On Saturday evening, September 20, 2016, a pressure cooker bomb exploded in a dumpster in New York’s Chelsea district.  The bomb was powerful enough to blow the heavy steel container more than 120 feet through the air and metal fragments from the explosion were found more than 600 feet away. Thirty-one people were injured.

Within hours, NYPD officers found the bomber, radical Islamist Ahmad Khan Rahami, asleep in a doorway.  After a brief exchange of gunfire, Rahami was arrested and taken into custody.  In a subsequent interview, Rahami’s father explained that, in 2014, he informed New Jersey police that his son was a terrorist.  The father explained, “Two years ago I go to the FBI because my son was doing really bad, O.K.?  But they check almost two months, they say, ‘He’s O.K., he’s clean, he’s not a terrorist.’ I say O.K… Now they say he is a terrorist. I say O.K.”

It is a story that is repeated time and time again.  The once highly-touted  FBI, as symbolized by men such as J. Edgar Hoover and Elliott Ness, and as portrayed by Efrem Zimbalist. Jr. in the long-running television series, The FBI, has suffered a major loss of credibility in recent decades.  The bureau’s unprofessional mishandling of episodes such as Ruby Ridge, Idaho; the Branch Davidian siege at Waco, Texas; the Oklahoma City bombing, and, most recently, the politically tainted bungling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, has caused the bureau to lose much of its reputation as the world’s foremost law enforcement agency.

In the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992…in which the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI laid siege to the mountain residence of Randy Weaver and his family… his wife, Vicki; his son, Sammy; the family dog, Striker; and Deputy Marshal William Degan lost their lives.  The federal agents were attempting to serve a weapons warrant on Weaver, charging him (falsely) with having sold a sawed-off shotgun to a neighbor.  When Weaver refused to cooperate with the federal agents a 12-day standoff ensued in which several hundred federal agents surrounded the Weaver cabin.

On April 19, 1993, a 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, came to a violent end.  The Branch Davidians were suspected of weapons violations, and when they refused service of a federal warrant Attorney General Janet Reno gave the order to attack with military-style weaponry.  The authorities, including members of the ATF, the FBI, and the Texas National Guard, set fire to the Branch Davidian compound and 83 members of the religious sect… men, women, and children… and four ATF agents lost their lives.  Most burned to death.

Exactly two years later, on April 19, 1995, a team of Islamic terrorists, with the assistance of American anti-government activists Timothy McVeigh and Larry Nichols, bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  However, as local authorities and investigative  journalists produced irrefutable evidence pointing to the involvement of radical Sunni Muslims, former members of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard, FBI agents placed their hands behind their backs, refusing to consider or even take custody of the evidence.  FBI agents also ordered surveillance cameras removed from nearby buildings and confiscated the associated video tapes, none of which have ever been produced, even under court order.

This occurred at a time when federal investigators on the scene were given instructions from the Clinton White House and Janet Reno’s Justice Department… at the insistence of radical leftists at the Southern Poverty Law Center… that they were to divert their attention from the pursuit of Middle Eastern terrorists, concentrating instead on members of domestic right wing militia groups.  As a result of the FBI’s mishandling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, their handling of the terror attack, which focused only on McVeigh and Nichols, has become the  “conventional wisdom.”  The explosion killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others.

In early 2011, Russian authorities warned the FBI that Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, may have been a radical Islamist.  The FBI acknowledged that it had investigated the Chechen immigrant.  However, after interviewing him and members of his family they could find no evidence of terrorist activity.  But then, on April 15, 2013, Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, planted two pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon and walked away.  When the bombs exploded, 3 spectators were killed and some 264 others were injured.

On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a heavily armed radical Islamist, opened fire inside a popular Orlando, Florida, nightclub, killing 49 and wounding 53 others.  The FBI was informed of his radical views in 2013.  However, when agents put him under surveillance they could find no hard evidence of terrorist activity.  They dropped the investigation.

There are many more such examples on the record in which the FBI was forewarned about potential terrorists, leading many Americans to conclude that the bureau has become either sloppy or incompetent.  But is that a fair assessment?  What are the chances that an FBI background check, along with surveillance and a series of interviews, would provide hard evidence of planned terrorist activity?  The chances are very slim.

And what are the chances that, if informed by the FBI that a certain individual is under suspicion of terrorist activity, local authorities could intervene successfully?  Again, the chances are very slim.  In the absence of evidence of an actual crime, local police are limited in what they can do to prevent terrorist activity.  Even when there is strong suspicion, local police must first provide a court with reasonable cause before a telephone tap or a search warrant can be authorized.

It is in this gray area, between mere suspicion and deadly terrorist activity, that radical Islamists operate, skillfully using our laws and our system of justice against us.  So who are these people who kill and maim so indiscriminately?  Who are these terrorists who gleefully behead their enemies, douse them with gasoline and burn them alive, or place them in steel cages and lower them into deep water?  Who are these religious fanatics who welcome death and who cherish death over life?  Who are these extremists who dutifully swear allegiance to a prophet who has commanded them to either kill or convert every other human being on Earth?  Who are these militants who have been actively pursuing a goal of world dominion for more than 1400 years?

Those of us who have been born and raised in western Christian or Judeo cultures have difficulty getting inside the minds of such people.  However, what is most helpful is a study of the genetic makeup of Islamists and the impact that 1400 years of inbreeding, in which cousins marry first cousins, has had on an entire religious sect.

One published report tells us, “Medical research suggests that, while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.  The question arises, could the practice of interbreeding be the key to the success and longevity of Islam?  Could it be that the genetic and mental illnesses, borne of interbreeding, are a factor in the unquestioning nature of the majority of Muslims regarding religion?  Successive generations of cousin marriage damage the genes and produce widespread idiocy and insanity.”

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist and recognized expert on Muslim inbreeding, writes that, “This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generation in the Muslim world… This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage.  The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health.”

Sennels explains that close to half of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are inbred.  In Pakistan, the number approaches 70%.  In the U.K., roughly 50% of Pakistani immigrants are married to first cousins.  In Saudi Arabia, 67%; in Jordan and Kuwait, 64%; in Sudan 63%; in Iraq, 60%; and in the Emirates and Qatar, 54%.  The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official threshold for being declared “retarded,” increases by roughly 400% among children of cousin marriages.

Mental illness is also a product of inbreeding.  Sennels tells us that “the closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness.  The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of the patients in Denmark’s biggest ward for the criminally insane have an immigrant background.”

As matters now stand, we in the West are being bombarded with propaganda aimed at making Islam acceptable in civilized cultures.  It is arguable that Western Europe is already lost because they have been invaded by millions of Muslim immigrants.  It is only in Eastern Europe where political leaders have taken a firm stand against Muslim immigration.  We can only hope that American political leaders will also come to their senses.  Until western leaders come to grips with the fact that it is impossible for non-Muslims to ever live side-by-side with Muslims, it behooves us to separate ourselves from them.  Until we dispense with the “turn the other cheek” approach favored by liberal political leaders and journalists, and until we can all agree that Islam is not a “religion of peace,” Islam will continue its relentless jihad against the West.

Since there is no reasonable prospect for either an intellectual or a military victory over Islam, the next president should, as his first official act, implement 8 USC 1182(f), which reads, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Given the nature of the radical Islamic threat, it is clear that we don’t need more law-making; what we need is more law enforcement.