Archive for the ‘Homeland Security’ Category
Hillary Clinton’s ignorance, stupidity really, about terrorism is frightening. During a paranoid rant on the tarmac in White Plains, NY, Hillary Clinton virtually admitted that she doesn’t understand what drives ISIS, saying “There are millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslim Americans. That is why I have been very clear. We are going after the bad guys and we are going to get them, but we are not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it is wanting.”
I would’ve loved it if she’d gone after the terrorists instead of letting them in via the refugee resettlement program. Mrs. Clinton, for some inexplicable reason, apparently thinks that Trump voters think that all Muslims are evil. Mrs. Clinton’s proof for that doesn’t exist. The truth is that Donald Trump simply said that we shouldn’t admit people into our country through the State Department’s refugee resettlement program if we can’t vet the refugees from that country.
That’s hardly a radical idea, especially in light of this IG report that states “The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) today released a report that found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals from special interest countries who had been ordered deported or removed under another name.”
Mrs. Clinton apparently hasn’t figured it out that there are multiple flaws with current refugee policy. First, we don’t know who’s already here. We’ve already seen that the federal government didn’t prevent Tashfeen Malik from getting a fiancé visa even though they knew she’d been radicalized.
Next, if we don’t know who’s here already, we certainly shouldn’t let additional terrorists in through the refugee resettlement program. Mrs. Clinton wants to let in people claiming to be Syrian refugees. Let’s stipulate for this discussion that they’re all legitimate refugees. (They aren’t but let’s stipulate that.) The Crossroads Mall terrorist entered the United States as a refugee as a 5-year-old. At some point, he got radicalized.
The point is that letting ‘refugees’ into the US is exceptionally risky. The best decision is to not let refugees from terrorist nations into the US. The primary function of the President is to protect us. That’s impossible to do when the State Department, which Mrs. Clinton ran, keeps letting potential terrorists in through the refugee resettlement program.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, State Department, Refugee Resettlement Program, Somali Refugees, Syrian Refugees, ISIS Terrorists, Crossroads Mall, Dahir Adan, Tashfeen Malik, San Bernardino
Predictably, the PR campaign has started after the terrorist attack Saturday night at Crossroads Mall. Members of the Somali community and other community leaders held “a nationally televised press conference on Sunday afternoon at Lake George.”
This article contains quotes from a number of leaders. One of the quotes that I find upsetting is from Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. He said “This is a tragedy and we hope from this tragedy we can build a better, stronger community here. A strong St. Cloud that is inclusive and welcoming for all people.”
With all due respect, I don’t feel inclusive when terrorists attack law-abiding citizens while they’re shopping on a Saturday night. Forget about condemnations of violence. What’s expected is assimilation into the American culture. It’s been expected of every immigrant and refugee in US history. The US is multi-ethnic. It isn’t multicultural. Period. The system that this nation’s Founding Fathers put into place is pretty incredible.
That’s the standard. We don’t change. We expect immigrants and refugees to adapt. That’s how it’s done since our nation’s inception.
Hassan Yussuf, community activist: “This incident should not be used to spread hate. It should be used to bring us together because it has affected me, it has affected you, it’s affected everybody.”
What a bunch of crap. The citizens of St. Cloud simply want neighbors that obey the rule of law. Where Islamic religious teachings depart from US law, the citizens of St. Cloud expect everyone to comply with the laws of this city and state. It isn’t that complicated. If that isn’t to someone’s liking, there are other places to live.
UniteCloud: “Never again in our town should we see something like this. So let’s find solutions. This is a test for all of us as a community. How we come out of this defines us as a community.”
This isn’t a test for the entire community. The entire community didn’t commit a terrorist attack. The question that must be answered is whether the Somali community will conform to St. Cloud’s and Minnesota’s laws. If they do, they’re welcome. If they won’t, they aren’t welcome.
It’s that simple.
Pete Hegseth puts it perfectly:
It’ll be interesting to see how Minnesotans react to this terrorist attack. If they’re more worried about terrorism than Minnesota Nice, Hillary might spend the last 50 days getting nervous.
Technorati: Crossroads Mall, ISIS, Terrorist Attack, CAIR-Minnesota, Refugee Resettlement Program, Somali Refugees, Lutheran Social Services, UniteCloud, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, Election 2016
When Hillary Clinton talks about US national security, people listen. It isn’t that they think she’ll tell the truth. HRC’s honest and trustworthy ratings are worse than an ant’s popularity rating at a mid-summer picnic. Some people will listen to hear what absurd lies she’ll tell. Others will listen so they’ll know what she said once Lanny Davis and other Clinton spinmeisters appear on TV to tell us that she didn’t say what everyone watched HRC say.
Those are probably the good old days. Now, the DFL and other Hillary enablers don’t wait until after she’s gotten caught lying. They’re proactive, telling us nonsense prior to her lying to us. This tweet is a perfect example of Democrats being proactive so they can change the subject once a moderator asks about HRC’s statements. The DFL tweeted “When @HillaryClinton talks about keeping our country safe, she means it.”
After visiting HRC’s website, I feel safe. That’s where I read this comforting thought:
The threat we face from terrorism is real, urgent, and knows no boundaries. Horrific attacks like the ones in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, and San Bernardino have made it all too clear: It is not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of radical jihadism—we have to defeat it.
That’s the hard-hitting policy that we need. I feel safer already. Well, I’d feel safer if it wasn’t for this:
On NBC’s Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd asked Pence about Trump’s policies to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In recent weeks, Trump has said he would ban Muslims from countries with terrorist activity.
When Todd pressed Pence about what countries those would be, Pence changed the subject to Clinton’s Syria policy. “Well, Hillary Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees to this country by 550 percent,” Pence said. “Donald Trump and I believe that we should suspend the Syrian refugee program.”
It doesn’t make sense to take out ISIS hotspots in Syria, Iraq and Europe, then invite potential ISIS terrorists to the US through our refugee resettlement program. Despite what Pat Kessler reported, it’s still highly possible for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate the US through the refugee resettlement program.
Hillary’s plan to protect the US from ISIS terrorist attacks is essentially killing terrorists in Iraq and Syria while inviting new terrorists into the US. Killing terrorists there, then increasing the number of potential terrorists in the US seems slightly counterproductive. Then again, how can people feel safe watching video like this?
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, National Security, ISIS, Refugee Resettlement Program, Terrorist Attacks, Pat Kessler, Reality Check, DFL, Democrats, Election 2016
Since the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, CA, various people have said that Muslim organizations should condemn terrorists and terrorism. Some organizations, like the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, aka the Council on American-Islamic Relations, got proactive and quickly condemned terrorism.
Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of CAIR’s Minnesota chapter, said “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any action that harms innocent civilians.”
My initial reaction to Hussein’s statement is … that isn’t enough. It isn’t close, in fact. Has CAIR ever reported suspicious activities by radicalized Muslims? Does CAIR admit that specific Muslims are terrorists? How many tips have CAIR’s members called into the FBI or other law enforcement agencies?
Most importantly, has CAIR bit its lip when it saw radicalization happening? If they didn’t speak up, why didn’t they say something? Is it because CAIR, especially its leadership, isn’t capable of spotting radicalization?
Condemning terrorism is better than nothing but not by much. If CAIR leadership and their members aren’t reporting on radicalized Muslims, then they aren’t part of the solution. In his speech to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told nations that if they weren’t with us, then they were against us. I’d submit that the same principles must apply to people, too.
If CAIR or other Muslim organizations don’t help spoil terrorist plots, then they’re part of the problem. They aren’t part of the solution.
There’s no question about whether Ted Cruz is a skilled debater. Apparently, though, his debating skills are limited. Sen. Cruz thinks that political opportunity outweighs the need for honesty and intelligence. This time, Sen. Cruz thinks that creating a no-fly zone in Syria is foolish.
During his interview with Bloomberg, Sen. Cruz criticized Sen. Rubio and Mrs. Clinton “for supporting a no-fly zone and arming the so-called moderate rebels. I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war,” he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton “are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They’ve demonstrated they’ve learned nothing.'”
Sen. Cruz should be ashamed of himself. Saying that a no-fly zone is a mistake is a mistake. I suspect that he knows that but he couldn’t resist the opportunity of linking Sen. Rubio and Mrs. Clinton. Building a safe haven, which a no-fly zone would do, might cause a dramatic reduction in refugees leaving Syria.
Is Sen. Cruz foolish enough to think that a dramatic reduction in Syrian refugees fleeing their country is a mistake? Seriously? Is Sen. Cruz foolish enough to think that potentially reducing the number of ISIS terrorists using the crisis to get into western Europe and the United States is a mistake? If he is, then he isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief.
I don’t think Sen. Cruz is that stupid. I think, though, that Sen. Cruz can’t resist being a political opportunist, even if that means being dishonest.
“If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria.”
Sen. Cruz, establishing a no-fly zone is the opposite of toppling Assad. It’s simply creating a safe haven for victims of Assad’s brutality. It wouldn’t require but a handful of US boots on the ground while protecting Syrians.
If you want to talk about learning from the past, let’s look into how establishing a no-fly zone in 1991 in northern Iraq created Kurdistan. The US protected the Kurds from Saddam Hussein after Operation Desert Storm. Now the Peshmerga, the Kurds’ army, are one of our best allies in the Arab world. If that’s Sen. Cruz’s definition of a mistake, he should visit dictionary.com. Their definition of mistake is “an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.”
I’d argue that protecting the Kurds and creating a loyal Arab ally in the heart of the Middle East is a success story.
After reading this article, sane people are left wondering what Sen. Paul’s supporters are thinking:
The newest Iowa poll conducted by The Des Moines Register reflects a trend which has been ongoing since polling for this cycle began. Rand Paul, in second place at 10%, is well within the margin of error of the lead, currently held by Scott Walker at 17%. Ben Carson finished with 10% and both Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush earned 9%.
While it is debatable how important it may be to actually win the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus, history shows that it is imperative to finish in the top 4, as each nominee from both major parties has done so since the quadrennial tradition began in 1972. With a possible field of nearly 20 Republican candidates, a poor showing in Iowa could prove lethal to several campaigns.
With that information in mind, the fact that Senator Paul has consistently remained in double-digits since Iowa polling commenced in mid-2012 becomes all the more important and impressive. Paul enters the contest with a bit of an advantage, as his father came within 4 percentage points (or 4,000 votes) of winning the caucus in 2012. In fact, the legacy that the elder Paul left is best represented by the fact that 22 of the state’s 28 delegates pledged themselves to his campaign.
Now that Sen. Paul has announced that he’ll force the expiration of the Patriot Act, his days are numbered. From this day forward, his support will drop until he’s left with his father’s core of loyal supporters. By the time the Caucuses happen, he’ll trail Walker, Rubio, Carson and, quite possibly, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz.
The 2016 Iowa field will be unique in that it will be first in history to feature 2 different past winners (Huckabee and Rick Santorum), but Paul has shown himself to be one of the favorites to win the caucus. Other candidates’ numbers have fluctuated, yet Paul has steadily maintained a solid core of voters.
First, Sen. Paul’s support hasn’t grown. Second, Sen. Paul’s support isn’t reaching into other demographics that are needed to win in Iowa. For instance, Sen. Paul doesn’t have a chance of winning over evangelical Christians because of his strict libertarian views on things like legalizing marijuana and his indifference towards gay marriage. Whether you agree or disagree policy-wise, evangelical Christians won’t support candidates that are indifferent on those issues.
Putting it simply, Sen. Paul’s potential for winning Iowa is virtually nil.
The newest person in line in the Iowa “stock market” of candidates has been Scott Walker, who now averages nearly 20%, but has seen his numbers begin to decline. As recently as January, Walker was polling at below 5%, showing that his reign is likely unsustainable, and could be very well a limited one.
Now that’s fanciful. Wow! Scott Walker has led the RCP average of polls for nearly 4 months, usually with solid leads outside the margin of error. If that’s what a “likely unsustainable” lead looks like, especially one that “could be very well a limited one”, then I’m betting most candidates would settle for such an unsustainable lead.
Josh Guckert is the name of the person who wrote this article but it could’ve just as easily have been Baghdad Bob.
In a startling event, President Obama said that the US had eliminated Afghanistan as a source of terrorism:
In addition to his Alice-in-Wonderland declaration, President Obama said that US combat missions have finished. This is additional proof that the fastest way to end a war is to lose it. Regardless of President Obama’s sunny talk, the reality is that the terrorists have adapted. They haven’t given up the mission of creating a worldwide caliphate. They’ve just moved their training and planning bases from Afghanistan to another location.
In the days after 9/11, someone stated publicly that 9/11 was the day that terrorists had declared war on the United States. Rudy Giuliani corrected the person, saying that the terrorists had been at war with us for years, possibly decades, and that 9/11 was just the day that we joined that fight.
Similarly, the terrorists’ threat hasn’t ended just because President Obama held a press conference saying that the terrorists no longer posed a threat. The terrorists have a say in the matter, too. In fact, they’ll have a bigger say in the matter than President Obama will have.
That isn’t meant as disrespectful. It’s just that President Obama leaves office in 2 years. At that point, he won’t play the role of principle decision maker. That said, many of the terrorists will still be around 3 years from now. They’ll still have a say in the matter.
President Obama’s statements are either proof that he’s exceptionally arrogant or they’re proof that he’s buried his head in the sand on this issue. That isn’t good. We need a commander-in-chief who is tuned into reality. We need a commander-in-chief who isn’t afraid to see what he sees.
Right now, we don’t have that type of commander-in-chief.
True to his 1970s-style anti-war activist days, Rick Nolan is still a pacifist:
In a statement issued to KBJR, Rep. Rick Nolan said U.S. intervention in “thousands-year-old Middle East war” has cost the U.S. trillions in blood and treasury.
“The arms we supply to any one of these groups inevitably end up being used against us, because we have no friends in this conflict,” Rep. Nolan said. “Our involvement is bankrupting us and making us a target for retaliation, and it’s time to put an end to it. These monies are needed for deficit reduction and rebuilding America.”
That’s frightening. ISIL is definitely a threat to the United States. Similarly, there’s no question that Stewart Mills’ assessment is right:
“He (Rep. Nolan) is advocating for us not to have involvement in Iraq or in Syria,” Mills said in an interview in late September. “But the consequences of us not having involvement in there is that we create a vacuum. And that vacuum is filled up with bad people doing bad things and eventually that will wash up on our shores, probably sooner rather than later.”
That isn’t just Mills’ opinion. It’s an opinion he shares with Leon Panetta, President Obama’s former Defense Secretary:
By not pressing the Iraqi government to leave more U.S. troops in the country, he “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed,” Panetta told USA Today, referring to the group also known as the Islamic State.
Being a pacifist in the 1970s helps inform Rick Nolan’s views on national security. We’re living in a totally different world, especially after 9/11. If Rick Nolan doesn’t want to fight terrorists before they reach America’s shores, then he isn’t qualified to be in Congress.
Nolan’s type of thinking is what helped create the conditions for 9/11 and for ISIL to take over much of Iraq and Syria. We can’t afford not to pay attention to ISIL. In fact, we can’t afford not to do everything we can to utterly demolish ISIL and other terrorist groups.
Whether Nolan will admit it, the truth is that ISIL and al-Qa’ida are at war with us. The only question left is whether we’ll wage war with them. If Stewart Mills is elected to Congress, he’ll vote to fight terrorists. If Nolan is re-elected, God forbid, he’ll vote for taking a pre-9/11 position.
Bill Burton’s op-ed about President Obama’s frequent golf outings is a nice attempt to distract from Americans’ chief complaint:
I thought that going on vacation with the president would be a real perk of serving as deputy press secretary in the Obama White House.
Don’t get me wrong: Some elements of it are amazing. When you do find some down time, you can find yourself in one of the most beautiful places on Earth enjoying its splendor with the leader of the free world and your buddies.
That is—when you can find some down time.
As Washington chews over yet another presidential “vacation,” and that most Washington of words—“optics”—let me take you behind the scenes of the last time President Obama took flack for supposedly being “disengaged” while world events marched on around him.
First, let’s dispatch with the word optics. It’s mostly used by liberal journalists who then ignore the problem. Yes, the optics are terrible when the supposed leader of the free world talks somberly about the beheading of an American journalist, then is seen joking and fist-pumping an hour later.
When those things happen, it’s natural for people to question President Obama’s sincerity and his commitment to ridding the Middle East of terrorists.
What actions did President Obama put into action from the sand trap on the 9th hole? Did he finally figure it out that ISIL is a real threat to the American homeland while putting on the 15th hole? If he didn’t figure that out on the 15th, did he get word of Gen. Dempsey’s statement that we’d need to take out ISIL’s command-and-control while driving up to the 18th green? By the time he got back to his compound, had he called Gen. Dempsey and told him to stop talking about ISIL as a threat more dangerous than al-Qa’ida?
It was Christmas Day 2009. Osama bin Laden was still at large. A 23-year-old Nigerian man was caught trying to bring down a passenger airliner headed for Detroit—which would have been the most devastating terrorist attack since 9/11. The day of, and the days that followed, the botched bombing saw the president and his staff, in Hawaii, at the White House and scattered across the country on their own family vacations – snap to attention and drop everything else to make sure we were doing all we could to keep Americans safe.
The president was not a passive bystander. He led America’s response to the apparent terrorist attack, soaking up new information as it came in, running meetings and issuing orders. As a regular matter of course, vacation or not, the president is briefed on intelligence every day. In this instance, he was receiving twice-daily updates on the situation in Detroit as well as three-times-daily updates on matters around the world from the Situation Room. As events developed, the president was directing his national security team—cabinet secretaries, intelligence officials and the military. He was awash in reports from the government and from the media.
Thank God for the Obama administration snapping to immediate attention. If only they hadn’t told law enforcement to read the failed bomber his Miranda rights.
While it’s true the optics have stunk all summer, the truth is that President Obama’s policies have been disastrous. That, Mr. Burton, is what Americans are most worried about. Russia annexes Crimea. President Obama proposes limited sanctions on a handful of Russian billionaires. When ISIL captured Fallujah, President Obama called ISIL a jayvee team. When ISIL threatened to capture Baghdad, President Obama talked about the need for Iraq to sing kumbayah.
When Hamas killed Israelis, President Obama criticized Israel for not being gentle enough on terrorists who then hid behind 5-year-old human shields otherwise known as children. When missiles were found in a UN-run school, he dispatched John Kerry to the region, where Kerry’s plan was immediately rejected by the responsible nations of the region.
Just once, it’d be nice if the administration would get a policy decision right.
Unfortunately for America, it’s more likely that President Obama will hit a hole-in-one on his next vacation than he’s likely to make a solid policy decision.
Harry Reid is one of the most deceitful men to ever serve in Washington, DC. He isn’t too bright, either. The things he said in this video contradict each other:
Here’s what Sen. Reid said:
“From all the reports I’ve gotten, the answer for me is no, I won’t support it,” he said.
“I believe our No. 1 concern should be this narrow issue of we take care of this situation we have on the border. As I’ve been told, the Cornyn-Cuellar legislation covers a lot of other issues other than the problem we’re having on the border,” he said.
As foolish as that statement is, this statement is breathtakingly dishonest:
“The border is secure,” he told reporters after the Senate Democrats’ weekly policy lunch. “[Sen.] Martin Heinrich [(D-N.M.)] talked to the caucus today. He’s a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure.”
I wish I’d been one of the reporters at Sen. Reid’s press availability. I would’ve asked him why a supplemental appropriation was needed to handle the flood of illegal immigrants if the border was secure. This isn’t rocket science. If the border is secure, then they wouldn’t be predicting 90,000 children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
The best way to tell whether Sen. Reid is lying is to determine whether his lips are moving. If they are, it’s likely that he’s lying.
Rick Perry’s op-ed exposes Sen. Reid’s dishonesty:
In recent months, tens of thousands of children have come across the border and are now housed in federal facilities across the U.S., the result of failed federal policies and Washington’s indifference to securing the border.
I visited one of these facilities in June and saw these children, frightened and alone, who left their homes and families, survived a harrowing trip, and are now facing an unknown future. It was staggering to realize that this humanitarian crisis is not the result of a natural disaster, but of our nation’s own misguided laws and misplaced priorities. It’s nothing less than a moral outrage.
President Obama last week proposed $3.7 billion in spending to deal with the continuing crisis. But only a small fraction of that money would go to the actual core of this problem: the lack of sufficient resources to secure the border. The majority of the billions he proposes to spend—including on housing and transporting the minors around the country—is treating the symptoms of the problem instead of addressing its root cause.
Unlike Sen. Reid, Gov. Perry has been to the border. He’s seen the unaccompanied children. He’s gotten daily briefings from his staff on the flood of illegal aliens coming into the US.
Sen. Reid is attempting to hide the fact that 70% of the Border Patrol has been pulled from their normal jobs to help process the illegal aliens. There’s only 2 explanations for doing that. Either President Obama wants to leave the Tex-Mex border unsecured or the agents are being pulled to help with the flood of illegal immigrants who’ve crossed an unsecured border.
Just once, I wish a DC reporter would stand up to Sen. Reid and ask him why he’s saying such obviously contradictory things. You don’t need a $3,700,000,000 supplemental appropriation to handle a flood of illegal immigrants if the border is secure. Period.