All House Republicans are Blocking Impeachment

/in , , , /by

Millions of Americans, most of the free world and even a majority in congress agree that Barack Hussein Obama and his cabal of international anti-American misfits make up the most impeachable administration in U.S. history and that Obama can and should be impeached…

And according to many House Republicans, it is “the people’s fault” that Obama has not been impeached to date, due to the lack of public demand for impeachment…

All the way back in July, Tea Party star Louie Gohmert of Texas said “I’ve been astounded that more of the country has not been demanding impeachment already…” and he added that “if Obama does this Iran deal, that will be the ignition switch for impeachment to begin in the House.” – In so many words, Gohmert is blaming the lack of action on his part, upon “the people” who have not yet demanded he do his job and keep his oath…

But like a million other impeachable Obama offenses, the illegal Iran deal ignited nothing in the House.

House Republicans have stated that it is Senate Democrats who are blocking impeachment, even though there is no way for the US Senate to do anything on impeachment until after House Republicans keep their oath first…. By bringing and passing impeachment articles in the House.

In August of 2014, When Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) said “the only person responsible for a potential impeachment of President Barack Obama would be the president himself,” he lumped himself in with a group House Republicans that have all suggested support for Obama’s impeachment.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) are just a few of the House Republicans who have openly called for Impeachment, but none of them who could initiate impeachment have taken the necessary action to do so… While they are clearly aware of impeachable offenses, they still lack the courage to act on the conviction of their statements and oath of office.

Other House Republicans like Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) have acted to block any House effort to impeach, despite also admitting that we have the most treasonous impeachable administration in U.S. history.

In July 2014, The North American Law Center (TNALC.org) issued a public call for impeachment, going so far as to investigate and vet impeachable offenses and even draft model Articles of Impeachment. TNALC Lead Counsel and Constitutional Attorney Stephen Pidgeon even read the Articles for those too lazy to read them.

Since then, over 6 million Americans have signed petitions calling for impeachment and numerous public figures like Sarah Palin, Allen West, Admiral Lions and Gen. Jerry Boykin have all called for impeachment….

The US Constitution does not say “we might impeach” or “we can if we feel like it” – It says “we shall impeach” when we find ourselves living under the Executive command of an illegal and unconstitutional regime guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

It takes only ONE House Republican to initiate Impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee… but as of this report, not ONE House Republican has done so….

It takes only 20 of 23 House Judiciary Republicans to pass Article of Impeachment to the full House and only 218 of 247 House Republicans to Impeach Barack Hussein Obama without a single Democrat in the House.

So, it is not House Democrats who are blocking any efforts to hold Obama accountable for his many crimes in the people’s White House…. It is House Republicans who are blocking all such efforts being demanded by the American people…

Until recently, “the people” thought it was Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell who were blocking impeachment, or that House Republicans couldn’t impeach Obama until they had a Republican majority in the Senate. WRONG!

Now it is clear that it is House (and Senate) Republicans who lack the courage and decency to do the constitutional thing to save the USA from certain ruin under Obama’s unconstitutional tyranny and treason. House Republicans would love for all blind Republican loyalists to continue supporting Republicans in the 2016 election, but they are giving all Republican voters every reason in the world to withdrawal all support from every Republican politician in the USA today.

Every day, your inbox is full of fund-raising mail from the NRCC and corrupt Republican candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio…. But nowhere is there any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that congressional Republicans are any better or any different from congressional Democrats.

As a lifelong Republican, I am qualified to state that if Republicans continue to refuse to act on behalf of “the people” in defense of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Rule of Law, there is no reason at all for anyone in the USA to support any Republican politician today…. No reason at all!

When even the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice Chair states on open air that Obama is guilty of treason for aiding and abetting ISIS and other terrorists groups, and Republicans still refuse to act, this tells us more about Republicans than most Republican voters ever wanted to know.

Before the people throw any more blind partisan loyalty behind any Republican politician, they need to contact their Reps in both chambers and use impeachment as a litmus test for any future support. Without impeachment, the Constitutional Republic is dead and so is the USA. So, any congressional Republican not willing to impeach, is not worthy of our support!

Every Republican who has admitted knowledge of impeachable offenses, but refuses to impeach is every bit as much a criminal and traitor as Obama himself. The people can no longer afford to ignore reality. The people must force their elected officials to take immediate action or concede the loss of their nation.

The Constitutional Accountability Coalition and North American Law Center will not take no for an answer. Will you?

The USA is now in the position of impeach or surrender!  CONTACT YOUR REPS TODAY!

To use Schlonged or not to use Schlonged, that is not the question!

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump stated after the December 21st CNN Democratic debate, “Even a race to Obama, she was gonna beat Obama. I don’t know who would be worse, I don’t know, how could it be worse? But she was going to beat — she was favored to win — and she got schlonged, she lost, I mean she lost.”

The media went ballistic over Trump’s use of the word schlonged. 

Jeremy Diamond, from CNN wrote:

Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton in vulgar terms Monday night, saying that her bathroom break during the last Democratic debate was just too “disgusting” to talk about and then stating she “got schlonged” by Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

It appears that Trump was referring to the 2008 Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida, where Hillary was denied delegate votes. The 2008 Democratic presidential primary turned from a quest for the popular vote, which Clinton claimed she won, to a race for delegate and super delegate votes, which Obama won.

Lee S. Gliddon, Jr. in an email points out the definition of the verb “shalong” in the Unencyclopedia as:

Schlong (sve), to, verb, derived from the Swedish “Slöngga” (to mow one´s lawn at great pace with extreme tenacity in a Stockholm-style pattern). First used by Leslie A. McGaffiter in the (June 5th) 1816 congregation of the Scottish National Parliament: “[…]now let´s all schlong together!”.

So who is mowing Hillary’s lawn now?

Bill Curry in his October 2013 SALON article titled, “The DNC screwed Hillary — now get ready for a Bernie Sanders earthquake” believes that the same thing is happening in the 2016 Democratic primary. Curry notes:

The Democratic National Committee delayed the debates as long as it could and limited their total number to six. By way of comparison, there were 26 debates in 2008. The first was held in April 2007; by this point in the cycle there had already been 13. To enforce its new limit the party threatens a drastic sanction: anyone caught participating in a rogue debate will be locked out of all party debates.

The phrase ‘Democratic National Committee’ is imprecise. When DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced the schedule last August she didn’t say who made the decision or how. Nor did anyone ask. It seems like an awfully closed system for an outfit with the word ‘democratic’ right there in its name. I wondered how the party picked it. Did its national committee hold a meeting? If so, was it public? Was there a notice, agenda, or minutes? Was there even a vote?

It is interesting that the media seems to have forgotten what Hillary Clinton said about Southern working class whites In 1995 – “Screw ‘Em!” Sam Stein from the Huffington Post reported:

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

“Screw ’em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

So much for white working class voters across America.

Remember that it was Hillary, who in 2014, said that President Obama has “No hand on the f***ing tiller.” Francesca Chambers writer for the DailyMail.com wrote:

Hillary Clinton berated President Barack Obama as ‘incompetent and feckless’ and said he had become ‘a joke’ after having one too many glasses of wine at a reunion dinner last year with friends from college, a new tell-all book reveals.

‘When her friends asked Hillary to tell them what she thought — really thought — about the president she had served for four draining years, she lit into Obama with a passion that surprised them all,’ former Newsweek editor Edward Klein writes in his book Blood Feud.

‘”The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time,”‘ Clinton is said to have barked in her boozy rant. ‘That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f***ing tiller.’

Read more.

The issue is not to use the word schlonged or not. The issue is are the Democratic Party primaries fair or not. That is the real question! Will Hillary pay the price of calling the President incompetent? Who is the schlonger and who will be the schlongee?

Will Hillary get schlonged by the DNC in 2016? Only time and the Democratic primaries will tell.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Schools Rivals on ‘The Art of the Schlong’

Donald Trump says Clinton’s bathroom break during the debate is ‘too disgusting’ to talk about – Washington Post

Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean: Screw you. – The Daily Kos

Hillary Clinton Vows to Close Schools Not “Above Average”

/in , , , /by

A numeric average is a relative statistic. If I have a set of numeric values and I calculate an average using the set, by definition, some individual values will fall below average, and likely, some will be right on the average. If I remove these below-average and average values, the original average does not remain fixed– and if I average the remaining originally-above-average values, some will newly be below average, and likely, some exactly average.

The truth about the relative nature of averages is apparently lost on Democratic presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. On December 22, 2015, Clinton spoke at a high school in Keota, Iowa, where she said, “I wouldn’t keep any school open that wasn’t doing a better-than-average job.” She later equated “better-than-average” with “good.”

Listen to her words in this 25-second video clip:

Of course, closing “below average” and “average” schools only leads to a recalculated average among remaining schools– some of which would be “below average” upon recalculation– and some of which would likely be exactly average.

In fact, the only way to guarantee that no school could possibly be below average is to only have a single school. Still, based on Clinton’s “above average” criteria, that one would have to go, as well. It wouldn’t be below average, but it wouldn’t be above average, either. Being the only one, it would be, well, average.

Not good enough.

Let’s just shut every school.

Problem solved, Hils.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hillary Clinton Promises to Close All Public Schools

EDITORS NOTE: The author of the ed reform whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who In the Implosion of American Public Education. She also has a second book, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?, published in June 2015. both books

Don’t care to buy from Amazon? Purchase my books from Powell’s City of Books instead.

U.S. State Department Lets in Four Times as many Muslim Terrorists as it Keeps Out

/in , , , , /by

The solution: bring in more Syrian refugees. There will be jihadists among them, sure, but only greasy Islamophobes care about that.

malik_farook_airport

“U.S. lets in four times as many suspected terrorists as it keeps out,” by Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post, December 21, 2015:

The Obama administration insists that it is safe to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees because we have “very extensive screening procedures” in place. “It involves our intelligence community, our national counterterrorism center, extensive interviews, vetting them against all the available information,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes recently declared.

He left out one fact: Those screening procedures are so broken that, State Department records show, they let in more than four times as many suspected terrorists as they keep out.

The State Department admitted to Congress last week that it had revoked the visas of 9,500 individuals since 2001 who were believed to have either engaged in terrorist activities or were associated with a terrorist organization. Think about what that means: Nearly 10,000 people considered too dangerous to enter the United States because of suspected terrorist activity or association were mistakenly granted visas to lawfully enter the country. They successfully penetrated our defenses, beat our screening system and got their hands on U.S. visas.

Worse still, after officials caught their mistake and revoked the visas after the fact, they lost track of the visa holders. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, pressed Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, to explain what had happened to the 9,500. She replied: “I don’t know.”

We don’t know where these 9,500 individuals are, or how many of them — if any — are in the United States today.

That’s bad enough. But the story gets worse.

An examination of State Department records by American Enterprise Institute researcher Justin Lang found that since 2001, the State Department had denied visas to just 2,231 individuals because the applicant was suspected of terrorist ties or activity. Yet during that same period, the State Department granted U.S. visas to 9,500 people who it later figured out posed a terrorist threat — and had to go back and retroactively revoke those individuals’ visas.

The means our screening system is so bad, it let through more than four times as many suspected terrorists as it stopped. If a National Hockey League goalie let in more than four times as many goals as he blocked, he would be fired.

And let’s be clear: Those 9,500 visa revocations are just the suspected terrorists we know about. How many more terrorists are out there who also beat our screening system but officials did not figure out their mistake and revoke the visas?

I can name at least one: Tashfeen Malik. She never had her visa revoked. We learned she was a terrorist only after she and her husband massacred 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. She beat our screening system, got into our country and carried out a terrorist attack.

So did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 2009 so-called underwear bomber who nearly blew up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. His father walked into a U.S. embassy and reported that his son was involved with terrorists. Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that the State Department “didn’t revoke his visa after Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father alerted U.S. officials to his son’s potential radicalization.” How many more terrorist visa holders like Tashfeen Malik and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are out there today?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama will veto counter-terror measures to save the Iran nuke deal

Extradited Chinese national guilty of supplying Iran with goods used to make nuclear weapons-grade uranium

Obama to Veto new Congressional Counter-terror Measures to protect Iran

/in , , /by

“If the Americans pursue the plan, they will destroy an achievement with their own hands since it is against the [nuclear deal], and it will trouble them.” The nuclear deal is going to trouble us in any case.

“Obama Admin Will Veto Counter-Terror Measures to Save Nuke Deal,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 21, 2015:

Secretary of State John Kerry is working to reassure Iranian leaders that recent congressional efforts to tighten counter-terrorism measures will not harm Iranian interests, according to a letter sent by Kerry to Iran’s foreign minister.

The assurances come following efforts by Congress to tighten restrictions in the visa waiver program, which they claim has gaping loopholes that may enable suspected terrorists to legally enter the United States with few background checks.

Iranian leaders expressed anger over the move in recent days, prompting senior Obama administration officials to convey their own concerns to lawmakers.

Kerry wrote to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif late last week, promising that the Obama administration could veto these new counter-terrorism laws in order ensure Iran is not negatively impacted.

“I want to confirm to you that we remain fully committed to the sanctions lifting provided for under the [nuclear deal],” Kerry wrote Zarif in a Dec. 19 letter that came a day after the two met in person. “We will adhere to the full measure of our commitments, per the agreement. Our team is working hard to be prepared and as soon as we reach implementation day we will lift appropriate sanctions.

A copy of the letter was obtained and published by the National Iranian American Council, a pro-Iran advocacy group long suspected by critics of working on behalf of the Iranian regime.

Kerry vows to ignore new counter-terrorism measures if they impact the administration’s ability to uphold the deal. Iran in recent months has already been accused in recent months of violating the accord by testing multiple ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear payload.

“I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress, which the administration has the authority to waive, will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] commitments, and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” Kerry wrote, outlining the “tools” the administration has to ignore new visa waiver restrictions.

“We have a number of potential tools available to us, including multiple entry ten-year business visas, programs for expediting business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation,” Kerry wrote. “I am happy to discuss this further and provide any additional clarification.”

Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the Iran deal, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last week that recent congressional efforts to tighten restrictions “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”

Iranian leaders also have expressed anger over the situation.

Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, said last week that newly tightened measures “are aimed at harassment” and that they “blatantly violate the nuclear agreement,” according to comments carried by the Iranian state-controlled press.

Larijani warned that this action will detonate the deal before it has even been implemented.

“If the Americans pursue the plan, they will destroy an achievement with their own hands since it is against the [nuclear deal], and it will trouble them,” he warned….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brunei bans public Christmas celebrations, including wearing Santa hats

U.S. lets in four times as many suspected terrorists as it keeps out

Precarity

/in , , , /by

Precarity is a neoliberal term that was unfamiliar until I researched the theme of the National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) conference. It means precarious, hazardous, risky, and it focuses mainly on the supposed “evils” of capitalism. Although life’s uncertainties have existed since the beginning of time, these women had come together to discuss the insecurities of living, focusing on the drawbacks of being ill prepared for functioning in today’s workforce. Where previous generations sometimes stayed with a company from hiring to retiring, today’s employees change jobs frequently and must keep up with the ever-changing technology. Thus these women fear the difficulties that arise with a free society, changing economy, other unreliable coworkers, and all that free enterprise has to offer.

Risk is the very essence of freedom and of life, and yet this is their anxiety.

They spurn those gifts bestowed upon us by our Creator and cited in our Declaration of Independence – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, all of which involve risk. It is the freedom to pursue our own happiness along our chosen path that helps us to accept failures and overcome hindrances, and to continue chasing our personal dream. Instead these women are overwhelmed by responsibility, regarding the challenge as simply “misery” generated by capitalism, since they view that the sale of one’s abilities for profit may also result in failure and unemployment. Resistant to change and diversity, they yearn for their vision of a more secure and simpler life of the past, which, of course, is remembered without the discomforts, diseases, poverty and squalor.

Their dreams of the Utopian past erase the men’s long hours of hard labor, the women who were bound to a life of raising more children than they could manage, illnesses that have since been eradicated, few kitchen appliances to ease daily chores, and a labor force of children to help families make ends meet. Blaming capitalism for their current difficulties, the NWSA members want more entitlements and government intervention in exchange for the joys of innovation, growth, and the dignity of achievement. Taught by today’s academia to rely on their feelings and to redefine right and wrong, they wallow in comfortable discomfort and, significantly, decide to boycott Israel, her harvest, inventions and medical innovations. Could it be because Israelis treasure life and produce advantages and benefits not previously known, while the Palestinians desire to acquire Israel without the labor? Arab leaders allowed the barren, sparsely populated, impoverished land to become malaria-ridden over centuries before the Diaspora Jews returned to their historic homeland to cultivate the soil and recreate a flourishing democracy.

Precarity is the cost of living! It is the cost of charting one’s own course with all the possibilities of turning the unsure into opportunities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “all human beings are endowed with reason and conscience and shall act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood,” but the new liberalism distorts the vision of brotherhood into a nightmare of sameness, none better or worse; the goal of certainty, no triumphs or failures; and a less educated population reduced by chaos, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, and incurable diseases. And for political correctness, with their minds distorted and freedom of speech eradicated, these souls will no longer recognize friend from foe, good from evil, excellence from mediocrity, or even female from male.

Amazingly, although we know that eight-one percent of mosques in America advocate violence, and Germany appears to be losing its autonomy to the invaders, and Sweden is losing its heritage, and Belgium went on lock-down, and France is actively closing mosques and eliminating militant imams, the NWSA denounced Israel. Despite the legal documents to verify that Jews, not Arabs, hold rightful title to the land, and under whose direction diverse people within flourish, these women choose Islamo-fascism, where a clear majority of its people favor severe Sharia law and terrorism.

As technology (much of it from Israel) provides us with a front seat to the world, we have seen Muslims destroy 3,000 people in the World Trade Center; Muslims behead or burn Christians alive; Muslims turn their young children into knife-wielding murderers; Muslims kill groups of revelers in arenas and weddings and schoolchildren in classrooms and school buses; Muslims car-attack or knife Jewish pedestrians, but these women are boycotting Israel. Muslims are harming girls with Female Genital Mutilation, followed by enslaving, torturing, and imprisoning women in lifelong domestic/sexual servitude in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, but the NWSA women ignore where they could be truly useful. Islam is overtaking and creating havoc in Europe, and our national intelligence-gathering agencies (FBI and DHS) have long terror-watch lists of dangerous Islamic jihadists, but the NWSA is boycotting Israel.

What the NWSA should know is that the Jewish people have moral, historical, religious and legal claims to the disputed lands in Israel, yet Israel has been willing to forego some claims for the sake of peace. The State of Israel was built on land purchased by Jews, and Jews have been a presence in Jerusalem for 3,000 years, with a majority-Jewish population for more than 250 years.  Israel already ceded land to the Palestinians, who, in turn, destroyed prospering businesses and use the land for launching rockets. In truth, the Arabs who took the name “Palestinians” are the occupiers.

Morally, Israelis are first responders who have helped numerous countries, from Albania to Turkey, after floods, fires, earthquakes, bombings, tropical storms, hurricanes and cyclones, providing emergency humanitarian and medical personnel and assistance. Israelis helped Boston after the Marathon Bombing and California with its fires and water shortages. America benefits from this valuable partnership, including intelligence; the UK benefits from Israeli technology in protection, jobs, medicines and more. Israel is a global leader in bio-technology and defense, agriculture, water innovation, medicine, book publishing, and more.  Increasingly, Israeli entrepreneurs are attracting more foreign banks’ investments in their innovative technology.

IsraAid, which, in cooperation with Israeli NGOs FIRST and Operation Blessing-Israel, launched a social-worker training program in the new African state of South Sudan, one of the most undeveloped in the world. They are addressing the country’s violent misogynistic culture of rape and forced marriage. The women of NWSA could be involved, but do absolutely nothing.

How will these work-shy, incompetent women defend themselves when the soldiers of Allah fill our streets and execute their many forms of violent jihad on our citizens? Will they crumble into submission when the young Muslim males wreak havoc on the most vulnerable? Will they merely stand by and watch the migrants join forces with their brethren in the terror mosques to create battalions beyond the control of our diminished police and armed forces? These women are either terribly ignorant or filled with a fanatical evil – how else to explain this mindset?

Perhaps it is then that the National Women’s Studies Association will finally achieve its goal.

Their insecurities will be gone because their future will be spelled out to the letter. All the laws of Islam are clearly defined for women in the Qur’an. Independence and security will be as amputated as the limbs of Islam’s thieves. They will be guaranteed of being equal to all other women (devalued by men), and their tomorrow will be precisely as today – that is, of course, unless they are accused of some minor Mohammedan infraction. Then the morrow will not even come into question.

Final note: With all the ignorance shown by NWSA, they also appear to be unaware that Israel boycotts are Illegal. Under corporate law, an organization, including nonprofit, can do only what is permitted under the purposes specified in its charter.  Boycott resolutions that are beyond the powers of an organization are void, and individuals can be sued and board members liable for damages.

We Need YOU to Protest this Unfair Boycott!

  1. Call NWSA:(410) 528-0355
  2. Email NWSA at: nwsaoffice@nwsa.org
  3. Click here to protest on the NWSA Facebook page.

Hillary Lie: Islamic State showing videos of Trump “insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit” [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

“They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists.” This article from The Blaze focuses on the fact that there is actually no evidence that the Islamic State is using Trump videos to recruit, but that is not really the salient point.

Most important here is Hillary Clinton’s implicit point that if we stop insulting Islam and Muslims, or saying and doing things that she or they claim are insulting Islam and Muslims, then the jihad recruitment will lose its impetus.

She is claiming that what makes for jihad recruitment is our insulting Islam: thus if we adopt Sharia blasphemy restrictions and refrain from insulting Islam, everything will be all right.

It is worth noting in this connection that groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation routinely classify any honest analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as insulting Islam and Muslims.

trump truth poster“Clinton Makes Questionable Claim: Islamic State ‘Showing Videos of Donald Trump’ to Recruit Fighters,” by Oliver Darcy, The Blaze, December 19, 2015:

Hillary Clinton claimed at Saturday night’s Democratic debate that the Islamic State is showing videos of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump to potential fighters as a way to recruit.

“He is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter,” she said at the New Hampshire debate. “They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists.”

No evidence was offered by Clinton on stage to support the claim.

The remark was made in response to a question about Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigrants to the U.S.

Media commentators have asserted over the past week that Trump’s call for a halt on Muslim immigration makes it easier for the Islamic State to recruit. However, Clinton appeared to be the first presidential candidate to claim the group is actually showing videos of Trump to potential fighters as a means of luring them into violent jihad.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill responded to an inquiry from TheBlaze by pointing to comments made by SITE Intelligence Group director Rita Katz who told NBC News the terror group was drawing on Trump’s rhetoric to recruit. Katz’s comments, however, included no mention of the Islamic State showing potential recruits video of Trump. A tweet from a “very vocal ISIS supporter” was also sent by Merrill to TheBlaze, but neither the tweet or article it linked to included anything to support the video claim.

An online search did not return any results that would support Clinton’s video assertion either….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim teen busted in Pennsylvania was seeking to buy Yazidi sex slave

Hugh Fitzgerald: The madness and malevolence of Kuwait

U.S. State Department: 9,500 foreigners whose visas were revoked for terrorism go missing

/in , , , , /by

The solution: bring in hundreds of thousands of refugees whose ties to jihad terror will be impossible to vet.

“Feds can’t say whereabouts of those whose visas were revoked over terror threat,” Fox News, December 19, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The Obama administration cannot be sure of the whereabouts of thousands of foreigners in the U.S. who had their visas revoked over terror concerns and other reasons, a State Department official acknowledged Thursday.

The admission, made at a House oversight hearing examining immigrant vetting in the wake of major terror attacks, drew a sharp rebuke from the committee chairman.

“You don’t have a clue do you?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Bond initially said the U.S. has revoked more than 122,000 visas since 2001, including 9,500 because of the threat of terrorism.

But Chaffetz quickly pried at that stat, pressing the witness about the present location of those individuals.

“I don’t know,” she said.

The startling admission came as members of the committee pressed administration officials on what safeguards are in place to reduce the risk from would-be extremists….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Refugee Resettlement: The lucrative business of serving immigrants

Germany: Muslims recruit openly for Islamic State on Berlin train

UK: Socialist leader calls terror-linked mosque “wonderful community asset”

For the Confused Media: A Dummy’s Guide to Immigration and Refugee Problems

/in , , , , , /by

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo — 

With the Syrian (so-called) refugee crisis ubiquitous in the headlines, the media has found itself dealing with immigration issues on a daily basis.  Unfortunately, extreme confusion abounds.  The media’s total inability to draw basic distinctions regarding immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal is harming the public’s ability to digest this important topic.  Immigration terms are being thrown around print media, radio, and television that have no relation to the real facts or existing laws.

The following is the dummy’s guide to some of the most important distinctions regarding legal and illegal immigration to the United States.  It is sincerely hoped that this will help to end the erroneous reasons and multitude of excuses offered by the media on a daily, almost hourly, basis.

Legal Immigration

Visas

  • Visa Waiver Program: For travel and business purposes, this allows visitors to the United States from other specified countries to enter the country without obtaining a visa (based upon reciprocity). There were 38 Visa Waiver countries as of January 2009.  Applicants fill out an application via us.  (Note: Israel is not one of those 38 countries, yet Americans can enter Israel without obtaining a visa.)
  • Common Visas:
    • K1: For foreign fiancés of Americans. These visas are often abused by foreigners who seek citizenship, and will bribe “fiancés” whom they have no intention of marrying.
    • K-3: For foreign spouses of Americans.
    • H-1B: For skilled foreign workers. American employers must prove that the foreigner’s qualifications are not readily available domestically.
    • F and M: Academic/student visas. See below for common abuses of student visas.

Legal Immigrants

  • Green Cards: Holders of Green Cards must not be outside the United States for more than 5 months and 29 days per year. They must also have a legal record.  After five years, they are eligible to apply for citizenship.  At that time, they must also indicate all the countries they have visited in the previous five years.

Illegal Immigration

  • Border crossings: Today, the nation’s two borders (south and north) are equivalent to Swiss cheese. The Border Patrol has been handicapped by the Obama administration.  By definition, we know nothing (no names, no photos, no fingerprints) about illegal immigrants who cross our borders unannounced and unchallenged.  In the worst case scenario, an illegal immigrant who is caught inside the country will be ordered to leave within 15 days.  Against all logic, no check is applied to make sure that he does in fact leave!
    • If a person returns to the country illegally after being deported for previously entering illegally, by law that person has committed a felony and should be arrested, sentenced, and jailed.
  • Visa overstays: Other than border crossings, many foreigners are in the country illegally because they overstay their visas. For example, student visas are routinely abused in this manner.  Why?
    • After they are issued, there is no check to ensure that the student is enrolled at the college/university. They may never show up to begin with, or drop out after one, two, or three years.
    • After their study program is over, there is no check to ensure that they leave the country as expected.

Refugees

Refugees should not be considered a part of the immigration system, legal or illegal.  The Refugee Resettlement program is administered by the federal government (U.S. Department of State) and the United Nations.  In the U.S., the program is managed by politically-connected NGO’s (including many who are connected to the Catholic Church), and who receive money per refugee they process.

  • Security screenings: The White House claims that each refugee goes through multiple levels of security screenings, including the FBI, DHS, and State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey has warned that “certain gaps” remain in the screening process.

Sanctuary Cities

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered “sanctuary cities”.  These jurisdiction[s] protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents.”

In other words, these are cities, counties, and states where existing federal law is intentionally ignored by local authorities.  For a map of these places, click here.

Conclusion

The entry checks for immigrants are sophisticated (ten-finger prints, pictures, and names).  But there are no checks whatsoever regarding their exit.  Therefore, it is impossible to provide accurate figures on overstays, illegal entries, etc.

The American immigration system is abused through both legal and illegal channels.  Because of the complexity of the issue, the media regularly confuses and/or conflates the problems associated with the system.  Despite the challenges and complexities, the laws already exist to enforce immigration and ensure the integrity of the system, and in turn keep Americans safe.  Special time and effort should be dedicated to develop and implement accurate and feasible exit procedures.

RELATED VIDEO: History of Immigration in the U.S. for Dummies

Ohio: Janet Folger Porter Hated by the Radical Left and GOPe running for State Senate [+ Video]

/in , , , , /by

Janet Folger Porter, is the founder and president of Faith2Action, a site dedicated to defending “pro-family” values . Mrs. Porter is an evangelical Christian, who holds a master’s degree in communications from Cleveland State University. She is running for the Ohio State Senate.

Watch this Conservatives for Janet Folger Porter video:

The Associated Press reports:

A Northeast Ohio activist who’s been behind efforts to pass a strict abortion bill is challenging an incumbent Republican for the Ohio Senate.

Republican Janet Folger Porter of Hinckley filed for the March 15 primary on Wednesday. She’s seeking to represent the 22nd Senate District, which includes Medina, Ashland and Richland counties, along with portions of Holmes County.

Sen. Larry Obhof, of Medina, currently holds the seat and is running for re-election.

Porter has fiercely advocated for passage of the so-called heartbeat bill, a measure that would ban most abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat.

The bill cleared the House this spring. Porter and her organization, Faith2Action, have targeted senators in ads and demonstrations for not acting on the legislation.

Democrat Christopher King of Sullivan also has filed.

Faith2Action on their YouTube site writes:

The incumbents in the Republican Establishment ignore us. They have not done what we hired them to do and it is time for them to find another line of work. It’s time to take our government back. It’s time for ACTION. Join the movement at JanetFolgerPorter.com or contribute at Conservatives for Janet Folger Porter, PO Box 54 Hinckley, OH 44233

FLORIDA: Patients who own guns are protected — 11th Curcuit rules in their favor

/in , , , , , /by

Anti-gun doctors in in the Sunshine State may be feeling a little queasy after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11thCircuit handed them a third straight loss in their ongoing challenge to a Florida law designed to protect patients from harassing and unwarranted grilling about firearm ownership. Should these symptoms persist, the physicians should note they have a simple and foolproof remedy: simply refrain from using the doctor-patient relationship to advance a non-medical ideological and political agenda.

The plaintiffs in the case, Wollschlaeger v. Gov. of Fla., assert that their First Amendment rights are being violated because the law prohibits them from documenting or inquiring into patients’ firearm ownership or harassing or discriminating against patients who own firearms. The law provides exceptions, however, for situations in which the doctors believe, in good faith, the actions are “necessary” or “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”

As we detailed earlier this year, the 11th Circuit has already issued two opinions against the plaintiffs. The original opinion characterized the regulated behavior more as conduct – i.e., medical practice – than pure speech. On its own initiative, the court later revisited that determination and revised the earlier opinion with a more detailed analysis of the law’s First Amendment implications. The second opinion held that even to the degree the law regulates speech protected by the First Amendment, the state has sufficient justification to curtail it. The court took into account the nature and context of the speech, the interests advanced by the law, and the law’s limited scope.

Following publication of the second opinion, however, the 11th Circuit asked the parties to submit further written arguments concerning how a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, might affect the way the case should be analyzed. In its latest opinion, the 11th Circuit finds that Reed might require a more stringent standard of review on the First Amendment issue than was used in its second opinion, but it goes on to hold that the challenged regulations nevertheless survive that review.

The third opinion also represents a relatively rare example of a regulation surviving “strict scrutiny” analysis in the face of a constitutional challenge. Strict scrutiny requires the state to show that the law furthers a “compelling interest” and that “the Act is narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”

The compelling interest identified by the 11th Circuit is “the State’s interest in regulating the practice of professions for the protection of the public,” and the protection of Second Amendment rights and privacy in particular. “We do not hesitate to conclude,” the court writes, “that states have a compelling interest in protecting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Regarding the tailoring prong of the analysis, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ suggestion that they are not actually interfering with Second Amendment rights. “It is of course an interference with Second Amendment rights for a trusted physician to tell his patient – for no medically relevant reason whatsoever – that it is unsafe to own a gun.” The court also explains that the law focuses on subjects that, once entered into a patient’s medical record, could be used to “harass or profile” that individual, an outcome the Florida legislature has determined is contrary to public policy.

The court goes on to note the narrow scope of the law’s actual prohibitions and emphasizes that they are subject to “physicians’ own good-faith judgments about whether such inquiry or record-keeping is medically appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.” “[W]hat narrower way to advance [the state’s interests in protecting privacy and chilling of Second Amendment rights] could there be,” the court asks rhetorically, “than by requiring physicians to base any inquiry or record-keeping about firearm ownership on a genuine, subjective determination of medical need?”

The court also rejects the plaintiffs’ claim that the law is unconstitutionally vague, deciding its text is “sufficiently clear that a person of common intelligence need not guess as to what it prohibits.” It also reiterates that “so long as a physician is operating in good faith within the boundaries of good medical practice, and is providing only firearm safety advice that is relevant and necessary, he need not fear discipline” under the law. In other words, competent, ethical doctors will not be adversely affected.

Throughout the history of this case, anti-gun doctors and their media collaborators have been committing rhetorical malpractice by misrepresenting the law’s scope, effects, and burdens in the court of public opinion. Fortunately, in the court of law, the 11th Circuit soberly and carefully judged the law for what it is: a means to prevent abuse of the doctor-patient relationship and exploitation of medicine’s prestige to browbeat Florida residents into giving up constitutional rights.

Thus, while the 11th Circuit’s analysis has changed in its various opinions, its message to Florida doctors has been consistent: Physician, control thyself and stick to patient care, and you will have nothing to fear from this law.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch Donald Trump, is declared Politician of Year

/in , , , /by

Looking at Dutch polls, Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) is the “Netherlands Politician of the Year in the Hague Parliament.”  This despite a Kafkaesque trial, now set for March 2016, brought by Hague Prosecutors on trumped up charges of alleged hate speech, “fewer Moroccans”, at March 12 and 19, 2015 local election campaign rallies.

In the U.S., Wilders’ remarks are protected speech under our First Amendment.  

Never mind, the Dutch elitists are out for blood this time with the equivalent of a hanging judge proceeding, not even allowing, depositions.  The goal of the Hague prosecutors and the judiciary is to embarrass Wilders by convicting him for alleged hate speech and perhaps slapping him with a large fine; e.g., 250,000 Euros.  However, the Dutch elitists may have been upended by the continuing riots in refugee reception centers in Holland; a demonstration of why Wilders has argued about a ‘pause’ in mass migration from Syria and other predominately Muslim countries in disarray in the Ummah.  Dutch PM Rutte and his ruling coalition are embarrassed by Syrian refugees angrily rejecting their kind welcome.

Better the Dutch elitists should follow the example of the Central European countries of Slovakia and now Czechoslovakia letting in Iraqi Christians who face extinction in the face of death threats from ISIS. 

Note these Tweets from Wilders about today’s Dutch polls showing the PVV head and shoulders above current PM Rote’s VVD party, if a hypothetical Parliamentary snap election was held.

geert wilders poltician of the year

PVV leader Geert Wilders

Note this biased NL Times story on the trial date set by the Hague Prosecutors, “Geert Wilders trial for inciting hatred to start on March 18”:

The trial of PVV leader Geert Wilders on charges of inciting racism and hatred will start on March 18 with a procedural hearing, The Hague’s district court said on Friday. The hearing will focus on the investigation into the charges against Wilders and set dates for witness appearances and the rest of the trial. Wilders faces prosecution for his comments about Moroccan nationals on March 12 and 19, 2015, during and after the local election campaign.

In March, Wilders told supporters in Loosduinen that he would rather there were ‘fewer Moroccans’ in The Hague.

Seven days later, during a post vote meeting with supporters, Wilders asked the crowd ‘and do you want more or fewer Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands?’ To which the crowd chanted ‘fewer, fewer, fewer’. ‘We’ll arrange that,’ Wilders said, smiling, when the chanting died down. The comments led to over 6,400 complaints to the police and a slew of resignations from the PVV.

The last laugh may be on both the Rutte ruling coalition and the Hague prosecutors, should the failure to rein in continuing riots in Dutch refugee centers lead to a vote of no confidence. That might be followed by a possible snap election in advance of the 2017 general elections.

Dutch voters just might give the nod to Wilders to form a new coalition if requested by King Willem –Alexander.

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

‘The People Will Waken and Listen To Hear’ by Michael Devolin

/in , , , , , , , /by

“In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoofbeats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.”

– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

The best thing about Donald Trump’s message, in my opinion, is that its promotion of old fashioned prudence has awakened the American people, and especially those Americans who have been driven to lethargy by political correctness; whose voices, until now, have been obfuscated and ignored by politicians—both Republican and Democrat—more interested in selling their party than they are in taking back their country. Neighbours north of the border—those also driven to lethargy by political correctness, whose newly elected prime minister and his caucus and their proposed policies indicate that they are more attuned to the Muslim Middle East than they are to Canada—are listening with grateful fascination. We applaud Donald Trump for his clarity on issues close to our hearts also. Imagine our disappointment, therefore, when hearing of his unprovoked excoriation of Pamela Geller and her defence of freedom of speech, an attack unseemly for anyone professing to be an American patriot, and especially discomposing for those who are even now trying to picture Donald Trump as the next president of the United States of America. Pamela Geller says it best: “If you don’t support free speech, you are not qualified to be president.”

However, and in spite of this one wobbling wheel, the Trump bandwagon is attracting a growing support. Sort of like Socrates’ description of the power of Homer’s poetry: “This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their power of suspension from the original stone.” Donald Trump is the “original stone,” the real American, and he has inspired in those of consanguineous heart the determination that America, the America envisioned by her founding fathers, is not about to go down without a fight. As Riddick Bowe, one of the greatest American heavyweight boxers of all time, once said to Britain’s Lennox Lewis, “You ain’t gonna knock nothin’ out, bum.”

It is very revealing how some of the Republican candidates are denigrating Donald Trump’s message. Steve Holland and Emily Stephenson of the Associated Press, in their coverage of a CNN moderated security debate, reported that Jeb Bush ‘…assailed Trump for a lack of depth and seriousness and called him a “chaos candidate” who was adept at one-liners but naive on policy issues.’ And again, attacking Mr. Trump’s practical approach to America’s present security issues, “Donald, you’re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency.” Mr. Trump, ever focused, responded, “We’re not talking about isolation; we’re talking about security. We’re not talking about religion; we’re talking about security. Our country is out of control.”

Donald Trump notices what the improvidence of the other Republican candidates seems to have obscured from their political horizons: the stark reality that many Western democracies (United States and Canada included) are being internally decimated simultaneously by both a lack of leadership and an unassuming populace whose primarily Christian traditions are being aggressively transmogrified by Islam’s political activists, many of whom have publicly professed Islamist sympathies. The Polling Company CSP Poll revealed this year (2015) that 29% of Muslim-Americans support violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran. Only 61% of those Muslim-Americans questioned agreed that such violence is unacceptable. Adherents.com reports that there are presently 2.8 million Muslim-Americans living in the United States. Do the math.

Saul Friedlander referred to the history of the Holocaust as “…an integral part of the ‘age of ideology’ and, more precisely and decisively, of its late phase: the crisis of liberalism in continental Europe.” Mr. Friedlander goes on to say that, “…without the obsessive anti-Semitism and the personal impact of Adolf Hitler, first in the framework of his movement, then on the national scene after January 1933, the widespread German anti-Semitism of those years would probably not have coalesced into anti-Jewish political action and certainly not into its sequels.” Those ideologies back then were “…revolutionary socialism (which was to become Bolshevism in Russia and communism throughout the world), and by a revolutionary right that…turned into fascism in Italy and elsewhere, and into Nazism in Germany.” It could be said of our day that we live in an “age of ideology” also, but of one ideology only, and that ideology is Islam. Regardless of which strains of this imperialistic and expansionist ideology are insalubrious and which are not, which are dangerous and which are not, the undeniable fact remains that the religion of Islam is their locus and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian hatred is, in varying degrees, a common thread in all.

Our problem, and it’s becoming a self-destructive problem, is that Western democracies are conciliating an Islam entire—which includes all these strains—without thoroughly and opportunely discriminating between the good and the bad. Donald Trump intends to remedy this problem at a time when all other politicians, Democrat and Republican both, have made it a habit of looking the other way whenever it rears its ugly head. The reason for his rising popularity can be found in the fact that a vast majority of Americans—those Americans whose concerns about the religion of Islam have been ignored—feel nothing now but repugnance when hearing the same old excuses and the same old worn out clichés from the same old politicians. When they listen to Donald Trump, they hear a politician whose concerns are consistent with those Americans who still love their country. Donald Trump has evoked an American patriotism the rest of the world had previously assumed was dead or dying, because (not excusing his trepid rendering of the 1st Amendment) he knows that, “In the hour of darkness and peril and need, the people will waken and listen to hear…”

RELATED ARTICLE: Publishers Weekly apparently totally cool with beheading Americans, Jewish genocide, removing girls’ clitorises

VIDEO: The Criminalization of Dissent

/in , , , /by

I filmed this “Robert Spencer Moment” for Jamie Glazov’s Glazov Gang on some recent experiences that I have had, showing how those who reject establishment views are coming under increased law enforcement scrutiny.

Jamie Glazov adds:

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Robert on the Glazov Gang discuss To Flood America With Muslim Refugees, where he exposes the real meaning of the Islamic State threatening to flood Europe with 500,000 refugees in February, 2015: CLICK HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

LGBT Group Calls on Government to Address ‘Disturbing Trend’ on Religious College Campuses

Hugh Fitzgerald: The madness and malevolence of Kuwait

France: Muslim group sues over “illegal” post-Paris anti-terror police raids

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate through their Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook.

U.S. Navy: Chattanooga Slaughter Inspired by Foreign Muslim Terrorists

/in , , , /by

Another setback for the Obama Ministry of Islamophilia, which recently was stunned by the Army ignoring the recommendations of its investigating officer and deciding that Bowe Bergdahl will face a general court martial for desertion and “misbehavior before the enemy”.

The deserter Bergdahl, you will recall, was declared by the Obama administration to have “served the United States with honor and distinction.” But there was something greater at play in the Bergdhal case, something great enough to inspire President Obama to hold a special ceremony in the Rose Garden. Mark Steyn asks some hard questions about one of the strangest, darkest episodes of the Obama presidency:

The deserter may get his just deserts, but what of the man who made the “deal” for him and then honored the deserter with a Rose Garden photo-op with his Taliban-supporting dad… The President of the United States embracing a Taliban sympathizer at the White House. There was no need to hold such an intimate photo-op. Yet Obama chose to do it. Why?

Given what the United States Government knew about Bergdahl at the time of that ceremony, ignorance of who he was is not a plausible explanation. So my question a year and a half ago remains unanswered: why did he do it? […]

There are three dishonorable men in that short photo-op: a deserter who broke his oath, a father who sympathizes publicly with the enemy …and a president lying before the nation, to make them complicit in that dishonor…

The Army at least has decided it will not be made complicit in that dishonor. If there were a real press in this country, someone would ask Obama how it is that he became the first president to host a Rose Garden celebration for a deserter.

Now the Navy also seems to be waking up after seven years of Obamasleep. This is an especially stunning reversal, as just a month ago, FBI Director James Comey had indicated details on the Chattanooga investigation might never be kept secret, stating,  “We don’t want to smear people.”

As Robert Spencer wrote on November 15, 2015:

Abdulazeez’s motivations aren’t really in doubt. He viewed material by jihad leader Anwar Awlaki online, and spoke about Islamic martyrdom. He wrote in his diary about “becoming a martyr.” He texted a hadith to a friend before he began his attack. Abulazeez’s motive is only unclear to the terminally blinkered and willfully ignorant.

And Comey does know more than he is telling: “Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret.” Fair enough, but then he adds this curious statement: “That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people.” How could he possibly smear anyone by releasing information about Abdulazeez’s motivations? Is there a jihadi mastermind behind this attack, still loose in Chattanooga? Or does Comey mean that he doesn’t want to talk about Abdulazeez’s motivations because to do so would smear Islam, i.e., cast it in a bad light?

Now the Navy is awarding five Purple Hearts, and the Chattanooga jihad murders are admitted to be, in Comey’s most recent statement, “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

Signs of hope? Perhaps, but dhimmitude is always just one jizya payment — or Rose Garden photo op — away.

“Navy Concludes Chattanooga Shooting Was Inspired by Foreign Terrorists,” Breitbart News, December 16, 2015:

Chattanooga Jihad Killer Muhammad Abdulazeez, with his devout, and now shocked, shocked!, family.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — After determining a shooting at a Chattanooga reserve center this summer was inspired by foreign terrorists, the Navy will award the Purple Heart to the four Marines and one sailor who were killed and the one Marine who was injured there.

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the decision Wednesday in a news release. He said the finding that the shooting was terrorist-inspired came after an extensive investigation by the FBI and Naval Criminal Investigation Service.

“This determination allows the Department of the Navy to move forward immediately with the award of the Purple Heart to the families of the five heroes who were victims of this terrorist attack, as well as to the surviving hero, Sgt. Cheeley,” Mabus’ statement reads.

The FBI earlier labeled shooter Muhammad Abdulazeez, a naturalized U.S. citizen, a homegrown violent extremist but declined to say what might have motivated him. His family said he had problems with drugs and depression that prevented him from holding on to a job. He was also in debt, and considering bankruptcy at 24.

But investigators also found writings from Abdulazeez that reference Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who encouraged and inspired attacks on the homeland and was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

Earlier Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey told reporters the July 16 attack was “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

That statement came after some had questioned why the Dec. 2 attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, California, was quickly labeled terrorism but months passed without a determination in the Chattanooga attack.

Abdulazeez first fired shots from his car into a military recruiting center in a Chattanooga strip mall before driving about 7 miles to a Navy-Marine reserve center where he killed four Marines and a sailor and wounded a fifth Marine before Chattanooga police killed him.

Those killed were Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, and Marines Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, Sgt. Carson Holmquist, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan and Lance Cpt. Squire “Skip” Wells. Sgt. DeMonte Cheeley was injured.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is from Chattanooga, praised the decision in a statement, saying those killed and wounded “exemplify the very best that America has to offer.”

“Our commander-in-chief has classified the heartbreaking events that took place that day as an act of terror, and I have been pressing the FBI to provide answers to both the families of the fallen and our community,” said the Tennessee Republican. “I appreciate the efforts of all involved as they work tirelessly to piece together this puzzle so we can better protect ourselves in the future.”

Smith’s grandmother, Linda Wallace, said in a telephone interview that she was frustrated it took months to determine the shooting was inspired by foreign terrorists. But she was pleased to hear of the award.

“He definitely deserved it,” she said. “He gave his life for those other guys.”

RELATED ARTICLE: SB jihadi’s mid-massacre message released: “We pledge allegiance to Khalifa”