Posts

Epic Excuse-Making Follows Near-Fatal Police Shooting By Criminal Alien

When Napa County Sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki initiated a routine traffic stop earlier this month, she probably did not consider that the refusal of California officials to comply with federal immigration authorities had put her in the direct path of a habitual illegal alien criminal with drug and mental health issues.

But that is what happened on Feb. 17 when Jarecki pulled over Javier Hernandez-Morales, who’d been deported three times since 2011 and had arrests for a range of crimes from multiple counts of driving under the influence, battery on a peace officer, illegal possession of a firearm and violating his probation. And there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest, according to Fox News.

After she approached his car window, the Mexican national fired a gun at Jarecki, who shot back, including at least one fatal gunshot.

“It’s unfortunate that our law enforcement partners and the community are subjected to dangerous consequences because of inflexible state laws that protect criminal aliens,” said ICE spokesman Richard Rocha in a statement.

The incident, Rocha said, could have been prevented had ICE been kept in the loop about Hernandez-Morales’ releases from jail. “This is an impactful, scary example of how public safety is affected by laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies’ ability to cooperate with ICE,” he said.

When Hernandez immigration status became known, local officials shifted blame and denied wrongdoing by insisting they were following state law.

“We are in compliance with state law. That is the law of the state of California, and the county intends to comply with state law,” Napa County Supervisor Vallea Ramos told a local CBS News affiliate.

The law in question is SB54, a measure signed in 2017 by former Gov. Jerry Brown and that affords protection to all illegal aliens.

The problem for California politicians and local law enforcement who want to absolve themselves of responsibility is that, according to the Los Angeles Times, three detainers for Hernandez-Morales were issued by ICE to Napa County Jail in 2014, 2015 and 2016; and a further detainer to Sonoma County Jail in 2016.

None were honored and all were issued prior to SB54 going into effect.

The controversial law received warranted criticism in December after Newman (Calif.) Police Cpl. Ronil Singh was killed by an illegal alien who had several drunk driving arrests. Like Hernandez, Singh’s murderer should have been deported years ago.

Perhaps the most outrageous displays of blame-shifting is the op-ed penned by Jodi Hernandez, a relative of Jarecki’s attacker.

Published in the Napa Valley Register, the stunning letter implies that Hernandez was merely a victim of an uncaring system that denied him access to mental health care and did not recognize his humanity.

After apologizing to Deputy Jarecki for being forced into a situation where she had to shoot the suspect, Jodi Hernandez launched an assault of her own against enforcing immigration law.

After noting Javier had worked in the vineyards doing work that “kept the engine that is Napa Valley going,” she asserted that America was “rotting from the inside out.”

She went on. Americans, she wrote, “have lost our ability to relate to the rest of humanity from our place of relative affluence in comparison to the rest of the world” and then she argued the nation “cannot ignore the pain and anguish of an individual and expect to have a safe, strong country.”

Javier Hernandez-Morales was a Mexican national. He was in the U.S. illegally. And he was a habitual criminal with an active arrest warrant. The primary responsibility of officials in California is not to tend to his mental health needs of foreign nationals, but the safety and security of their residents and U.S. citizens.

The thinking of open border policymakers and individuals like Jodi Hernandez is not only foolish, but deadly.

COLUMN BY

avatar

JENNIFER G. HICKEY

Jennifer joined FAIR as Web Content Writer in 2017 and brings to the role extensive communications and media background. She began her career as a policy research analyst on multiple national and state political campaigns before entering journalism. In addition to spending over a decade writing for several broadcast and print news outlets, Jennifer directed communications strategy for a member of Congress and a military nonprofit.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Pros And Cons Of TPS For Venezuelans

Congress Fails To Act On “Child Recycling”

Sex and the Temporary Visa Worker

New York Plans Dedicated “Hand-Holders” for Illegal Aliens Seeking Tuition Subsidies

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: An Illegal Alien Kills a Legal Immigrant named Cpl. Ronil Singh

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson blamed California for being a sanctuary state as is the reason for Cpl. Ronil Singh’s death.  He understands that border security is in fact national security.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cop’s Shooting Death May Upend Debate Surrounding Government Shutdown 

Stanislaus Co. Sheriff Says CA’s ‘Sanctuary State’ Policy To Blame For Cpl. Singh’s Death 

The Shutdown Is The Result Of A Failure Of Leadership, Strategy, And Will 

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Cpl. Ronil Singh is from Facebook.

DHS whistleblower Philhip Haney awarded AFA ‘Heroes of Courage Award’

Phil Haney at AFA Heroes of Conscience 5-21-17.png

Phil Haney, DHS whistleblower at AFA Awards Dinner, Universal City, California, May 21, 2017

“Amigo,” Phil Haney, DHS Whistleblower extraordinaire was honored by the American Freedom Alliance, Heroes of Conscience Award last night in Universal City, California. Chaver, Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker. David Horowitz,  former  leftist,  long time conservative activist and publisher of FrontPage Magazine also received a Heroes of Conscience Award.

Haney called me last Friday, while on the road to California with stops in Dallas and Phoenix, the latter to lunch with my former colleague Lisa Benson and entourage.

We were trying to make arrangements to send both Haney and Wilders copies of an important and timely new book  published this week by the New English Review Press written by former Muslim and Islamic scholar, Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism- the importance of Beliefs, Ideas and Ideology. In view of President Trump’s  Riyadh speech we also are sending one to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the  President.

Through the auspices of a mutual  long term Connecticut friend, Jeffrey Epstein, a noted counter-Jihad warrior, we were introduced to Haney.  We reviewed his book, See Something; Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, for the New English Review and interviewed him on the former Lisa Benson Show.

The News Blaster wrote about the stellar occasion in an article published today, “DHS whistleblower honored with freedom award:”

As a Department of Homeland Security specialist on Islam and terrorism, Philip Haney understood his job was to follow the evidence where it led.

When it led to subversive organizations under the protection of a beholden, politically correct Obama administration, he didn’t back down, valuing the security of the United States above his career and personal well-being. His agency’s response was to punish him nine times, eliminate intelligence and shut down cases, including one that might have prevented the San Bernardino attack.

In sharp contrast, the American Freedom Alliance awarded Haney its American Freedom Award at its annual Heroes of Conscience Dinner here Sunday night.

Longtime conservative activist David Horowitz was awarded AFA’s Hero of Conscience Award, followed by a keynote speech by Dutch politician and Islam critic Geert Wilders, whose party finished second in the country’s most recent elections.

Before presenting the award to Haney, AFA Vice President Michael Greer said: “We’d all like to think that we’d do the right thing, but when faced with dire consequences for doing so, I wonder how many would have the courage. And it’s my honor to share a stage with such a man.”

Note what Haney said upon receiving his AFA Hero of Conscience Award:

None of the cases that I discuss in the book have been resolved to this very day,” he said to the more than 270 AFA supporters in attendance.

“But it is my intention to remedy that. Those of you who believe in prayer, do pray for us, for me and my wife, because we do intend to see this through to the end.”

Haney said it’s important to remember not only what America is fighting against, but what it’s fighting for: the U.S. Constitution.

“I would like to call for a constitutional revival, so that we really know the values that we live by, those freedoms and liberties that our Creator endowed us with,” he said.

Geert Wilders at AFA Heores of Conscience Awards dinner 5-22-17.png

Geert Wilders keynote speaker  at AFA Heroes of Conscience Awards Dinner, May 21, 2017

Wilders noted this about Haney:

“The political correctness of the left in our countries is costing lives,” he said. “If anybody deserves to get this award it it Mr. Haney.”

Wilders made the following points in his address at the AFA awards ceremony pointing out the extraordinary security:

He said the extra security is “unfortunately necessary.”

“They are our last line of defense against the consequences of Islam,” Wilders said.

“Yes, it is Islam that is causing this extraordinary situation where ordinary citizens like you and me need police protection to safely enjoy a fundamental right, which the American Founding Fathers have bestowed on us in the First Amendment. The right to free speech.”

The U.S. Constitution, he said, establishes “the right to discuss every issue in freedom, including Islam.”

Wilders cited a Ronald Reagan quote: “I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.”

The Dutch politician said that “28 years after [Reagan] left office, here in this room, his question looms larger than ever.”

“And the reason is the stronghold which Islam has gained, not only in Europe, but also here in America during the past three decades,” Wilders continued.

“Yes, my friends, listen carefully. I’m talking about Islam. Not about ‘radical Islam. Not about ‘Islamism.’”

He said it “might be uncomfortable to the left, or the politically correct elite, but it is Islam, pure and simple.”

“For the truth is that Islam is not a peace-loving religion. It’s an evil, totalitarian ideology,” Wilders declared.

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

California’s Statewide $15 Minimum Wage Will Horribly Backfire for Poorer Cities by Mark J. Perry

I wrote earlier this month about one of the potentially fatal flaws of California’s recently enacted $15 an hour statewide minimum wage: a one-size-fits-all uniform $15 minimum wage for the entire state of California is really a “one-size-fits-none” minimum wage, given the huge variations in the cost of living around the country’s most populous state.

While a high-wage, high cost-of-living city like San Francisco might be able to absorb a $15 minimum wage without experiencing significant negative employment effects, that same $15 wage could inflict serious economic damages and result in job losses for many of the state’s 500 cities that are in low-wage, low cost-of-living areas.

To help understand how the “one-size-fits-all” approach of a $15 an hour state minimum wage will have a disproportionately adverse impact on low-cost communities in California, the table below displays the “living hourly wages” for California’s 26 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), based on data from MIT’s Living Wage Calculator for the year 2014 (most recent year available).

According to the MIT website, the cost-of-living adjusted living wages are the “hourly rates that individuals must earn [in a given MSA] to support their family [and cover basic family expenses], if they are the sole provider and are working full-time (2,080 hours per year).” Living wages for adult workers with 1 to 3 children are also displayed in the table.

The living wage data shown above reveal huge differences in the cost-of-living between low-cost California MSAs like Yuba City, El Centro, Chico, and Merced (living wages are below $10 an hour) and high-cost cities like San Francisco and San Jose, where the cost-of-living adjusted living wage is 38% higher.

If $15 an hour is an appropriate minimum wage for San Francisco, it should be less than $11 an hour in MSAs like Yuba City and El Centro, where the cost-of-living is significantly lower. It’s also important to note that all four of those low-cost MSAs had jobless rates above the state average in February, and three of them (all except Chico) had double-digit unemployment rates in February, with El Centro having the distinction of once again being the MSA with the highest jobless rate in the entire country at 18.6%.

Therefore, many MSAs in California (like Yuba City, El Centro, Chico and Merced) not only have costs-of-living way below the state average, but they also have jobless rates that are way above the state average, and it’s those MSAs that will be adversely impacted by the imposition of a uniform state minimum wage of $15 an hour.

Bottom Line: As I concluded before, even supporters of a $15 an hour minimum wage in California would have to concede that a one-size-fits-all, uniform $15 an hour state minimum wage, without any adjustments for the significant differences in the cost-of-living across the Golden State, will disproportionately affect unskilled and limited-experience workers in low-cost MSAs like Yuba City and El Centro, and also in hundreds of other low-cost, low-wage cities (that are not part of an MSA) throughout the state.

In other words, a one-size-fits-all minimum wage for all 500 cities in California is really a “one-size-fits-none” minimum wage, and will inflict very serious and long-lasting economic damage in most parts of the state outside of the large metro areas on the coast (LA, San Francisco, and San Diego).

The clumsy, top-down, ham-handed approach of government imposed wage controls like a $15 an hour statewide minimum wage in California, without allowing for any adjustments to accommodate the significant differences in cost-of-living and labor market conditions, is one of the main reasons the Golden State’s risky experiment with a $15 wage will likely backfire and be “not-so-golden” in practice.

In contrast, one of the significant advantages of market-determined wages is that they can naturally and automatically adjust to the market conditions of local areas. For example, we might expect that the starting wages for national chains like McDonald’s (1,165 stores in California) and Starbucks (2,000 locations) would vary around the state of California based on local labor market conditions and the local cost-of-living, and would be higher in San Francisco than in cities like El Centro.

But a government mandated price control like the $15 an hour uniform minimum wage in California that outlaws adjustments to fit the customized needs of the 500 individual city-level labor markets in the state is a public policy destined to fail — especially in the state’s low-wage, low cost-of-living cities with high jobless rates that are the most vulnerable to the “one-size-fits-none” awkwardness and clumsiness that is the $15 statewide minimum wage in California.

Related: See my article with AEI colleague Andrew Biggs titled “A National Minimum Wage Is a Bad Fit for Low-Cost Communities.

Bonus Question: I included the living wages above that MIT calculated would be necessary to support an adult-headed household with either one, two or three children so that I could feature the question posed below by Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog in his post titled “Some Questions for Living Wage Advocates” (h/t Don Boudreaux):

If you believe employers owe employees a living wage, do you think that an employer has a moral duty to pay an employee more just because [he or] she has more children?

Reprinted with the permission of the American Enterprise Institute.

Mark J. PerryMark J. Perry

Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.

VIDEO: How Obama made the ISIS slaughter in San Bernardino possible

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Philip B. Haney, a former homeland security officer. He reveals how the Obama administration facilitated the San Bernardino jihadist attack, sharing how his DHS program would most likely have prevented the California massacre — if Obama’s “Civil Rights” enforcers hadn’t shut it down.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iraqi Journalist Dispels Myth that ISIS Has No Ties to Islam

Saudi Arabia: Islamic morality police arrest a sweet shop’s mascot for “showing skin”

200 Million Women Victimized by Female Genital Mutilation – on The Glazov Gang

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. Please watch the special Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveils how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror. This explains precisely why Philip Haney’s database was shut down.

20 Threats a Day Leading Up to Super Bowl Sunday

San Jose Police Dept. will investigate up to 20 threats a day in the week leading up to the 2016 Super Bowl, to be held in Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, home to the San Francisco 49ers.

Depending on the threat, security officials will decide whether to send in a SWAT team bomb sniffing K-9’s, or one of the many security apparatus in place.

Here are some of the ways the security at Super Bowl 50 is panning out:

  • 90 Canine Teams of bomb-sniffing dogs will be employed. The dogs have also K-9 Corps training for the SuperbowlK-9 Corps training for the Superbowlbeen familiarized with sounds and vibrations of three different military helicopters that might need to be used to evaculate players in case of an incident.
  • 80 FBI bomb technicians with a mobile command vehicle operating remote-controlled robots that can analyze threats.  Bay Area bomb squads on stand-by.
  • Sniffer Box – a high tech sensing device that can detect a biological attack.
  • No Fly Zones over the stadium, F-15 on standby to escort a plane out (182 Cessnas were used to simulate a trespassing in weeks of training).
  • 24-hour/7-day ops – Security starts today, one week before the Super Bowl when the teams arrive. Every event leading up to the big game will be monitored. Sweeps for explosives will be made before each event.
  • Elite Merge Team from San Jose Police Department has trained for a month with rifles and Bearcat Rescue vehicle.
  • FBI operating from an operations center An air team member training for Superbowl 50An air team member training for Superbowl 50 at a secret location. They will be joined by dozens of local, state and federal agencies including the FAA, which will watch for rogue drones operating in closed air spaces.
  • To get into the stadium, all spectators will have to pass through airport-style metal detectors and will not be allowed to bring bags larger than 18 (inches) by 18, alcohol, coolers, pets, drones, bikes, skateboards, hoverboards.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kent State Fires Prof for ‘Road Rage;’ Keeps Jihad-Tied Prof

Obama to Visit U.S. Mosque Tied to Extremism

Iran Tests Upgraded Cruise Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Kent State Prof Violates Faculty Rules by Supporting Terror

Two Palestinian refugees arrested for supporting the Islamic State

Here is the hot news this morning.  The LA Times has a more detailed account of the story that broke overnight, than some other news outlets (maybe CA is getting a little more sensitive to the terrorists living in their midst).

The two Iraqis are actually Palestinians who had been living in Iraq.  By the way, we only bring a small number of Palestinians to the U.S. as refugees.  And, it is not clear to me if one or either of these actually became refugees by arriving here through some other means and then granted asylum.  I guess only their federal resettlement contractor knows for sure!

However, in all likelihood at least one of the two came from our special resettlement project for Palestinians when back in 2009 the US State Department agreed to bring in 1,350 Iraqi Palestinians to your neighborhoods.

It was quite big news at the time.  And, the issue was that these were Palestinians Saddam Hussein had invited to live in Iraq and once the regime fell, no one wanted them.

Because of his arrival date, at least one of the two alleged Islamic terrorists could have been in that group.  Here is what we said in 2009.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab

Now, the LA Times:

A man who came to the U.S. as an Iraqi refugee was arrested in Sacramento on Thursday on suspicion of lying about fighting alongside terrorist organizations in Syria, federal authorities said.

On the same day, federal authorities in Houston announced that an Iraqi refugee in Texas, who had been communicating online with the man in California, was charged with attempting to provide support to the militant group Islamic State.

The allegations against two men residing in the U.S. with links to foreign terrorist groups comes as the nation reels from the Dec. 2 shooting in San Bernardino, which left 14 dead. That is considered the deadliest terrorist act on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And the arrests of two refugees from Iraq, part of a wave of about 103,000*** Iraqi refugees admitted from 2006 to 2014, is likely to add fuel to the debate over whether the U.S. should welcome refugees from Syria, and if so, whether the screening process is adequate.

The man living in Sacramento, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, had reported in private messages on social media that he fought alongside various groups in Syria, including Ansar al-Islam, a Sunni terrorist group and an affiliate of Al Qaeda, according to a federal complaint filed Wednesday and unsealed Thursday.

There is much more here…..

Because of the ages at which these two must have arrived in the US (as teenagers), it shows how ludicrous the discussion about vetting refugees can be when they are obviously becoming more devout after they get here (I refuse to use the word radicalized!).

And, these two are not the first, remember there is another pair of Iraqi refugee terrorists in federal prison.  See our complete archive on the Kentucky terrorists by clicking here.

The only way to make sure we are completely safe is to stop the migration from terror-producing Islamic countries! I’ve been meaning to check out the numbers for Iraq for some time.  

Using the State Department’s data base I went back to 2007 and grabbed a map from then until December 31, 2015.  The Bush Administration was slow to admit Iraqi refugees, but opened the door in its last year in office.  The Obama Administration has made Iraqis the largest group of refugees we admit each year since then.

Here is where 127,906 Iraqis have been resettled since 2007 (remember though that this does not mean they stayed where the contractors originally seeded them).

Iraqis to US map

Top five states:

  1. California (26,343)
  2. Michigan (19,186)
  3. Texas (12,314)
  4. Illinois (7,336)
  5. Massachusetts (4,322)

And, because it isn’t far behind (for my VA friends), Virginia (4,158)

For ambitious readers, our Iraqi refugee category has 675 previous posts archived there!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islam Set To Become Second-Largest Religion in America by 2040

Another 41 (Muslim) Immigrants Snagged On Terror Charges

Alabama files suit to rein-in refugee program, but…..

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) not sure if ‘enemy is connected to Islam’

Not only do the politically correct and willfully ignorant such as Senator Brown do all they can to avoid acknowledging that there is any connection between jihad terrorism and Islam, but they also enforce that willful ignorance upon the rest of us: unless you confess with his lips and believe in your heart that the Islamic State is not Islamic, you will be subjected to a chorus of opprobrium, along with ostracism and ongoing vilification.

“Dem Senator Unsure If ‘Enemy Is Connected to Islam,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2015:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) struggled to explain whether he believes there is a connection between Islam and terrorist forces aiming to launch strikes at the United States when questioned by another leading lawmaker Thursday evening on the Senate floor, according to video of the exchange.

Asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) during an exchange on the Senate floor if he believes “there is any connection between our enemy and Islam,” Brown appeared confused and struggled to respond.

“I’m sorry, excuse me?” Brown said in response to Sasse’s question.

When asked again if he believes there is any connection between the radicals waging terrorist attack on the West and Islam, Brown said he is not sure.

“I guess, I don’t know, I’m not here to debate this,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what that means, ‘A connection between our enemy and Islam.’”

“I know that semantics matter and the criticism of our president in this body is kind of front of center” as a result of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., Brown continued….

The White House made clear this week it has a “strong belief” to not “treat the [Islamic State] terrorists as leaders of some religious movement.”

Sasse described this response as “lunacy.”

“This is lunacy,” he said. “First, while the White House is insisting that no one use the word ‘Islamic’ or note any connection between the war that we’re facing and some subset of Islam—even as the White House insists that no one use the word—their own preferred adjective—ISIL or ISIS—begins with an ‘I,’” Sasse said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

SB jihad accomplice: “There’s so many sleeper cells…it’s going to be big”

Glenn Greenwald falsely claims story of US Muslim arrested in Turkey was false

San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy

In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.

One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.

Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.

“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”

Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.

We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”

In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.

It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”

This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”

Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”

The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider

The current administration’s engagement of extremists in the Islamic world has also been reflected through America’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and at home.

However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.

All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.

The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”

In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Consulate in Turkey Under ‘Imminent Security Threat’

France Shuts Down Three Radical Mosques

California Shooting: The Debate Starts Here

Al-Aqsa Mosque Preacher: West Carried Out Paris Attacks

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of mourners praying at a makeshift memorial for the victims of the California terrorist attack. (Photo: © Reuters)

Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link

U.S. President Barack Obama’s December 6 speech contained few surprises and, on many points, he said the right things.

He mentioned the “I” word, admitting there is a perversion of Islam out there that resulted in last week’s San Bernardino massacre.

The president repeated his refrain about aerial strikes against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), which he prefers to a boots-on-the-ground approach.

He gave us the very quotable quote: “If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization.”

But outside of that, and a plea for all in America to use non-inciting language, his televised White House speech focused on ISIS.

His speech lacked a clear policy on what to do about the Islamist extremists already operating in the United States – with or without the support of ISIS, al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.

See a map of some of the Islamist terror attacks planned or carried out in the United States in 2015.

There seemed to be no linkage in his comments between the order for more bombing raids in the Middle East and the inspiration ISIS provides for terrorists on American soil – whether directly under ISIS’ aegis or acting alone.

This was where Obama missed the point in his speech:

“But over the last few years, the threat has evolved as terrorists have turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. For the past seven years, I have confronted the evolution of this threat each morning. Your security is my greatest responsibility. And I know that, after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.”

The obvious follow up to this would have been to give at least some details of the numbers of arrests in the U.S., or the types of actions being taken by the FBI and other agencies, without going into sensitive operational details.

However, Obama’s logical follow up was not on home soil but rather:

“So, tonight, this is what I want you to know: The threat of terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Here’s how:” (this part of the speech was bolded in the statement to the media)

And then he discussed what Washington will and will not do in its war against ISIL in the Middle East.

Maybe the president is trying to avoid panic in the homeland, but he did not give the American public any reason to feel calmer by ignoring the very real, palpable threat in the United States.

And if his policy of destroying ISIS succeeds, will it mean no more terror attacks on U.S. soil? The answer to that I will leave for the reader to mull.

Suffice it to say, unless the president announces a clear intention to increase surveillance and other interventionist measures at home – and yes, it should come from the president himself – he will leave Americans scared and the terrorists feeling emboldened.

Watch President Obama’s speech:

David Harris is editor in chief of Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS Children Rewarded With Execution

Obama’s Take on Terror: The Good and the Bad

ISIS Wants to Carry Out a WMD Attack in Europe

San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy

Muslim Terrorists Target Christmas in California

For the last 2 plus weeks I have been in the hospital fighting a severe infection.  This is so small in comparison to what Christians and Jews around the world are fighting and with little or no tools to solve the out of control Islamic terrorist invasion of the free world.  I had antibiotics, the free world has no such medicine to cure the cancerous growth of Islam, the Muslims who follow the laws of their Prophet Mohammed, and the people who are at the top of the chain in the name of Islam, the Islamic terrorists who are in every city around the world.

During my hospital stay I had a few hours to watch the actors and actresses who pose as journalists try to figure out why the two Muslim terrorists targeted the people at a Christmas meeting.  This is the answer.  The two Muslims were ‘Pure Muslims’ who had reached the utopia of their religion.  They were jihadists.  Prophet Mohammed described the people as the closest to Islam.  These two Muslims had connections with the attendees at the Christmas meeting.  Also the media, politicians, or law enforcement will never tell you, I am confident the majority of the people attending the meeting were Christians or Jews who came to support their friends and co-workers.  This was a Christmas event filled with people who Mohammed has directed to be killed in every corner of the world. This was a perfect place and target for the young Muslim couple.  They murdered and if not killed, they would have continued to murder many more in the following days or weeks.

We must understand there are Muslim couples in every mosque who will their life to Allah, Mohammed, Sharia, and the Quran.  In the coming days the media will come up with ‘angles’ to show how loving this couple had been, and what great parents they were to their baby.  The reality is a ‘Pure Muslim’ has no moral character, does not love, and hold no maternal or paternal love for even their own babies.  They will drop them off at any time they feel Mohammed is calling them into action.

A few days ago while in the hospital I heard an alleged counter-terrorism expert say there are 80 ‘dangerous’ mosques in America.  I ask readers to reject this silliness but instead to adhere to the following on my analysis of Islam.

There are over 2300 mosques in America.  The Mapping Sharia Project in which I was the Director rated mosques from 1 – 10 based on the mosque followers adherence to Sharia law.  Essentially the closer the Muslim worshippers and Imams came to the total adherence and acceptance to Sharia law, the higher their rating and concern for potential violence generating from this mosque.  Since this survey in 2008/2009 in which my team and I visited over 200 mosques, and since I have conducted research at another 75.

The so called CT experts have used various aspects of the Mapping Sharia Project and other firsthand research we have conducted to come up with ‘catchy’ media flashes so the news organization can have an interesting angle on Islamic terrorism in America.  Don’t get confused that the high profile journalists who search for self proclaimed CT experts to come onto TV/Radio and provide them a news flash so their ratings will go up.

I challenge you to ask anyone on Fox, any CT expert used as an analysts, or any conservative politician if the world is at war with Islam itself.  Ask them if Islam was founded on peace and love.  Each one will deny we are at war with Islam.  They will all say Islam was meant to be a peaceful religion.   We all know the liberals believe Islam is loving and peaceful, but conservatives do expect some leading conservatives to provide the truth to Americans about Islam.

As I mentioned there are over 2300 mosques in America.  Only a naïve CT expert would come up with a number that are dangerous.  For instance 80 mosques in America.  The actual answer to how many mosques are dangerous is each and every one.  If there are 2300 then 2300 are dangerous and have the potential for violence.

Over and over I emphasize the Islam is not peaceful, the Quran is not compatible with our U.S. Constitution, and any person who follows the dangerous and satanic ideology of Islam is neither a good person or an American.  It is not me who inform Muslims in America to hold no allegiance to America, it is Islamic terrorist organization such as CAIR.  This is in their pamphlets.

In conclusion. We are not at war with Al Qaeda or ISIS.  They are just players for a large team called Islam.  The world is at war with Islam.  We must put a bitter taste in people’s minds when they hear anything associated with Islam, just as we were able to do with the Nazis.

Syed Farook and San Bernardino: MSM narrative fails, Muslim CAIR steps in

mass-shooter-syed-farook-islam-in-america-religion-of-peace-933x445

As America reacted to Wednesday’s horrific mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 people were killed and 17 wounded, some mainstream media were racing to craft their preferred narrative.

That narrative creation process was in high gear throughout the early afternoon, while the situation was still quite “fluid,” as some would say. At about 3:20pm, MSNBC was reporting that a Planned Parenthood clinic was “only a few blocks away.” After Twitter erupted with ridicule once people began checking their Google Maps, Bloomberg Business tweeted at 4:29pm,”San Bernadino [sic] shooting happened less than two miles from a Planned Parenthood health clinic.”

Bloomberg’s “less than” qualifier was “less than” sufficient to convince anyone the attackers were somehow targeting PP. Aren’t all map apps and GPS more accurate than within a two mile radius?

Calls for gun control from President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to address why San Bernardino’s gun-free zone status did not prevent the shooting.

By mid-afternoon EST, the Liberal narrative had failed, and details were beginning to leak out.

The facts released thus far present a complex scenario with the main suspect, Syed Farook, having possible connections to a person investigated for terrorism a few years ago, and having travelled recently to Saudi Arabia.

RT France was first to report the chief suspect’s name, Syed Farook. NBC followed a few hours later, citing multiple sources. Soon after, the New York Daily News had interviewed Syed Farook’s father, who described the suspect to be a “very religious” Muslim.

Over at CNN, ex-CIA analysts were describing the assault as having “the hallmarks of the sort of attacks you see in the Middle East,” multiple shooters, IEDs, etc.

The Daily Beast seems to be the first news organization to locate and approach the Farook family’s home in Corona CA:

Farook lived at a home with his wife and children in Corona, California. The Daily Beast knocked on the home’s door and was met by a man who said, “My name is Farook.” When asked if he knew Sayed, the man said, “Of course I know him but I have nothing to say.” When asked about Syed being named as a suspect, he said, “I have nothing to say.” […]

Five minutes after he answered the door, Farook got into a white car and drove away, answering questions again with, “I have nothing to say.”

The Daily Beast contacted Farook’s sister, Saira Khan, by phone on Wednesday shortly after the shooting. She said the media was jumping to conclusions on identifying the suspect and said that her brother was at work. Khan said she would try to get in touch with her brother and pass along his contact information.

Some additional pieces to the puzzle have emerged:

CNN reports that Farook had “abruptly left” the holiday event for county employees. And from the Wall Street Journal: “Government records show Mr. Farook, a U.S. citizen, traveled to Saudi Arabia last year.” (Thanks to Breitbart News for these links.)

The NY Times reports on possible international connections:

One senior American official said that Mr. Farook had not been the target of any active terrorism investigation, and he was not someone the bureau had been concerned about before Wednesday’s shooting. Other officials said the F.B.I. was looking into a possible connection between Mr. Farook and at least one person who was investigated for terrorism a few years ago.

There were also accounts by investigators that one of the attackers had recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials who did not want to be identified.

Chief Burguan confirmed that someone left the party after a dispute, “but we have no idea if those were the people that came back.”

This last assessment seems at odds with CNN’s reporting cited above.

At the late evening press conference, however, Fox News reports, “I’m now being told…[police] are going on the premise there wasn’t a disagreement…he was there to case the location.”

MSNBC relates a survivor’s account:

The shooters who opened fire in a conference room at a California center for the developmentally disabled Wednesday didn’t say anything before they started spraying the room with bullets, the husband of a woman who was shot but survived said.

Salaheen Kondoker’s wife, Annie, an environmental engineer who works for San Bernardino County, was inside the conference room when gunfire erupted at around 11 a.m. local time.

“They just started shooting … they didn’t yell or say anything beforehand,” Salaheen Kondoker said his wife told him.

News reporting continued late into the evening at a San Bernardino police press conference, with tantalizing bits of evidence being tweeted. From Raheem Kassam at Breitbart:

20-21 officers in shootout with suspects, both dead. First suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, 28. Second is Tashfeen Malik, 27.

“There was a relationship” between Farook and Malik…
“It really looks like we have 2 shooters…”
“We have not ruled out terrorism…”
“Based upon what we’ve seen… how they were equipped… there had to be some level of planning”
Journalist asks if any connection to ISIS: “I’m not gonna weigh in on that one” says police spox
“We have multiple addresses for [the suspects]…”

Did political correctness enable the shooter’s plot to be carried out? Will Carr of Fox News tweeted this:

@KNX1070 reporting a neighbor did not call authorities about suspicious activity bc she did not want to racially profile

CAIR steps in

Once Syed Farook’s name was released as one of the suspects, CAIR-LA immediately scheduled a press conference. The full text of CAIR-National’s press release can be read here. The key statement reads:

“We condemn this horrific and revolting attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to justify such sickening acts of violence.”

Breitbart reports Farook’s family was “in shock”:

At the CAIR press conference, Syed Farook’s brother-in-law Farhan Khan is present and delivers a statement. “I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.” Khan does not answer questions from reporters. Executive Director of CAIR-LA says “We unequivocally condemn the horrific act that happened today.”

The reaction of some to the CAIR presser is that it seemed odd:

Toby Harnden: Weird weird weird @CNN right now. No mention of Islam & then live to CAIR presser w multiple people saying it’s nothing to do with Islam.

toddstarnes: Not quite what to make of that CAIR presser….Odd.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama on SB: “We do not yet know why this terrible event occurred”

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

California Nightmare: Political Correctness Kills in San Bernardino

Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center wrote a truly reflective article below, one professionals in law enforcement, threat assessment, and counter-terrorism fields will study, and elected officials should.

We are not ready. 

We as a nation simply are still not ready to face the truly ugly tenants of Islam that clearly teaches and applauds the attacks seen in Paris and San Bernardino.  We are not ready to accept that jihadists have been traveling into America for a number of years now, through southern borders many elected officials love to proclaim secure and so very closely monitored.  The “official/unofficial” policy of the current national administration and its’ many departments and agencies is that Islamic Terrorism does not exist, much less here in America.  If you mean a defined army in dedicated assaults much like WWII or Korea, and partially in Vietnam, I would agree.  But covert operations, special small teams, even individuals dedicated to carry-out atrocities against the Great Satan (America) are far more difficult to defend against.  People embedded in our neighborhoods that we see at the local park or grocery store, or work at the same factory, business complex or Walmart who, in reality, are terrorists hiding in plain site is what is here now, and still coming.

Adding to the complexity is that the Islamic State has been encouraging jihadist world-wide to act on their own, not to travel to Syria to practice jihad or receive training.  Islamic followers so already inclined can launch attacks where they live, and select their own targets.  ISIS will provide online and covert training, instructions on IEDs, and even financing.  An example is this latest attack where the couple amassed sophisticated equipment, weaponry, well over 5,000 rounds of ammo, and at least 15 pipe bombs with triggering capacity.  Add to this their tactical gear, belts capable of carrying extra implements, and Go cameras to record their successful Jihad, plus a detailed plan to carry-out their heinous actions.  Counter-terrorism, threat assessment, and law enforcement on the front lines know all this; yet, elected officials in varied offices work terribly hard to use soft and denying language to dispel the reality that America is under a massive assault that will not be disappearing any time soon.

The threat is here in our communities, and it is quite real. 


Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

When the Redlands Tea Party Patriots objected to the resettling of Syrian Muslim migrants in their community, CAIR accused them of “paranoia and phobia is rooted in a combination of ignorance and bigotry.”

But  “paranoia and phobia”  are the modern condition that the free world has found itself living in. Islamic terrorism can strike anytime  and  anywhere  from  a  Paris  concert  hall to a San Bernardino County facility where disabled children were being helped. Its ignorance to ignore that and bigotry to defend it. “What will be done to ensure the safety of our community?  Our biggest concern is the safety of our family, our children  and  our  grandchildren,”  Victoria  Hargrave  of  Redlands    Townhall had asked.

It was a good question. As the country watched police charge towards a home in the Redlands, it has become an even better question.  The shooter, Sayeed Farouk, was described by his father as a religiously devout Muslim. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back.”  Neighbors say that he “grew a beard and started to wear religious clothing.  The long shirt that’s like a dress and the cap on his head.”  And at some point his “religiosity” took him down the familiar path of Jihad.  Neighbors knew something was wrong, but were afraid that they would be accused of Islamophobia if they reported it. Officially the motive of this religiously devout Muslim couple in carrying out a terrorist attack is still unknown. The evolving media narrative is that familiar standby of “workplace violence”. The sort of workplace violence involving an attack by multiple terrorists wearing body armor and throwing pipe bombs shortly after an argument at a party.

If you believe this version of the  “workplace violence”  story, the shooter stormed out of a party and 20 minutes later had managed to round up multiple heavily armed attackers to avenge his party argument.

It’s certainly a story. Even if it isn’t a very good story. And yet it’s a story that we keep hearing over and over again.  It begins with lies and ends with body bags.  Everything possible was done to deny Nidal Hassan’s terrorist motivations in the Fort Hood Massacre.   His attack was deemed workplace violence.   Even his own attempts to explain that he supported the terrorists were shut down so that he was reduced to smuggling messages to get his story out.  And despite multiple statements by Hassan that he was a terrorist, the official story is still workplace violence.   Right after the shooting, it was some strain of airborne PTSD that had somehow transmitted itself from American veterans to the Muslim employee who had never seen combat until he began killing them.

There are always excuses.

The Times Square bomber had financial issues.   The Tsarnaev terrorists were poorly adjusted. Once the media digs into Farouk’s life, it will no doubt find that he had financial issues, was poorly adjusted and may have even been suffering from some mysterious form of airborne PTSD.  Obama and the media would like to make this story about “gun violence”.   But guns don’t shoot themselves.   There is a hand that pulls the trigger and a mind whose foul purposes that hand serves.  Gun violence is not a mechanical problem.   It is not a hardware problem of guns going off at random.   It is not a biological problem of fingers randomly twitching on triggers. It is a problem of the mind.  Behind each massacre, there is a mind. And it is that mind, its ideas and its beliefs, that kills.

San Bernardino is home to what is described as a “growing Muslim population” and that growth comes with terrifying growing pains.  This latest attack appears to be one of them.  It’s a matter of simple math that as the population most likely to commit terrorist acts increases, so do the acts themselves.

Two months ago, Marilyn Snyder of the Redlands Tea Party Patriots wrote of “the runners and spectators of the Boston Marathon who never imagined that refugee jihadists were stealthily plotting their demise — just because they were not Muslims.”  Most people in San Bernardino County did not expect that anyone was plotting to kill them. They did not think that one evening the events from far-off France would suddenly be taking place where they lived.  And yet that is the new reality.  Islamic terrorism can strike anywhere and everywhere.  “While it is impossible to prevent death delivered by madmen who kill because of religious extremism, it is possible to put in place federal policies that limit the influx of Muslim extremists through the wide-open refugee doors of the Obama administration,” Marilyn wrote.  That remains true.

Sayeed Farouk, like Nidal Hassan, did not suddenly fly over here from Syria. But that only makes it more vital that we prevent the next attack and the next massacre by closing the doors and keeping our country safe.

We cannot bring back the dead, the victims of the long horrifying roll of Islamic terror that stretches back for thousands of years, but we can protect the living.  The left approaches this as a mechanical problem, but it’s an ideological problem. It’s a conflict between two sets of ideas and two sets of worldviews. It is a war between those who believe that men must be ruled by the dead will of Mohammed and his brutal successors and those of us who believe in the freedom of our founding documents and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is not a war that we will win through appeasement or disarmament. And we can begin to fight back by protecting ourselves and our country.  “We Redlanders and all Americans need to stand up with “common sense and judgment” with an emphatic “No!” to Syrian refugee resettlement. It’s time to bar the doors against jihadi infiltration,” Marilyn wrote.  From Redland to Paris, it’s time that we did the right thing, for our towns, our cities and our country.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House: Obama Thinks Gun Control Will Deter Terrorists

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

RELATED VIDEO: Demons at our door

Father of San Bernardino shooting suspect: Son a “very religious” Muslim

“He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.” Not that this has anything to do with…

“Father of Calif. shooting suspect speaks out,” by Nancy Dillon and Denis Slattery, New York Daily News, December 2, 2015:

One of the suspects in Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. has been identified as Syed Farook, according to reports….

A man who identified himself as Farook’s father told the Daily News his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels….

“He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

RELATED ARTICLE: San Bernardino: NBC News reports suspect as ‘Syed Farook’

VIDEO: California School Board allows Students to draw Muhammad

“Agua Dulce resident Chris Burgard, a parent with school-aged children, made a heart-felt speech in which he said it was unreasonable, and a direct violation of every American’s First Amendment rights, to be prohibited from drawing images of Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad or other patriarchs as a result of one parent’s complaints. ‘If our kids wanted to draw a Christmas card with a Nativity scene on it, they would be breaking the rules,’ he said.”

Indeed.

The prohibition on drawing Muhammad was a capitulation to Sharia and a surrender of American values. So here is a small bit of good news amid the avalanche of bad news.

An update on this story. “California School Allows Students to Draw Muhammad,” by Adelle Nazarian, Breitbart, November 13, 2015 (thanks to Bill):

ACTON — Members of the Acton-Agua Dulce school board voted unanimously (5-0) Thursday evening to allow students to choose to draw Muhammad–or not–in one of America’s smaller school districts.

The mother of a 7th grade student at High Desert School in Acton had complained when her 12-year-old son brought home a worksheet from his history class two weeks ago titled “Vocabulary Pictures: The Rise of Islam.” The worksheet listed words such as Quran, Mecca, Bedouins and Muhammad, and asked for students to draw images related to the words.

She then complained that the assignment, which turns out to be part of the approved curriculum, was inappropriate and suggested it taught children “how to insult a religious group.” The Los Angeles Daily News reported that district superintendent Dr. Brent Woodard told staff permanently to prohibit the drawing of all religious figures in order to prevent the offending of all religious groups.

During Thursday night’s town hall meeting, Woodard disputed the Daily News story.

“There was never an intention to ban the drawing of all religious figures,” he explained, noting that he had called for a suspension of drawing the figures until he had discussed the issue with the school district’s board members. “We believe very strongly in the Fist [sic] Amendment… No child would be required to draw religious figures if they object to that kind of the assignment.”

Woodard told Breitbart News that “we will no longer require students to participate in something that they find offensive.” But he would not ban students from drawing Muhammad and other religious figures just because others were offended. He noted that to ban something would be in direct violation of the First Amendment. “That’s not the case here.”

Matt Ridenour, who serves on the school board, said he wanted to make sure the press corrected the record, noting that the school was proud of a curriculum that seeks to educate its children about the diversity that exists in the United States, which is composed of people hailing from various religious and ethnic backgrounds.

“This issue grew from a very innocent practice on the part of a district and a teacher following state-mandated 7th grade curriculum instructions,” Mark Distaso said. He said the assignment came out of a book that was adopted by the school district calledMidieval and Modern Times, and noted that the assignment stemmed from a standard teaching mechanism, which has found that students learn better by drawing pictures associated with words.

Distaso reiterated that Superintendent Woodard merely gave temporary directions to have students refrain from drawing religious figures until he could address the board and come back with a salient resolution.

Agua Dulce resident Chris Burgard, a parent with school-aged children, made a heart-felt speech in which he said it was unreasonable, and a direct violation of every American’s First Amendment rights, to be prohibited from drawing images of Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad or other patriarchs as a result of one parent’s complaints.

“If our kids wanted to draw a Christmas card with a Nativity scene on it, they would be breaking the rules,” he said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

In response to Paris jihad attacks, Huffington Post calls for “elimination of all world religions”

German soccer match canceled after police discover bomb truck disguised as ambulance