.

Duncan then employs the much-used strategy of reductively stereotyping traditional education, as he writes, “Students aren’t vessels to be filled with facts. And educators aren’t simply transmitters of information.”

In this schema, little attention is paid to “recalling information”—or the acquirement of knowledge. Emphasis is placed on the ability to – through the wonders of technology – find information.  (Of course with little concern about the ability to discern among the sources of information.)

In Duncan’s estimation, technology is the great liberator, unleashing children’s creativity and natural ability to solve problems.  It’s the ultimate instantiation of the progressive idea that students simply “discover” knowledge through their own creativity and curiosity – a theory which has time and again been disproven by the data, as Jeanne Chall and her student Sandra Stotsky have shown.

Aside from the logical impossibility of doing “real-world” problem-solving outside the real world, i.e., in a classroom and with children, such a focus away from objective measurements to hypothetical problems and solutions is another way to ensure equality of outcomes.

For those teachers who agree to promote such pedagogies, the Department of Education has many awards and ambassadorships to bestow.

EDITORS NOTE: The next installment will discuss the latest effort by the Department to promote digital learning, as described enthusiastically by a teacher and a U.S. Department of Education “Teaching Ambassador Fellow.”

Was the 98 to 1 U.S. Senate vote on the Iran Deal a “rebuke” of President Obama?

/in , , /by

At a conclusion of an Iconoclast post on the Twitter battle between Iranian Foreign Minister and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), set against the backdrop of yesterday’s virtually unanimous vote for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA), we wrote:

While [Senator] Cotton’s proposed amendment might void the Israel amendment of Rubio, it will make more complicated Majority Leader senator Mitch McConnell’s management of the INARA legislation as he seeks to assure passage early in the week of May 4th.  Stay tuned for developments.

The Hill, while trumpeting Thursday’s  Senate vote of 98 to 1, noted  what Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was forced to do to assure passage of the compromised version brokered by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ranking Member Ben Cardin (D-MD):

Republicans also expressed frustrations that they could not offer more amendments to the bill.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed a motion to end debate after Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Cotton tried to force a vote on an amendment requiring Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of a final deal.

The move was a reversal of the open amendment process Republican leadership pledged to bring to the Senate.

McConnell said Thursday that he would have preferred that amendments be added to the bill, but that it might have invited a presidential veto.

“If we didn’t face the threats of filibusters, or the blocking of amendments, or the specter of presidential vetoes, this bill would be a heck of a lot stronger. I assure you,: he said. “But the truth is, we do. That’s the frustrating reality.”

But note the actions of GOP 2016 Presidential Contenders, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Rubio slammed the decision not to allow his amendment requiring Iran to support Israel as part of a deal to come up for a vote, saying that some senators are “terrified” of voting against it.

“Apparently there are senators terrified of voting against that amendment, so they’d rather not have a vote at all. So I am deeply disappointed by the direction this has taken,” he said.

But, he added that he would support the final bill, suggesting that it was better than nothing.

“At a minimum at least it creates a process whereby the American people through their representatives can debate an issue of extraordinary importance,” he said. “So I hope this bill passes here today so at least we’ll have a chance to weigh in.”

Rubio’s remarks separate him from his presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who said on Wednesday that the legislation is a “bad bill.”

But Cruz voted in favor of the bill after voting against ending debate on it.

“I voted no on cloture because we should have insisted on amendments to put real teeth in this bill,” the Texas Republican said. “Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.”

Cruz was joined in voting against ending debate by fellow GOP Sens. Charles Grassley (Iowa), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Mike Lee (Utah) and Dan Sullivan (Alaska).

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was absent for the vote.

In the end, Rubio and Cruz voted for the Corker-Cardin compromise. Given comments by House Speaker Boehner  the measure will easily secure House approval enabling INARA to go to President for his signature.  The measure will give the Senate a 30 day window for review of any agreement that surfaces from the current P5+1 negotiations  and  may require periodic review of Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and ICBM development. At best  INARA  will put a temporary hold on the President lifting sanctions including suggestions giving Iran  ‘signing bonuses” estimated at $30 to 50 Billion. Release of these impounded funds might enable Iran to achieve nuclear threshold status and develop both a nuclear warhead and an ICBM to deliver it for hegemonic purposes. However, should the Senate disapprove the measure on less than an unanimous level, the President can veto it and proceed with his plan to have it ratified by a UN Security Council Resolution.  This would achieve his questionable legacy of allegedly turning Iran from a rogue terror supporting global state terrorism  to a ‘respected member of the world community’. As the hoary English proverb  says: “ if wishes were horses beggars would ride”.

Would this near unanimous Senate vote have been rendered without Israeli PM Minister Netanyahu addressing a joint meeting of Congress  about a “very bad deal” over the objections of President Obama and Democratic Senators? The lone exception to the chorus of Democratic nay-sayers was the original co-sponsor of a tougher version of INARA, New Jersey  Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who was forced to step down as Ranking Member of Senate Foreign Relations because of a Department of Justice indictment for alleged corruption charges.  Or was action on INARA perhaps prompted by the outrage over Senator Cotton’s much maligned letter signed by 46 Republican colleagues  tweeted to Iran’s Islamic Republic leaders about Senate Constitutional prerogatives on approval of treaties and major international agreements?  His twitter war with Foreign Minister Zarif may have been a side show, but the message was clear about the lack of trust in any deal with Iran that isn’t verifiable and transparent.  Senator Cotton’s procedural amendments did precipitate the call for cloture on floor amendments by Majority Leader McConnell.  Cotton’s lone vote against the compromise version of INARA on his valued stand, that any P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran should be in the category of  a treaty requiring a two thirds vote by the senior chamber of Congress may also sent an important message.

Could his protest vote been a prescient warning to his Senate colleagues about the dangers inherent in any P5+1 deal to America and Israel that emerges for review after June 30th?  Again, stay tuned for developments.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Corker Bill, as passed, is worse than useless

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) after the near unanimous vote on Iran Nuclear Review Act (INARA), May 7, 2015.

Feds overlooked Texas jihadi because “there are so many like him”

/in , , /by

“There are so many like him that you have to prioritize your investigations.” But…but…it’s a tiny minority of extremists!

“Texas Attacker Left Trail of Extremist Ideas on Twitter,” by Scott Shane, New York Times, May 5, 2015:

WASHINGTON — Counterterrorism officials on Tuesday were studying the electronic trails left by two men killed by a police officer as they shot at a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas, looking for any direct ties to the Islamic State extremist group in Syria. The group praised the gunmen in a statement as “soldiers of the caliphate,” the unified Muslim land that it purports to be building.

But any secret ties that officials might find may be less important than the public exchanges of messages on Twitter by one of the gunmen, Elton Simpson, in the weeks before the attack. Mr. Simpson, a convert to Islam with a long history of extremism, regularly traded calls for violence on Twitter with Islamic State fighters and supporters, as well as avowed enemies of Pamela Geller, the organizer of the cartoon contest.

His Twitter contacts included Junaid Hussain, a British fighter with the Islamic State in Syria known as Abu Hussain al-Britani, and Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, a Somali-American now in Somalia who uses the name Mujahid Miski and frequently promotes the Islamic State. Both men called for violence, and Mr. Hassan had suggested the Texas event as a possible target.

On April 23, 10 days before the Texas attack, Mr. Hassan linked to the planned cartoon event in Texas, praised the January shootings at a satirical newspaper in Paris and called on jihadists in the United States to follow that example.

“The brothers from the Charlie Hebdo attack did their part,” Mr. Hassan wrote in the post. “It’s time for brothers in the #US to do their part.”

Later the same day, Mr. Simpson posted about the cartoon contest, using the handle Shariah is Light: “When will they ever learn. They are planning on selecting the best picture drawn of Rasulullah (saws) in Texas.” Rasulullah (saws) is a respectful phrase for the prophet.

The onslaught of recruitment propaganda has multiplied the number of online enthusiasts for the Islamic State in the United States, giving counterterrorism investigators the difficult task of deciding which are simply fantasizing in public and which might be planning violence.

“The ISIS guys are talking to these wannabes on Twitter all day long,” a senior law enforcement official said. “It’s like the devil is sitting on their shoulder saying, ‘Come on, they’re insulting the prophet, what are you going to do about it?’ ”

The official, who would speak about the continuing investigation only on condition of anonymity, said that although Mr. Simpson had long been under F.B.I. scrutiny, he had not appeared to be preparing for violence. “There are so many like him that you have to prioritize your investigations,” the official said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on Newsmax TV on the Texas jihad attack

Pamela Geller in Time Magazine: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War

Dutch MP Geert Wilders Plans Mohammed Art Expo following Failed Texas Jihad assault

/in , , /by

Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) who spoke at the Garland Texas Muhammad Art Contest on May 3, 2015 is planning an exposition of the artwork at the Hague Parliament in Holland. Two Phoenix Arizona Muslim assailants, Elton Simpson, 30, and Hamid Nadir Soofi, 34, attacked the Curtis Cullen Education Center in Garland, Texas, equipped with body armor and  firing assault weapons.  They slighty injured a security guard and were taken down by a Garland police officer preventing a intended mass shooting just as the program sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) was ending.  More than 200 members of the audience, Wilders, sponsor Pam Geller and speaker Robert Spenser were locked inside for their safety.  Wilders and the speakers and organizers praised the quick action of security personnel at the AFDI Muhammad Art exposition.

AFP reported Wilders saying:

I am going to request Parliament to exhibit the same cartoons as those that were displayed in Garland,” Wilders told AFP on Wednesday. I want to send a message that if you use violence to suppress free speech the only effect is that we’ll do it even more, We must show we’ll not be intimidated. don’t want to provoke, but at the same time we must show that we’re standing for freedom of speech.

ISIS is claiming reponsibility for the attack by the two assailants.  Rita Katz of the Site Website in an article noted the exchange of tweets between Simpson  and  Somali American emigre  from Minnesota “Majihid Miski”, an alleged Islamic State recruiter:

Among those that Simpson kept closest contact with on Twitter was “Mujahid Miski,” believed to be Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, a jihadist and IS-supporter from Minnesota believed to be fighting in Somalia. It is not clear if the two had known each other outside of the internet, but they shared regular conversations and appeared to have also spoken in secret discussions.

For instance, as Miski’s accounts would regularly be suspended due to constant incitements for attacks against the West, Simpson would promote his friend’s new accounts upon their creation. With one of his accounts, under the name “I’m your bro fillah,” Simpson promoted Miski’s 31st account:

miski4.jpg

Furthermore, upon Miski’s establishment of this new account, Simpson was among the first that the former Minnesota man followed.

On April 23, 2015, Miski posted a link to an article on the upcoming cartoon contest by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and urged for a lone wolf attack by “Brothers in the US” to the style of Charlie Hebdo:

miski5.jpg
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Michael Moore and the 2nd Amendment by B.K. MARCUS

/in , , , , /by

Would the left support gun rights over police monopolies? 

In the wake of the Baltimore riots and the latest charges of police violence against unarmed suspects, Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore has called for disarming American cops, saying in his Twitter feed, “We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We’ll survive til the right cops r hired.”

Is that an implicit endorsement of private individuals’ right to armed self-defense?

Probably not.

Moore, who became the darling of the gun-control movement in 2002 for the movie Bowling for Columbine, is an outspoken critic of the 2nd Amendment, saying that the Founders themselves would have excluded gun rights from the Constitution if they had known what firearms would become over the next two centuries:

If the Founding Fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen AK-47s and Glock semiautomatic pistols … I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we mean when we say “bear arms.”

It’s tempting, therefore, to dismiss Moore’s April 30th tweets as conscious hyperbole — perhaps confronting law-and-order types with the logic of their own support for gun ownership.

But if you look at the full set of Moore’s tweets on the subject, a consistent libertarian logic is evident:

  1. Government agents currently do more to endanger private citizens than they do to protect us.

  2. That oppression can only continue while the government holds a monopoly on armed violence.

  3. We need to shift the balance of power away from the state and back to the people.

Is that too much to read into one angry Twitter rant?

If Moore’s goal was to outrage the American public, he has certainly succeeded. Pro-police conservatives are jerking their knees at the far-left filmmaker’s provocations. But advocates of liberty can find at least a sliver of common cause with those who see the visible fist of government power in Baltimore and too many other American cities in recent months.

Many libertarians consider the police to be among the few legitimate roles for a night-watchman government; defense and security are necessary to protect the rights of individuals. But there is no question that the government’s most heavily armed agencies have grown well beyond the role of night watchmen, if that was ever really their function. And then there is the proliferation of armed agents to organizations like the Fisheries Office, NASA, the EPA, and the Department of Education.

As the sharing economy chips away at other cartels in our over-regulated economy, we need to accept that the police, too, need competition — and we have the opportunity right now to ally with many on the American left who are beginning to suspect the same thing.

When government agents hold a monopoly on the tools of violence, is it any wonder when they behave like a cartel? Privately owned firearms are part of the decentralized solution to both looting and the police violence that triggers the protests.

By allowing individuals to defend themselves, their homes, their businesses, and their communities from crime and rioting, they need not rely exclusively on police forces that may be ineffective or corrupt. (The famous defense of Koreatown by armed shop owners during the LA riots shows this principle at work.)

If you don’t recognize the right to armed self-defense in principle, you are either dogmatically opposed to private guns, or you think the question is pragmatic and that there is a calculus of trade-offs: which is more dangerous at the moment, armed citizens or a police monopoly?

There isn’t much say to dogmatists on the matter. But the question of practical trade-offs may resonate with those on the left who currently see the police less as protectors and more as a danger.

Would such an alliance evaporate as soon as our allies perceive themselves to be in power again? Probably. Moore doesn’t see the problem as permanent: “We’ll survive til the right cops r hired.”

But we have the opportunity right now to drive home the point that the government needs more than checks and balances within itself. The people must have the ability to defend themselves independently of the state, and that’s harder to do when the government has all the guns.

B.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is managing editor of the Freeman.

ISIS Posts Warning: Names 5 Target States!

/in , , /by

ISIS released a new online threat today on JustPasteIt.

The terrorist group says they will murder Pamela Geller and kill anyone who shields her.

The terrorists also say they have 71 fighters in 15 different states and they 23 have signed up already for missions like the failed Sunday attack in Garland, Texas.

Via Sooper Mexican:

Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Raheem

“The New Era”

To our brothers and sisters fighting for the Sake of Allah, we make dua for you and ask Allah to guide your bullets, terrify your enemies, and establish you in the Land. As our noble brother in the Phillipines said in his bayah, “This is the Golden Era, everyone who believes… is running for Shaheed”.

The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.

We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.

The next six months will be interesting, To our Amir Al Mu’mineen make dua for us and continue your reign, May Allah enoble your face.

May Allah send His peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhummad and all those who follow until the last Day.
–
Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki

The threat was posted by Abu Al Ameriki.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What to Make of ISIS Claim of Responsibility for Texas Shootings

Egypt: Five Christian children held for blasphemy – for insulting the Islamic State

What Constitutes an ‘Insult’ to Mohammed

EDITORS NOTE: This column was originally posted on Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft.