Posts

PODCAST: Hit or Myth? Dems Call Riots Fake News

You have to give the Democrats credit. They’ve found a way to justify their silence on the riots: refusing to admit they exist! Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) tried that when he ran into a citizen who asked him if he disavowed the Antifa violence in Portland. “That’s a myth,” he insisted, “being spread only in Washington, D.C.” Well, if it’s a myth, Oregon residents will tell you, it’s a pretty convincing one.

To the hundreds of police and federal officers taking cover from mortars, fireworks, and hammers, the idea that Portland’s mayhem belongs in a league with Sasquatch is more than a little deranged. Videos of protestors burning streets, hauling down fences, and lobbing Molotov cocktails at buildings are a lot of things, but faked is not one of them. “Sir,” Austen Fletcher pressed, wondering if he’d heard the congressman right, “There’s videos everywhere online,” Mr. Fletcher continued. “There’s fires and riots, they’re throwing fireworks at federal officers. DHS is there. Look online. It gets crazy, Mr. Nadler.”

Nadler, whose staff is desperately nudging him to the car at that point, is nonplussed. And why not? This is a man who stood on the House floor and called Antifa — a group so dangerous that President Trump declared them a terrorist organization — “imaginary.” Good luck persuading the people of Portland, who’ve woken up to the sounds of sirens and destruction every night for 60 days. It’s not only real, reporters say, it’s a war zone. “I interviewed a veteran,” the Daily Caller’s Jorge Ventura explained on “Washington Watch,” “who told me it actually reminds him of his time in Iraq. That’s how bad [it’s gotten] here.” But to hear it’s a myth? “It was shocking,” Jorge said. “I mean, an Antifa member actually stabbed a black Trump supporter on Friday night.”

“Democrats can’t seem to make up their minds,” Kaylee McGhee writes. “First they deny that protests in Portland and Seattle are violent, [then they] claim that President Trump and the GOP are propagating this ‘myth’ to win over voters… Now, after hours of video evidence and multiple insider reports, Democrats are finally admitting that the riots on the West Coast are indeed riots, but with one caveat: Trump is to blame.”

Jorge, like other conservative journalists, have gone to Portland to see for themselves what’s happening. And to a person they’ll tell you: the things they’ve seen are a whole lot worse than the media’s admitting. “I’ve been covering protests all across the country, and I’ve never seen anything like we’re seeing here in downtown Portland. These groups are very well organized. They have medic teams. They actually have their own kitchen called Riot Ribs across the park that feeds these protesters and actually supplies them with shields and eyewear and other things they need to be out here. It’s just, I’ve never seen anything like it.”

The cache of weapons alone is astounding. “We’re talking about mortars, fireworks, hammers, all types of things that we’ve actually never seen on the ground.” He talked about federal officers injured and hospitalized in the blasts. Other police officers, he explains, who were possibly blinded for life because of the high-powered lasers thugs are training on their eyes. “We saw some power tools being used on the high fences… guarding the federal courthouse… I’ve just never seen the organization level that we’re seeing here in Portland.”

So who, exactly, is fueling the effort? Antifa, Jorge said. No doubt in his mind. They’re “taking in money and donations online.” And that, to a large extent, is what’s supplying these mobs. “One thing that we’ve been noticing here [is] that numbers of people have been driving up to the parks with all types of things. We’ve been seeing gas masks delivered here, eyewear, bats, shields, you name it… [and] a lot of these folks here are not from Portland.” Some are driving in from Seattle, and others are “bigger members of the Antifa group, bringing in these types of weapons into the riots.”

And to the extent that the media is covering the story, they’re only telling one side of it. “I call it a media war,” Jorge explains. If the local journalists or national press uploads videos or pictures to social media, they edit it so that all people see is the police response — not the violence that led up to it. “The New York Times just put out a piece basically putting the blame on Trump and the federal administration. But what we’ve been seeing here on the ground is that’s just really not the case.”

If it’s a myth Democrats are looking for, start there. Because this president isn’t starting the fires. He’s only trying to contain them.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Left’s Assault on Civil Discourse

The left often supports anti-western radicalism the way their predecessors supported Communist dictatorships.

left anarchistsDonald Trump’s presidency has exposed deep divisions in American society which are being exploited by zealots seeking to suppress speech and quell dissent.  In aping European-style social democracies that are imploding under the weight of unsustainable economic programs and collectivist mediocrity, foot soldiers of the left are hawking an agenda that leaves no room for debate.  They claim diversity as a virtue but reject diversity of opinion, and seek to impose oppressive homogeneity on popular culture through stultifying political correctness.  They also display contempt for western values – often expressed as knee-jerk affinity for anti-western radicalism – in much the same way their intellectual forebears shilled for Communist dictatorships during the last century.

It seems useful idiocy never goes out of style.

It’s not opposition to Trump that’s the problem.  Indeed, American citizens are free to support or oppose him as they will.  Rather, it’s the demonization of all who disagree with the progressive establishment and mainstream media – and the absence of civility in political discourse.  Conservatives may have disagreed with Barack Obama’s policies, but they never took to the streets in violent protest or delegitimized the institutions of government.  And they never took direction from a partisan press or academic elites who use the classroom to indoctrinate, intimidate, and stifle originality.

The left has a penchant for labeling opponents as fascists, but seems itself possessed of the worst totalitarian impulses.  Progressive intolerance for dissent has evolved pursuant to a dictatorial philosophy which demands that individualism yield to the collective will and seeks to enforce ideological conformity through suppression and shaming.  Though progressives claim to champion the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, their attempts to squelch opposing viewpoints are antithetical to the ideals for which it stands.

Regulation of speech often starts surreptitiously with seemingly principled initiatives like hate-crime legislation.  Such efforts may be well-intended, but they open the door to censorship while doing little to reduce crime and lawlessness.  There is no inherent logic, for example, in viewing homicide instigated by bigotry as somehow worse than that motivated by personal animus, hatred, or greed.  Murder is socially abhorrent regardless of impetus.  When statutes base gradation of offense on the presence of hateful intent, however, it becomes unclear whether their goal is to curb objective conduct or control abstract thought.  Or whether the definition of hateful intent could be manipulated by partisan hacks to criminalize speech with which they disagree.  The interdiction of even odious language can pave the way for repression of political speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Those who don’t believe government would ever seek to curtail speech should consider the constraints imposed by the Federal Communications Commission, whose regulatory enforcements have often been criticized as discretionary and capricious.  Or the now defunct “Fairness Doctrine,” which required media networks to run opposing viewpoints to counterbalance their own editorial opinions (particularly conservative ones), and effectively constituted regulation of content.

Though hate-crime statutes are at least subject to legislative debate and judicial review, street censorship through progressive intimidation, disapprobation, and bullying is not.  The latter is far more insidious because there is no oversight for political correctness, which elevates favored interests over groups and ideas that progressive society deems unworthy of protection or respect.

Rejecting the sacred cows of liberalism invites slander and abuse.  Those who criticize Black Lives Matter, defend the State of Israel, or question the revisionist Palestinian narrative, for example, are condemned as racists and bigots by a left-of-center establishment that increasingly excuses – and often endorses – intellectual and physical thuggery.  Moreover, mainstream liberals are often reluctant to condemn a leftist flank that rationalizes progressive anti-Semitism as political expression, defends Islamism as the voice of indigeneity, sanctions violence against police as legitimate protest, and denies the right to express opposing views.  The recent violent protests on American college campuses highlight the dangers of progressive indulgence and suggest the fascist threat comes from the left, not the right.

When students rioted at the University of California Berkeley and Middlebury College to protest appearances by conservative speakers, they engaged in vandalism, caused property damage, threatened or perpetrated physical assaults, and generally behaved like Nazi Brownshirts.  Rather than being condemned for anarchic excess, they have been defended by many as exemplifying the spirit of American protest – just as they are lauded for engaging in political anti-Semitism, including Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week activities.  But what they really represent is a tyrannical millenarianism bent on eradicating individuality and original thought in favor of collectivist similitude.  Their mob mentality does not evoke visions of the Founding Fathers as media advocates and Democratic operatives claim, but rather the “Reign of Terror” unleashed by Robespierre and the Jacobins in eighteenth century France.

The words of Robespierre in 1794 have an eerie relevance today.  In his “Report on the Principles of Political Morality,” he extolled the use of political terror thus:

“If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country … The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.”

Though it is doubtful many of today’s college demonstrators have bothered to study the French Revolution (having eschewed western studies as culturally insensitive), their Jacobin-style intimidation and persecution of dissenters cannot be ignored.  They haven’t brought back Robespierre’s guillotine; but their terror tactics should be recognized as representing the same twisted character.

In the political arena, this malevolent spirit has fostered legislative obstructionism for its own sake, with the left seizing control of the Democratic Party and discouraging conciliation and compromise.  The goal of many Congressional Democrats is not to seek common ground, but to impede and disparage the Republican majority; and if their intent is to emulate the turmoil and fecklessness of European social politics, they have succeeded all too well.  Obstructionism has become a political end, not a means, and progressive extremism has made for some very strange bedfellows, as illustrated by the “red-green” alliance between Islamists and the left.

Whereas progressives tend to disparage religion, they are protective of Islam and accepting of its radical manifestations based on the twin premises that (a) Muslims are a persecuted class with legitimate grievances against the West, and (b) Islam is an indigenous voice wherever it exists.  This obtuse viewpoint ignores that the global Muslim population numbers more than a billion (hardly a minority) and that the Islamic world has a long history of religious war against non-Muslims – including Europeans, who were targeted for jihad starting in the eighth century.  However, the real reason the left embraces Islamism is a shared hatred of western culture, though this hatred springs from distinct, irreconcilable ideologies.  How else to explain progressive support for proposed anti-blasphemy laws seeking to criminalize criticism of Islam?

Indeed, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010 voiced support for the UN’s “Defamation of Religions Resolution,” which would have undermined free speech where discussion of Islam was concerned.  Few if any liberal civil rights organizations, moreover, seemed perturbed by the prospect of an international mandate overriding our Constitutional liberties.  The willingness to subjugate their own interests to Islamist sensibilities illustrates the ignorance of secular progressives, who excuse Islamic radicalism while condemning any perceived intrusion by other religions on secular society.

The religious left goes even further by making radical chic and opposition to Israel doctrinal virtues, as evidenced by the extreme policies endorsed by some mainline Christian denominations.  Many Presbyterians, Methodists, and Unitarian Universalists, for example, engage in anti-Israel activism (including BDS) and support the Kairos Palestine Ecumenical Declaration, which delegitimizes the Jewish State.  While political anti-Semitism is a natural extension of repugnant replacement theology, it is also consistent with the embrace of progressive “social justice” as a faux religious creed.

Not surprisingly, the religious left has made opposing Trump an article of faith, though he has supported faith-based initiatives over the years.  And Jewish progressives have attempted to label him anti-Semitic despite his respectful treatment of Israel and historical support for Jewish institutions.  If liberals are now so concerned about Jew hatred, why were they silent when more than seven-thousand acts of anti-Semitism were being committed during Obama’s administration (much of it by progressives and Islamists) without clear condemnation from the president?  Where was their outrage when Obama used implied stereotypes to demean opponents of his Iran deal, or when his proxies invoked anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to portray its critics as a chauvinistic minority with divided loyalties?

The liberal silence was deafening – and deeply disturbing.

Though reality seems inconvenient for leftists whose partisan goals include historical revisionism and legislative obstruction, they nevertheless have every right to criticize Trump, his policies, and his gaffes.  However, their denunciations of him as inherently evil are getting tiresome, and their efforts to project their own intolerance onto him are hypocritical and perhaps pathological.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Intimidation Game

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.

Kicking the croissant down the road … it is demographic conquest stupid!

Invasion of Europe news…

The first thing I thought of when I heard the news that Marine Le Pen had lost to the globalist Emmanuel Macron was Mark Steyn’s predictions in America Alone.  If you have never read it, you must.  And while you are at it don’t skip The Camp of Saints ((over 40 years old!) or, the very dark (nothing “funny” about it) novel Submission.

Ha! It seems that one can’t thoroughly discuss the issue of Islamic demographic dominance outside of a novel (well, except for ‘America Alone’).

Here are a few snips from Steyn on the results of the French election on Saturday:

The French have voted to postpone their rendezvous with destiny. But kicking the croissant down the road means another half-decade of demographic transformation that lengthens the odds against ever winning the numbers to halt it.

[….]

…with the arrival of President Macron in the charmed circle, the leaders of Europe’s biggest economies and of all the European members of the G7 are childless: Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Theresa May, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, and now France’s Macron.

This would have been not just statistically improbable but all but impossible for most of human history. Whatever Euro-politics is about, it’s not, as Bill Clinton was wont to say, the future of all our children. Indeed, of the six founding members of the European Union – France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg – five are led by childless prime ministers: joining Merkel, Gentiloni and Macron at the no-need-for-daycare Euro-summit are the Dutch PM Mark Rutte and the Luxemburger Xavier Bettel. Mark Rutte is single and childless. Xavier Bettel of Lux is married, but gay and, hélas, for the moment without progeny.

Indeed, it would have been a clean sweep of all six of the EU’s founding members – a non-procreative sextet – had not Charles Michel succeeded another gay PM, Belgium’s Elio di Rupo. While M di Rupo also remains unblessed by any visit from the Euro-Stork, M Michel has managed to sire a brace of moppets. So that’s two kids between six prime ministers.

france gone darkRead the whole thing hereThen tell all of your young conservative friends to HAVE BABIES!

Our complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ is here.

If you need convincing, in addition to ‘America Alone,’ put these books on your reading list (including my little booklet!):

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Ignoring history: 1,300 years brings us to the Islamization of Minnesota

Macron Bests Le Pen in French Presidential Runoff Election: Don’t expect the populist tide to recede, however

Trump immigration Executive Order to go to appeals court in Virginia

Another 50,000 wannabe migrants to U.S. learned if they won the lottery to America this week

If your city has low income housing (or a greedy meatpacker nearby!) you could get refugees

RELATED VIDEO: #MacronLeaks: Secret Islamization Plans.

Asylum!

Adam Ghahramani, a digital product and marketing director in New York, is an Iranian-American who penned his concerns on VentureBeat, that President Trump will prevent all Muslims from seeking asylum in these United States. He maintains that Iranians have the talent and potential to become successful, productive, good citizens, and he joined mainstream media, sundry entertainers and city officials in expressing his unfounded fears of this new administration.

An asylum of sorts may indeed be needed by the rioters who appear to be in perpetual meltdown. 

VIDEO: Tracing the path of four terrorists sent to Europe by the Islamic State (video courtesy of the Washington Post).

They articulate their doubts even when President Trump clearly iterated that he is following through on his campaign promise of security for all citizens – Christian, Jewish, and Muslim alike.  In fact, based on reports by the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) for the previous administration, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia were identified by President Obama as the source of increasing terrorism.  This is clearly a terror-prone region, home to only 8% of Muslims worldwide.  Since January, 2009, we have had 32 terrorist attacks, with 83 fatalities and 402 injuries in the U.S., attributed by President Obama to these seven countries.

  • Iran: The US government classified the Islamic Republic of Iran as the “most active state sponsor of terrorism since 1948, both by direct attacks and by proxy through providing weapons, funds, training, and sanctuary to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and militias in Iraq.  The year 2012 showed a marked resurgence of state-sponsored terrorism not seen since the 1990s.
  • Syria: Classified the world’s worst state sponsor for terrorism since 1979, Syria also gives asylum for Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and arms Hezbollah forces in Lebanon with SCUD missiles.  Syria was responsible for movement of foreign Al Qaeda affiliates into Iraq.
  • IraqProvides safe haven, training, financial support to terrorist groups, and support to some Islamist Palestinian groups. Iraq played a role in the 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and provided financial support for  Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation front, Arab Liberation Front; and finances families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
  • Libya: Our State Department warns US citizens against all travel to Libya; our embassy in Tripoli is closed and extremist groups continue to plan terrorist attacks against US interests in Libya and the Middle East.  Violent activity against civilian commercial interests, US officials and citizens remains high.
  • Yemen: US government describes Yemen as an “important partner in the global war on terrorism.”  A Yemini Al Qaeda masterminded the USS Cole bombing (2000); Al Qaeda militants have threatened the Jewish community (2007) and attacked the US Embassy (2008); bomb devices have been found on aircraft (2010), deadly terrorist strikes are a continuous threat since 2001.
  • Sudan: Designated a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” in 1993, the Sudanese government continues to harbor international terrorist groups.  President Bill Clinton prohibited transactions with Sudan; US bombed Sudanese Al-Qaeda network; Sudan maintains direct relations with Iranian Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Popular Resistance Committee.  Sudan is key transit route of weapons to Gaza.
  • SomaliaRadical Islamist terrorist group al-Shabab targets to recruit Minneapolis Somali- American refugees to become jihadists, with the intent of imposing strict sharia law on Somalia and to attack the United States.

That we cannot vet all refugees for ties to terror has been confirmed by FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, former Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich), and Hillary Clinton.  With such verification, it is no surprise that President Trump, a man of his word, would issue a travel ban on those countries (only) so that the DHS may establish a comprehensive vetting process. He had promised to institute a policy designed to protect our sovereignty and citizens once he took office, and within days of his inauguration, he began to fulfill his promise by taking the steps needed to defend our values.

It would be irresponsible to continue to accept untold unidentified migrants, of which any number could bring with them the instability and hostility that permeates their homelands, endangers our women and children for the dishonest cause of multiculturalism that has befallen Sweden and Germany.  Unvetted immigration has turned Sweden into the Rape Capital of the West and Germany appears to be competing for the title.

But while some of our population has been provoked to deep anxiety about this brief and insignificant hiatus, we can’t help but wonder at the absence of outrage when Christians are raped and murdered by Muslims or when the entire Muslim world enacts a travel ban against travelers’ bearing passports with Israeli connections that has thus far lasted for seven decades.

Still, Mr. Ghahramani warned that America would experience a dearth of talented, industrious workers from the Middle East, exampling successful children of those refugees – Steve Jobs (Apple), Pierre Omidyar (eBay), Omid Kordestani (Google), Salar Kamangar (YouTube), Arash Ferdowsi (Dropbox), Kordestani and Ali Rowghani (Twitter), Bob Miner (Oracle), Shahram Dabiri (World of Warcraft), and Sean Rad (Tinder).  Yet the ban has nothing to do with a success potential.

Learning why people emigrate from the Middle East to the West will shed much-needed light on the subject because people do not migrate when life is good.  These families left an oppressive existence in a tyrannical Islamic regime, an all-encompassing social, political and legal system that breeds hate against Jews, Christians, and all non-Islamic civilization – and even among themselves.  Such theocratic governments confine their people into a narrow uniformity.  Medieval suspicion is instilled toward the modern world, stifling creativity in the arts and sciences. Five-times-daily rituals of prescribed prayer further drain the vitality of creative energy.

“The influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” “No stronger retrograde force (than Islam) exists in the world.” – Winston Churchill.

This enervating process is the daily background to the practice of FGM (female genital mutilation), honor killing of daughters, parents wrapping their children in explosives, and husbands stoning their wives to death.  The frustrated human spirit protests in hatred and savagery.  From the earliest age, they are taught and urged to stab, kill, rape, humiliate, stone, and drive vehicles into crowds of Jews and Christians, and homosexuality and apostasy are punishable by death.

The peoples of the current Islamic territories were once Zoroastrian, Christian, Pharoahan, Berber/Imazighen, Jewish, Baha’i, etc.,  until the Arabs swept out of the Arabian Peninsula in all directions, conquering and confining their victims to the life-denying cult known euphemistically as Islam.  It is they who now seek American freedoms, longing for the light, as does all life, and that is why we must remain vigilant.  But a significant percentage wants to enslave us under the same mortifying system that they had and to fulfill their ingrained obligation of hijra – conquest by numbers and the gradual imposition of sharia law in schools and workplaces across America.  Their national goal is Islamic world domination.

How devastating if our founding fathers had escaped their authoritarian monarchy to establish a freer government, only to find themselves in another repressive dictatorship.  How cruel and ironic if our ancestors had fled from Europe’s socialism, Marxism, and communism only to find themselves overcome by domination under the same doctrines.  Our society is not only a haven for the talented and creative, but it is also a seedbed that we have the duty to preserve.

Should we allow the new jihadists or enemy from within to turn this Constitutional Republic into an Islamic theocracy, a caliphate, with all the intolerable restrictions of Sharia law that the new Americans thought they left behind?

We must not fail our citizens through negligence or a misplaced sense of compassion and think that we should accept all who alight on our shores.   Egyptian-American author Nonie Darwish reminds us that some of the unhappy populations must stay behind and work to reform Islam and restore the Middle East.  Here, we must vet every entrant to ensure their embrace of our values and that they will become a productive member of our society – for those who will not, will continue to teach their children their own tenets of obsessive hate, and we have enough troubles already.

The purpose of the Islamic ideology is to rule the world – and to destroy Israel, a stubborn bastion of freedom.  Failure to perform jihad will lead to “spiritual death.”  The Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Society of North America, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Muslim Student Association, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and other affiliates are bound to insinuate into our society, and slowly implement Sharia changes into every facet of our lives.  We already have a Sharia-compliant Muslim population of 3.3 million in more than 300 American cities and towns.

Only extraordinary measures will save the West from the extraordinary threat to her survival.

RELATED VIDEO: Muslim Leaders Declare Aim Of World Domination. Rome, London, Spain, Paris, America, ISIS.

Mama Merkel: Boo-hoo! We tried to help them and they attack us

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a bad year ahead.  On December 19th, a failed asylum seeker killed a dozen people celebrating a Christmas tradition in Berlin. Here we learn that a Syrian refugee (who had been granted permission to stay in dear old Deutschland) has been arrested on terror charges, and she is up for election later this year. To top it off Donald Trump, rather than her soulmate Barack Obama, will be in the White House.

From Reuters:

barackobamaangelamerkel

President Obama German Chancellor Merkel

A Syrian migrant who arrived in Germany two years ago has been arrested on suspicion of seeking funds from Islamic State to drive truck bombs into a crowd, a German state prosecutor’s office said on Monday.

The arrest follows an attack two weeks ago when a Tunisian whose asylum request had been rejected rammed a truck into a Berlin Christmas market, killing 12 people. The man, Anis Amri, 24, was later shot dead by Italian police.

In the latest case, the prosecutor in the western city of Saarbruecken said the 38-year-old Syrian was detained on Saturday and a formal arrest warrant was issued on Sunday on suspicion that he was trying to raise 180,000 euros ($189,000) to fund an attack.

[….]

The Syrian is from the city of Raqqa, Islamic State’s main stronghold in the country. The prosecutor’s office in Saarbruecken, near the French border, had been alerted to his activities by the BKA federal crime office.

The Syrian came to Germany on Dec. 5, 2014, just before a wave of more than 1.1 million asylum-seekers arrived from the Middle East, Africa and Asia in 2015. He was given permission to stay in Germany on Jan. 12, 2015.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who made the now-controversial decision to open the country’s borders to refugees in September, 2015, described Islamist terrorism on New Year’s Eve as the greatest test facing Germany.

She has also said she is sickened by the prospect that refugees Germany has tried to help could mount attacks.

Continue reading here.

For all of our ‘Invasion of Europe’ posts, click here.  This archive extends back many years.

For fun, search photos of Angela Merkel and Barack Obama (steamy!).

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Lancaster, PA school district didn’t cave to ACLU, appealed refugee students case to higher court

Church World Service working hard to get Syrian Muslims placed in Lancaster, PA

9/11 Mastermind explains why they call it the ‘Religion of Peace’

US State Dept. announces ‘new’ program to admit Iraqis persecuted by ISIS

Refugee Resettlement was big news in 2016

Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe

The most recent horrific terror attack, this time in Nice, France on Bastille Day, is the latest of a string of attacks overseas as well as inside the United States.  It has shaken people around the world, causing them to question what their governments need to do to protect them.

Our leaders are forever reacting to the latest attack, placing us on an elevated defensive posture, whenever and wherever it may occur.  Often news reports are aired that show video clips of heavily armed police officers patrolling our airports and other venues in response to the latest attack no matter where the attack was carried out, to create the illusion of protecting us.

This perspective can most generously be called folly.  The terror threats we face do not go up and down like the stock market.  While it makes sense to marshal snow plow drivers and those that drive the trucks that spread salt on highways when a blizzard is forecast for the region, in preparation for the impending storm to quickly clear the roads, terrorism presents a constant threat.

The only questions are how, when, where, and how many will be killed or injured.  We are in this battle for the long haul and failure is not only not an option but would spell the catastrophic demise of our nation.

While some have simplistically said that our military alone, combating ISIS overseas can protect, the reality is that we must fight this war on two fronts- overseas and within our borders.  Domestically this battle must be waged by many elements of the law enforcement apparatus- including, especially, immigration law enforcement authorities.

This was my focus in my recent article, “Fighting The War On Terror Here, There and Everywhere.”

The 9/11 Commission was created to determine how terrorists were able to carry out deadly attacks in the United States to make certain that it would never happen again.  This is comparable to the way that the NTSB and the FAA investigate plane crashes to make the appropriate fixes.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” begins with this paragraph:

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

That report was a companion document to the The 9/11 Commission Report which also discussed how failures of border security and the lack of routine immigration law enforcement, including the identification of immigration fraud and visa fraud, enabled terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities throughout the United States.

However, at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Visa Waiver Program which should have been terminated on September 12, 2001, has been continually expanded.  On September 11, 2001 26 countries participated in this program.  Today their are 38 member countries even though, as I wrote in a recent article, GAO Revelations: Our Open Door For TerroristsThe deadly failures of the visa waiver program, more than one-third of these countries fail to provide us with vital information about terrorists.

It should be clear that our borders and our immigration laws are our first and last lines of defense against international terrorists entering our country- yet our borders have become little more than speed bumps to those who smuggle drugs and illegal aliens.

The massive quantity of heroin and other illegal and dangerous drugs that pour across our borders 24/7 show how porous our borders are.  Those drugs are not only smuggled across the U.S./Mexican border but across our northern border and along our 95,000 miles of coastline and through our international aiports located in states across our nation.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

Furthermore most of the terrorists who have thus far been identified, including the 9/11 hijackers, were admitted into the United States through ports of entry.  Some terrorists succeeded in being granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even, in several cases, United States citizenship before they carried out terror attacks.

Meanwhile the administration continues to admit thousands of refugees from Syria even though they cannot be screened, an issue made abundantly clear by sworn testimony of James Comey, the Director of the FBI and other high-ranking officials, as I noted in my article, “Syrian ‘Refugees’ and Immigration Roulette .”

Politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have insisted that since we cannot deport 11 million illegal aliens- the number they frequently cite, we should simply give them lawful status and somehow this would magically enable us to identify who they are.  They also claim that this would get these heretofore illegal aliens “out of the shadows.”

The only question this raises is are these proponents for such a massive legalization program ignorant or are they so driven to placate their super-wealthy campaign contributors that they are willing to lead our nation down the path to our own destruction?

Here is what you need to consider.  First of all, there are likely two or three times as many illegal aliens as they claim- this means at the very least 30 million illegal aliens would participate in any such massive program.

With numbers that humongous, there would be no way to conduct any face-to-face interviews let alone any field investigations to determine if they provided false information in their applications.  This would include their true identities- including even their actual countries of citizenship, providing terrorists with the opportunity to game this process to acquire lawful status under false identities that would enable them to embed themselves in the United States and travel freely around the United States and even overseas where they could threaten our safety and the safety of our allies.

There would be absolutely no way to determine when they actually arrived in the United States.  Therefore it would be meaningless for politicians to establish a cutoff date of entry for aliens applying for amnesty.  Illegal aliens would simply claim to have been present in the United States prior to that date and there would be no way for our adjudications officer to deny their claims.

Additionally, terrorists and wanted criminals who know that they could be identified by their bio-metrics would simply continue to hide in the “shadows.”  There would be no resources to track them down and arrest them.  The amnesty program would require all of the resources (money and personnel) allocated to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and other immigration-related components of the DHS be devoted to the amnesty program.

If we are to truly harness the immigration system for the best interest of America and Americans we need to have a much larger number of ICE agents to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

What is generally not known by most Americans is that while the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force are ICE agents.  Most international terrorists commit immigration law violations including visa fraud and/or immigration benefit fraud.

Yet we have precious few agents assigned to ICE- no more than 7,000 for our entire country.  More than half of those agents are assigned to pursuing customs investigations that have nothing to do with immigration.  To put this number into perspective, the Border Patrol has well over 20,000 agents, there are more than 20,000 CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at our 325 ports of entry and roughly 45,000 employees at TSA.  The NYPD has more than 35,000 police officers to protect the City of New York.  We need to have many more ICE agents.

For roughly half of my 30 year career with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), the agency that was sliced into several agencies when the DHS was created, I was assigned to the Drug Task Force and to DEA Intelligence.  I frequently assisted other law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA and many other federal as well as state and local police agencies in cultivating alien informants who were part of various ethnic immigrant communities who were eager to assist us.

As an INS agent, one of the biggest incentives I could offer to any illegal alien who was able to help us was to provide him/her with temporary employment authorization and, if the assistance was of particular importance and/or long term, we could provide such aliens with lawful immigrant status and even bring their family members to the United States.

In many instances, these informants were central to our ability to perfect criminal cases against major drug trafficking organizations and other such entities.  Such techniques could also be used to great advantage to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding Middle Eastern communities involving aliens who may be involved in supporting and plotting terror attacks.

Illegal aliens who have no criminal histories should never be ignored. Most terrorists, like most spies, understand that to embed themselves they must keep an extrmely low profile to not call attention to themselves.  Consider what the 9/11 Commission Staff Report noted:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

On November 20, 2013 ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.  This is not a new problem, on July 13, 2011 the Washington Times published a truly disturbing article, Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

Consider that on September 2, 2014 ABC News reported, “Lost in America: Visa Program Struggles to “Track Missing Foreign Students.”

Here is how this report began:

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”

Homeland Security officials disclosed the breadth of the student visa problem in response to ABC News questions submitted as part of an investigation into persistent complaints about the nation’s entry program for students.

ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern.

“They just disappear,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “They get the visas and they disappear.”

Coburn said since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, 26 student visa holders have been arrested in the U.S. on terror-related charges.

The failures of the administration to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States hobbles our efforts to protect America and Americans.

Indeed, page 54 of The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

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

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

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

The threats America and Americans face are real.  Our government and our leaders must finally take the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 commission seriously.  Our very survival hangs in the balance.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Does The Unthinkable

‘Bribery and Kickback Schemes’ Plague Syrian Relief Program Funded With Tax Dollars

Number of Islamist Terror Plots Against the US Rises to 89: Proactive Approach to Terrorism Needed

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Front Page Magazine.

GOP Puts a Lid on Bathroom Crisis

The Family Research Council in an email writes:

Conservatives have wanted to eliminate the Department of Education for decades. And Thursday, President Obama gave them the best reason yet. The agency’s outrageous order that public schools ignore the basic biology of their students in the use of bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers may have finally awakened a sleeping giant.

Parents, governors, House and Senate leaders, religious groups, and superintendents are incensed that the White House would threaten to pull funding for children’s education over something as ridiculous and unpopular as gender-free restrooms.

Within hours of firing off this letter to every public school, college, and university in America, the blowback was fast and fierce. Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R) and Governor Greg Abbott (R) called on states to resist, insisting that the Lone Star State would give up all of its federal funding before letting the administration bully them on an ideology that the American College of Pediatricians calls “child abuse.” Together with Abbott, Patrick called on schools to ignore the DOE and Justice Department’s guidance. “This will be the end of public education, if this prevails,” he warned. ‘People will pull their kids out, homeschooling will explode, and private schools will increase.”

In local schools, administrators like Rodney Cavness didn’t need convincing. “I got news for President Barack Obama,”the Port-Neches-Groves superintendent told a local news outlet: “That letter is going straight to the paper shredder. I have five daughters myself, and I have 2,500 girls in my protection. Their moms and dads expect me to protect them. And that is what I am going to do. Now I don’t want them bullied… but there are accommodations that can be made short of this. He is destroying the very fiber of this country. He is not a leader. He is a failure.”

Fresh off of his bid for the GOP presidential nomination, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had strong words for the man occupying the office he sought.

“Having spent many years in law enforcement, I’ve handled far too many cases of child molesters, of pedophiles, of people who abused little kids. The threats of predators are serious, and we should not facilitate allowing grown men or boys to be in bathrooms with little girls… I encourage every school superintendent, school board, and parent across this nation to disregard this barely veiled threat from the White House aimed at overturning the utterly reasonable practice of preventing men and boys from entering girls’ restrooms and changing rooms. As a father of young girls, I wouldn’t want my daughters being forced to change in the same room as men and boys. It’s that simple. And parents across this country shouldn’t have to tolerate it either.”

His Texas and Tennessee colleagues, John Cornyn (R) and Lamar Alexander (R), agreed, insisting that the president’s job “is not to intervene in state and local affairs under our constitutional scheme.” “Frankly,” Cornyn went on, “I think his involvement is unwelcome.” From Arkansas to Ground Zero in North Carolina, leaders were irate over the White House’s power grab.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What goes on at a school “gay straight alliance” club event? Here’s the horrific truth.

5 Times ‘Transgender’ Men Abused Women And Children In Bathrooms

Local School Board Members Rejecting Obama’s Transgender Agenda

3 Ways Conservative Lawmakers Could Respond to Obama’s Bathroom Directive

North Carolina Lawmaker Blames Media, Activist Groups for Bathroom Bill ‘Falsehoods’

Mississippi Lawmakers Demand State Education Department Oppose Obama’s Transgender Guidelines

Target, Transgenderism, and Transformation

VIDEO: Iranian-Backed Harakat al-Sabireen Terror Group in West Bank and Gaza

 reports:

A new Iranian-backed terror group is making inroads in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, where it operates underground with the potential capacity to deliver devastating attacks to Israel, according to regional experts who have been investigating the organization’s rise.

The group, which goes by the name Harakat al-Sabireen, was established around May 2014 but has begun in recent months to boost its public profile on social media and brag about its plots to wage jihad against Israel, according to information gathered by regional analysts and provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

Al-Sabireen is believed to receive $10 million a year from Iran via funds that are smuggled through a large network of tunnels built by terrorists to facilitate illicit travel beneath the Gaza Strip, according to estimates disseminated in the Arab language press.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What terror will Iran fund with $100 billion?

U.S. releases convicted felons for hostages held by Iran

Murdered by a terrorist in her own home: remembering Dafna Meir

Poll: 61% Believe NRA’s Firearms Policies Make America Safer

In this News Minute video from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that a Rasmussen poll released this week found that 61 percent of Americans agree that the NRA’s position on gun rights protect them.

RELATED VIDEO: President Obama’s last act against America will be a massive push to strip away Second Amendment rights. Video by Bill Finley:

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

“We Will Conquer Your Rome”: A Study of Islamic State Terror Plots in the West

The Islamic State (IS) presently controls significant amounts of land throughout Iraq and Syria. However, its ambitions are not restricted to this territory. Within days of announcing its ‘Caliphate’, the self-appointed ‘Caliph’ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi vowed that IS would eventually “conquer Rome”.

IS precursor groups and the individuals which have trained alongside them have displayed an interest in attacking the West for years.

However, an audio message released on 21 September 2014, saw Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, an IS spokesman, attempt to ratchet up the threat. He instructed IS supporters to carry out attacks in the West – no matter how crude…

To read the full study by Robin Simcox, Research Fellow and the report author, click here

Israeli Minister: “Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism”

Recent reports out of Israel show that that Israeli civilians aren’t taking a recent spate of terrorist violence lying down, they are arming themselves to fight back. Further, the Israeli government is cooperating by taking measures to ensure that more citizens will have access to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their communities.

In recent weeks, Israel has experienced a wave of attacks, primarily stabbings, carried out by individual Palestinians against Israeli civilians. According to the Washington Post, as of Wednesday, eight Israelis had been killed and dozens injured in this latest round of violence.

The Israeli government has taken drastic measures to combat the attacks, calling up reservists and deploying troops in cities. However, with the unpredictable nature of the violence, civilians are turning to private gun ownership for safety.

In describing the clamor for arms, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported “[c]ars are double- and even triple-parked outside a gun shop in Israel’s coastal city of Tel Aviv. Inside, customers jostle each other as they wait to be served.” The report goes on to quote store owner Iftash Ben-Yehuda, who said, “[t]he last time the shop was so busy was probably in the 1970s. I’ve never before seen such stress or panic.” The article also notes that applications for firearms licenses have risen “by tens of percent” in only 10 days.

Some seeking arms recognize that the effects of carrying go well beyond their own personal safety. Jerusalem resident Netanel Oberman told Bloomberg News, “I want a gun not so much because I’m worried for my own safety, but because I’ll be better prepared to protect other people from attack.”

Israel Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan seems to agree with this assessment. In a statement Wednesday, Erdan noted, “[i]n recent weeks, many citizens have helped the Israel Police subdue terrorists. Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism. Therefore, I have worked to ease conditions for obtaining firearms.”

Further, on Wednesday, the Ministry of Public Security issued relaxed guidelines on who is eligible for a firearm license. The move makes it easier for those on active or reserve military duty to acquire a license, as well as civilians who have completed a requisite security guard course.

Israel typically has very stringent firearm licensing requirements that have gotten progressively stricter over the course of the last two decades. However, just last year, government officials were forced to ease restrictions on carrying firearms following a brutal terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of four Orthodox Jewish men in a West Jerusalem Temple.

Unfortunately, as the Bloomberg News article makes clear, some law-abiding civilians are unable to get a firearms license even with the relaxed rules. Segev Gorbitz of Jerusalem told the outlet, “[i]t’s not right… I want a gun to defend myself and my family, and if you’re an Israeli like me who served in the army and have no criminal record, you should be able to get one.”

Remarkably, even given the present dire situation, Israel’s anti-gun activists are still out in force. The AFP article quoted a leader of an Israeli anti-gun coalition called Gun Free Kitchen Tables, who told the outlet, “[i]n the long run it is obvious that more weapons creates more danger, not more security but the opposite… Encouraging civilians to use firearms on the street could lead to very unfortunate results.” Similarly, according to Bloomberg, Galia Wallach of NA’AMAT, which holds anti-gun positions, protested her countrymen’s increased access to the tools of self-defense, telling a radio program, “I’m very concerned that easing licenses for guns might escalate violence.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Thirty Israeli students attacked during visit to Joseph’s tomb

Democratic Debate “Race to the Bottom” on anti-gun posturing

Hillary Clinton Calls us her Enemies, While Dan Gross Calls us Terrorists!

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

More Muslim terror cases in U.S. in 2015 than in any year since 9/11/2001

Clearly the jihadis are more emboldened than ever. Clearly the Islamic State’s declaration of the caliphate has been an impetus for renewed jihad terror activity in the West. That there has been and can be no honest public discussion of why this is happening only ensures that it will continue, and grow more virulent.

Terror-Threat-Snapshot-Infographic-IP_0

AlShabab_MOA_screengrab

“There Have Been More Jihadist Terror Cases in U.S. in 2015 Than in Any Year Since 9/11,” by Michael W. Chapman, CNS News, September 4, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

(CNSNews.com) – The “Terror Threat Snapshot” for August 2015, released by the majority staff of the House Homeland Security Committee, states the terror threat level in America is high and “getting steadily worse,” and that there have been “more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11.”

The “Terror Threat Snapshot” also reported that the Islamic State “is fueling the Islamist terror” globally; that Islamist terrorists “are intent on killing law enforcement” officers and U.S. troops, as well as civilians; and that 25,000 fighters from 100 countries have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join the Islamic State.

In addition, more than 250 Americans have traveled, or attempted to travel, to Syria to fight with the Islamists.

“The terror threat level in the U.S. homeland is high, and the situation is getting steadily worse,” said the report. “There have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11.”

In 2015 so far, there have been 30 U.S.-based jihadist cases, the committee informed CNSNews.com. In 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, there were only two U.S.-based jihadist cases uncovered that year, the committee said.

One of those cases involved Jose Padilla, also known as Abudullah al-Muhajir, a U.S. citizen convicted on multiple counts of criminal conspiracy related to jihadist terrorism; the second case was the Portland Seven, a group of American Muslims who were attempting to join Al Qaeda but were thwarted by the FBI.

For the August 2015 “Terror Threat Snapshot,” the majority staff of the Homeland Security Committee reported that, “In July alone, a terrorist murdered U.S. service members in Chattanooga, and authorities arrested extremists seeking to live-stream a terrorist attack on a college campus and planning to kill U.S. vacationers on the beaches of Florida.”

“The number of U.S. terrorist cases involving homegrown violent jihadists has gone from 38 in July 2010 to 122 today—a three-fold increase in just five years,” reads the Snapshot….

The Snapshot further reported that since early 2014, “there have been 55 planned or executed ISIS-linked terror plots against Western targets, including 14 inside in the United States.”

In addition, “[t]here have been nearly twice as many ISIS-linked plots against Western targets in the first seven months of this year (35) than in all of 2014,” reported the committee.

The “Terror Threat Snapshot” can be read in its entirety here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

An Interactive Timeline of 73 Islamist Terror Plots Since 9/11

Muslims Team Up With Black Lives Matter

Egypt: “You’re a Christian? Then I will kill you!”

Christians in Syrian town where priest was kidnapped now paying jizya

If Gun Control Works in Europe, Where Do Terrorists Get their Weapons?

Obama Defends Iran Deal by Attacking Opponents

Instead of the issues, there is a shrill war of words against good faith opponents.

In a recent speech at American University, President Obama attempted to sell his Iran nuclear agreement to a skeptical American public, which according to all reliable polls opposes the deal overwhelmingly.  By making his pitch in a speech instead of a press conference, he avoided having to answer questions, clarify past inconsistent statements, and discuss the distortions that have been used to justify the deal.  Rather than allay concerns that are causing worry even among Congressional Democrats, he instead heaped scorn on Republicans, attacked his critics, derided Binyamin Netanyahu, and minimized the threat to Israel.  His speech was as self-congratulatory as it was detached from geopolitical reality.

And for once, liberal Jewish organizations disagreed with him publicly.

Mr. Obama attempted to woo Jewish groups into supporting the deal before his speech, but instead met with stiff resistance.  Although known more for lobbying than open confrontation, AIPAC strongly opposed the deal and urged Congress to reject it.  The Anti-Defamation League likewise objected, announcing in a public statement that:  “We are deeply disappointed by the terms of the final deal with Iran … which seem to fall far short of the President’s objective of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.”  Underlying these statements is the realization that the deal will facilitate Iran’s nuclear program and encourage a regional arms race.

The concerns of the liberal Jewish establishment were perhaps best summed up in an August 5th op-ed by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, which stated among many other things the following:

By abandoning the earlier negotiating posture of dismantling sanctions in exchange for Iranian dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure, and instead replacing it with what is essentially a temporary freeze on its program, the P5+1 has indeed validated Iran’s future status as a nuclear threshold state, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a media interview.

Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology, AJC cannot accept this prospect. It is too ominous, too precedent-setting, and too likely to trigger a response from Iran’s understandably anxious neighbors who may seek nuclear-weapons capacity themselves, as well as, more immediately and still more certainly, advanced conventional arms, adding an entirely new level of menace to the most volatile and arms-laden region in the world. Surely, this cannot be in America’s long-term security interests.

After fully articulating his organization’s fears and concerns in the piece, Harris wrote that “AJC opposes the deal and calls on Members of Congress to do the same.”

Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Though the ADL and AJC were deferential in acknowledging the efforts of President Obama, John Kerry and their European partners in negotiating with Iran, they nevertheless concluded that the deal is bad for the United States and Israel.  This view echoes a growing concern that it accomplishes none of the goals used to justify negotiations in the first place, and the nagging realization that Iran will fulfill its nuclear ambitions even if it does comply.

Based on its history, Iran is unlikely to comply in the absence of effective monitoring procedures; and without truly verifiable compliance, it will likely continue enriching uranium clandestinely and may well have enough reserves to produce weapons before the deal expires.  Some intelligence experts believe that Iran already possesses a sufficient stockpile.

It is significant that Jewish criticism of the deal is not coming solely from conservative groups like the Zionist Organization of (ZOA), Americans for a Safe Israel and the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Liberal establishment organizations finally seem to grasp that Obama’s Mideast policies have promoted the growth of Islamic extremism and have threatened Israel’s safety and security.  They also understand that the deal will lead to nuclear proliferation in the region.  Accordingly, American Jews who had always supported the President and downplayed his hostility for Israel are now calling on Congress to reject the deal.

Senator Chuck Schumer, whom many predicted would support the deal to preserve his chance of being named the next Democratic Senate leader, announced that he would vote against it.  Though early reports predicted that Schumer would vote for the deal, he may have been swayed by the thousands of letters sent by alarmed constituents urging him to vote no.  As a consequence, he is being pilloried by the political left and the White House and has been the target of anti-Semitic slurs.

The President’s allies are responding to criticism by attacking those who oppose the deal, casting aspersions on their motivations, invoking classical anti-Semitic canards of undue Jewish influence and dual loyalty, characterizing Jewish dissent as unpatriotic, and accusing Israel of orchestrating the opposition.

Liberal criticism of the deal is usually couched in expressions of thanks to Obama and Kerry for their efforts – despite their clear animus for Netanyahu and mocking dismissal of Israel’s existential concerns.  Still, it cannot be disputed that many liberals now recognize that Obama’s stated goal of preventing Iran from going nuclear is inconsistent with the final agreement, which legitimizes and enables its nuclear program.  Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Many Americans are concerned that the deal does not require Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure, submit to “anytime, anywhere” inspections, fully disclose all of its nuclear activities or cease subsidizing terrorism – former red-lines that American negotiators ultimately conceded.  They are also bothered that Obama agreed to lift ballistic and conventional weapons bans – against the advice of military advisers – and that Iran can beat monitoring efforts by evasion, misdirection or simply failing to disclose its covert nuclear facilities.  This is especially problematic in light of the existence of secret side agreements (which neither Kerry nor Obama disclosed to Congress) affecting the ability to monitor compliance by, among other things, allowing Iran to provide its own soil samples to inspectors.

A growing number of Jewish Democrats are also troubled that the deal places trust in an Islamist regime that remains unrepentantly anti-American and antisemitic, brazenly states that it will not honor agreements with infidel nations, and repeatedly threatens to destroy Israel and exterminate her people.  Contrary to the naïve claims of its supporters, the deal will only destabilize an already volatile region, provide Iran with funds to continue financing terrorism and regional unrest, and motivate the Sunni states to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.

Rather than assuage any of these concerns, Obama used his speech to belittle and disparage all who question the deal and to compare his Republican critics in Congress to Iranian hardliners.  Though he’s elevated combative, divisive politics to a high art since his first days in office, this comment troubled many Democrats for its insulting tone and moral vacuity.

The ease with which Obama compares good faith opponents to fanatical religious extremists is all the more disturbing in light of his seemingly compulsive aversion to offending Islamist sensibilities and his failure to condemn the pernicious doctrines used to justify terrorism.

The President’s war of words will probably grow shriller as the Congressional vote in September draws closer, especially if more Democrats reject the deal in advance.  He will continue to attack those who disagree with him, malign Netanyahu for speaking truth to power, and bully Israel by threatening her with isolation.  He will not be moved even if most liberal Jews end up opposing the deal.  They have acted as his apologists for more than six years; and if they no longer support him, he may simply lump them together with those assertive Jews who have always been critical of his policies and question their loyalty.

On the surface, President Obama remains unmoved by the domestic and international consequences of his ill-conceived foreign policy.  But if, as many believe, his real intent is to reduce American global influence, legitimize Islamist regimes, and treat Iran as the dominant power in the Mideast, he may be following a knowing strategy that accepts, and perhaps welcomes, the regional and global risks.

Mr. Obama’s agreement with Iran has been compared to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.  The comparison may be inapt, however, because Chamberlain hoped that ceding territory would satisfy Hitler and prevent war.  The deal with Iran, in contrast, will give the mullahs a nuclear muscle that they have repeatedly vowed to flex.  Whereas Hitler lied in Munich about the prospect of peace in exchange for land, Iran has affirmatively promised terrorism, war and genocide when it gets what it wants.

Though Congress may not be able to trust the President’s hollow assurances, history suggests that it can certainly take the Iranians at their word.

Are Israeli Standards Too High?

This week the UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon mooted the idea of bombing Islamic State (IS) targets inside Syria as well as Iraq. The suggestion came after the massacre of 30 British tourists on a beach in Tunisia. The British government is said to be waiting for final confirmation that there was a link between the terrorist in Tunisia and IS. Should that be proved, they appear willing to take action.

But modern warfare is increasingly a matter not just of those who take part but of the widest possible constituency. Military experts often talk of the worrying ‘long screwdriver’ approach to military force today, where a General, a minister or sometimes even a Prime Minister is required to approve and sign off every conceivable target. Anyone who can stand back from the detail can consider how much operational effectiveness suffers from this kind of passing of the buck upwards.

It also means that any mistakes are able to go right to the top of government. This – and many related subjects – were centres of the discussion which HJS initiated in Westminster several times this week. In separate events with journalists, Parliamentarians and the British public this week we played host to two of America’s top military experts. Major General Michael Jones and Professor Geoffrey Corn recently took part in a survey of Israeli responses during last year’s Gaza war. The in-depth study brought out many fascinating and important details about a widely misunderstood conflict.

But among the most important aspects of their presentation was confirmation of what we have often said in this place – that the high standard which the Israeli military and the air force in particular exercise has begun to concern Israel’s allies.

As the General and Professor showed, it seems highly unlikely that Britain, the USA or any other ally is going to take the time to text people to warn them of a strike nearby, or send leaflets to warn of a strike in advance or to use a non-lethal munition on the roof of a house as a final warning to exit the building. All of these Israeli tactics significantly minimize civilian suffering during conflict. But they also considerably, necessarily hamper operational effectiveness. Will any other country, in any other conflict, take this sort of care? It seems unlikely.

As Britain considers airstrikes inside Syria, we will have an advantage that the Israelis do not enjoy. Whenever Israel carries out an operation in the Gaza, the entirety of the world’s media not only focuses on the action but focuses on it from inside the war-zone, often deliberately or accidentally working as the propaganda tools of the Hamas government. Because of the way in which IS operates it is highly unlikely that any remotely impartial outside force will be present to observe where the British missiles hit or what collateral damage they cause. Decent people may rue this fact or they may quietly be thankful for it. But it is a curious fact that the one thing none of them will be able to publicly admit is that their aim will be to behave as well as the Israelis.


 

mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

You wouldn’t know it given the glorious sunshine that most of the continent is basking in, but Europe faces an epic crisis this weekend in the form of the Greek referendum on economic reform. With the polls too close to call, it is anyone’s guess which way the Greek people will choose to jump. Their choice has not been made any easier by the way this crucial debate has fallen foul of both local and pan-EU politics.

Firstly to the Greeks themselves. For all the well-documented disasters of their economy and taxation system, there would have been a perfectly obvious way for the Greeks to have had both a lifting of the extremities of austerity as well as an EU bailout. Fellow Euro members are desperate to keep Greece inside the Euro for political purposes – the Euro being a political rather than economic construct as on the latter terms several members would have now been ejected. Greece, in its turn, has made huge strides in achieving a primary surplus on its balance of payments. It should not have been beyond the wit of wisdom of man to have come up with a face saving proposal that would allow for some symbolic measures to please the Greek electorate while also continuing the work of paring back the deficit.

But while the Eurocrats seemed keen to tango, Alexis Tsipras of Greece’s extreme left-wing Syriza government did not. Tsipras not only made a mockery of the negotiation process with his hasty referendum gambit, but also doomed the possibility of that compromise emerging by taking the decision out of the arena in which it could have been constructed.

Moreover, the indecipherable way in which the referendum question has been structured and the controversial way ‘No’ has been placed above ‘Yes’ in the ballot has been designed to lead the Greeks into a cul de sac from which there is no escape. For Tsipras’ claim that Greece can reject what is now on offer and still stay in the Euro is an extraordinary one to make. And should it prove that voting ‘No’ leads to Greece’s exit, then all of the attendant economic misfortunes that will follow – and which will make Greece’s current crisis seem tame in comparison – will be on his head.

Of course, Eurozone countries deserve their share of the blame too. If Greece was an irresponsible borrower originally, then they were irresponsible lenders. The high-handed way Eurocrats conduct negotiations seems calculated to enrage rather than calm spirits. And the recriminations that have followed the referendum announcement may well lead to a nationalist backlash from Greeks should the worst happen and Greece leave the Euro in disgrace. Let us not forget that the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is a major force already in Greek politics.

Of course, sanity may yet prevail and the Greeks could vote ‘Yes’. It won’t be the best deal Greece could have got, but through the actions of their Prime Minister, it is the only sensible one they are left with. If so, then the resignation he has promised as a consequence of such a vote would be a fitting political epitaph for someone who has gambled so recklessly with his country’s future.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza