Search
Categories

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

On a night when Sen. Rubio exceeded expectations, Gov. Jeb Bush, who finished with 2.8% of the vote in Iowa, sounded totally unlike his dad and his brother. Gov. Bush sounded like a total sourpuss, saying “Speaking of Rubio and Cruz Monday night, Bush said they don’t have the experience to win. And the two other candidates that are likely to emerge in Iowa are two people that are backbenchers that have never done anything of consequence in their life. They’re gifted beyond belief. They can give a great speech. But I think it’s time for us to recognize that maybe what we need is someone who can lead.”

Bush’s supporting super PACs spent almost $25,000,000 attacking Sen. Rubio in the hopes of building Bush up. Rubio far exceeded expectations, finishing with 23.1% of the vote in Iowa. Meanwhile, the guy who thinks we need “someone who can lead” finished a mere 20.3% behind the guy who Jeb thought should wait his turn. That doesn’t sound like a guy who entered the race saying that he wanted to run a joyous race. That sounds like a bitter man who didn’t see this impending defeat coming.

What’s particularly insulting is Jeb’s suggestion that Sen. Rubio is incapable of leading people. Part of leadership is understanding what’s important to people, then offering a vision that inspires them to achieve their goals. If there’s anyone on the GOP side that can do that, it’s Sen. Rubio. Half the battle of leading is directing people to where they already wanted to go. People want to prosper. Sen. Rubio offers that. People want to feel safe from the advances of ISIS. Sen. Rubio certainly passes the commander-in-chief test.

People have tried crippling Sen. Rubio’s campaign by saying he’s an inexperienced first-term U.S. senator. It’s indisputable that he’s a first-term senator but that isn’t a strike against him. When Barack Obama started running for president, the truth is that he was just 2 years removed from being a state senator in Illinois. He spent the first 2 years playing politics and not taking policy seriously.

That isn’t what Sen. Rubio did. Sen. Rubio took his responsibilities seriously on the Intelligence and Armed Services committees. He learned national security issues until he could recite them backwards or frontwards.

The Bush dynasty should go into hibernation. The American people aren’t interested in dynasties.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act, with 289 congresscritters voting for the bill. This week, the Senate will attempt to pass the bill. Democrats plan to stop it before it can be debated. If that fails, President Obama intends to veto the bill. Either way, Democrats at one end of Pennsylvania Ave. or the other will stop far short of protecting Americans from ISIS terrorists.

While I know that sounds harsh, it isn’t rhetoric. It’s the logical outcome. If the federal government doesn’t do its job of screening foreigners who want to enter the United States, something that’s happened before, terrorists won’t have to sneak across the unprotected southern border of the U.S. They’ll be able to get in with the federal government’s permission. That’s the blunt truth of things.

If Democrats want to stop this legislation from becoming law, that’s their option. It’s the Republicans’ option, though, to use the Democrats’ obstructionism against them on the campaign trail. Let’s see how swing state Democrats get clobbered for being weak on preventing terrorism. Let’s see how their constituents react when they’re told that Democrats couldn’t be bothered with preventing a terrorist from moving in just down the block from them.

Over the past few months, voters’ concerns about terrorism have surged and their confidence in the government’s ability to defeat IS and other extremist groups has plummeted, according to a national survey conducted in December by the Pew Research Center.

National Security is the most important issue to 41% of likely voters. If Democrats are criticized for not taking substantive steps to prevent terrorist attacks, they’ll be committing political suicide.

It isn’t a stretch to think that they’ll be criticized as weak on national security just like they were in the 1970s.

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow has earned the reputation of being pro-immigration reform. That’s why Mr. Kudlow’s NRO op-ed is startling. Mr. Kudlow admits that we’re at war with Islamic terrorists and that “there should be no immigration or visa waivers until the U.S. adopts a completely new system to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.” If that sounds like Trump’s plan, it’s because it’s similar but it isn’t the same.

Kudlow explains “Let me emphasize that my support for wartime immigration restrictions is not based on religion. I think Donald Trump made a big mistake here. Instead, I agree with this Rupert Murdoch tweet: ‘Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.'”

That’s the point I’ve made from the start. Let me outline the principles I’d use to prevent the next Paris or the next San Bernardino. First, I’d establish a tiered list of countries to accept refugees from. The first tier would be countries that we’d never accept refugees from. Basically, any nation whose government exists in name only would be on that list. Syria, Somalia, Mali, Libya and Yemen would be on that list.

I’ve nicknamed the second list the Procto list. Refugees from these countries would be given a full proctology examination. Each refugee would be given a full examination including everything up to the person’s tonsils. Twice. I picture nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Greece on that list. It isn’t that there are many Greek terrorists. It’s that a bunch of ISIS terrorists stopped in Greece on their way to the west from Iraq and Syria. Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan are marginal allies but they’re terrorist hotbeds, too.

I wrote this article to highlight the corruption within the Obama administration, especially in the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist bride, didn’t “slip through the cracks” like the administration is spinning it. They all but rolled out the red carpet for her by shutting down a program that likely would’ve put her terrorist husband, Syed Farook, on the federal government’s no-fly list because he attended a radicalized mosque.

FYI- That likely would’ve meant Malik’s visa being rejected, too.

Larry Kudlow should be applauded for changing his very public stand. The late economist John Maynard Keynes was once asked why he’d changed his policy. His epic reply fits here:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Exactly right.

The editors of the Mesabi Daily News didn’t pull their punches with Al Franken in this editorial. First, a little background is in order. After the terrorists murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, MDN sent emails to Sen. Franken, Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Nolan.

Apparently, Sen. Franken’s letter was the only letter that caught their attention. That’s because Sen. Franken said “As the FBI and other law enforcement officials continue to investigate a crime where 14 innocent people lost their lives only days ago, there are still a lot of questions that need answers. There are now reports that one of the suspects pledged allegiance to ISIS, and I believe that this, and all other investigative leads, must be vigorously and fully pursued.”

The editors didn’t treat Sen. Franken gently, saying “Suspects? They were mass murderers who died in a shootout with law enforcement; and they had a pipe bomb factory in their garage. Crime? This was no Bonnie and Clyde bank robbery couple. Franken’s response was so off base from the question, that another email was sent to his staff providing an opportunity to give a direct answer or at least call it terrorism.”

Sen. Franken’s response is predictable. He’s trying to spin things so people won’t notice that President Obama’s policies failed to protect those employees from ISIS-inspired terrorists. You remember ISIS, right? They’re the JV team. Wait. That’s so 2014. They’re “contained.” That won’t work. That’s too Novemberish. They’re the terrorists that didn’t pose an “imminent threat” to the homeland.

Seriously, as upset as the editors have a right to be about Sen. Franken’s response, it’s important to maintain perspective. Sen. Franken is just the politician who’s getting sent out to spin a mess. It’s President Obama that created the mess by pretending that ISIS wasn’t really a threat. The question now is whether ISIS will carry out another successful attack or not.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

In Rush’s attempt to defend Donald Trump’s indefensible statements about banning Muslims from entering the country, he argued that Trump’s ‘policy’ has historical precedent. Specifically, he said “Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president. ‘Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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 nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.'”

Jimmy Carter did indeed use this law in 1980. It also doesn’t have a thing to do with Trump’s asinine statements because Trump didn’t call for banning people from a specific nation. Mr. Trump called for banning Muslims from the US. That’s illegal, according to Kimberly Guilfoyle, because we “are signatories to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which prohibits banning “people based on their religious beliefs.”

Some people are scratching their heads, saying that whether you ban Iranians or whether you ban Muslims, the end result is the same. Actually, it isn’t. It’s permissible to ban people from specific countries based on the nation’s national security situation. It would’ve been perfectly legitimate if President Bush had banned granting visas to people from Afghanistan right after 9/11 because he could make a substantive case that they posed a significant threat to the nation.

Indiscriminately banning all Muslims, whether they’re from Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon or Jordan, isn’t legal because we signed onto the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits that.

If you want to argue that we should get out of that Declaration, knock yourself out. I’m likely to agree with that. If we opted out of that Declaration, then Trump’s ban would be legal. Until we opt out, though, Trump’s hands would be tied.

As for Rush, he should practice what he preaches. He’s constantly lecturing people that “words have meanings.” Banning people based on their religious faith is prohibited. Banning people because they’re from a specific country because they pose a national security risk is permissible.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Josh Kraushaar’s article highlights a subject Democrats would rather forget. At minimum, they wish national security would just go away.

Kraushaar hit it right when he wrote “The signs of a pres­id­ent in deni­al over the threat of ter­ror­ism keep pil­ing up. Obama be­latedly ad­dressed the pub­lic’s fears in his Oval Of­fice ad­dress on Sunday even­ing, but he offered no new policies to deal with crisis. That it took four days for the pres­id­ent to un­equi­voc­ally call the San Bern­ardino at­tacks “ter­ror­ism” un­der­scored how his own in­stincts are at odds with the Amer­ic­an pub­lic’s.”

Kraushaar is right when he opines “The de­cision to give a na­tion­ally tele­vised speech without out­lining a change of course sug­ges­ted that ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials were wor­ried about de­clin­ing poll numbers and that he was try­ing to lim­it the polit­ic­al dam­age.” President Obama’s highest priorities since taking office have been to transform America to fit his rigid ideology and to worry first about the political impact of his policies rather than the impact his policies have on individuals’ and families’ lives.

That’s a major reason why Americans don’t trust President Obama’s national security policies. Another reason why people don’t trust President Obama’s national security policies is because he seems indifferent to national security most of the time. He’s shown more emotion fighting Republicans than he’s shown fighting ISIS. Still another reason why people don’t trust President Obama’s national security policies is because, in Kraushaar’s words, “the pres­id­ent’s as­sur­ances are be­ing con­tra­dicted by events around him.”

Mouthing the same BS is getting old. The people get the impression that President Obama’s lines remain the same, irrespective of what’s happening. If a terrorist gets captures, President Obama is likely to say “our home­land has nev­er been more pro­tec­ted by more ef­fect­ive in­tel­li­gence and law-en­force­ment pro­fes­sion­als at every level than they are now.” The truth is that President Obama said that hours after the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

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.

Apparently, Ted Cruz thinks that the path to the White House is by saying stupid, outlandish things. Apparently, Sen. Cruz thinks that impersonating Donald Trump is the best way to get elected. For instance, Sen. Cruz said that “the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats.” Later, Sen. Cruz said “Every time you have some sort of violent crime or mass killing, you could almost see the media salivating, hoping desperately that the murderer happens to be a Republican so they can use it to try to paint their political enemies. Now, listen, here’s the simple and undeniable facts: The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. The media doesn’t report that.”

Yesterday, I wrote this post to highlight Sen. Cruz’s political opportunism. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Sen. Cruz said that “we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war” before saying that Sen. and Mrs. Clinton “are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They’ve demonstrated they’ve learned nothing.'”

If Sen. Cruz thinks that we don’t have a dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war, then he isn’t connecting the dots between the Syrian refugees coming to the United States and his own assertion that some of these ‘refugees’ are actually ISIS terrorists.

Sen. Cruz, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that some of the Syrian refugees are ISIS terrorists, then insist that we don’t care about what happens in Syria. Those thoughts fit together like a sledgehammer fits into a petite lady’s glove.

Sen. Cruz doesn’t want the media to focus their attention on his vote to hurt the NSA’s surveillance program. To his credit, Gov. Chris Christie won’t let that issue die, though:

“In the seven years after 9/11, during the Bush administration, we had no attacks on American soil after 9/11,” Christie said in the interview. He adds:

And a large contributor to that success was the intelligence community because it was empowered and supported by a strong president of the United States, who knew exactly what do to prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland, which has got to be the first priority that an American president is to protect the safety and security of the American people.

Sen. Cruz, why did you vote for a bill that helped prevent terrorist attacks and helped roll up entire networks of terrorists? The first responsibility of a president is to protect citizens from their enemies.

Sen. Cruz voted with Sen. Paul because the bill was popular at the time. It wasn’t a principled decision. It was a political decision.

Sen. Cruz is sounding more like Rand Paul and Donald Trump each day.

After reading the opening paragraphs of this SC Times Writers Group article, I’m disappointed that the writer bought into liberal spin.

When Mr. Larson said “Perhaps the most obvious historical acts of domestic terrorism were committed against black Americans by white lynch mobs. In a single campaign of terror in 1918, white residents of Arkansas murdered 237 of their black neighbors in an attempt to enforce Jim Crow laws and maintain segregation. Recent scholarship places the total of American-Americans killed by lynching between 1877-1950 at 3,959 and likely many more undocumented cases exist as well,” he exposed himself to criticism for buying that spin.

The reason why Larson deserves the criticism he’ll get in this post is because he opened his article by saying “The United States has a terrorism problem. Despite our new-found fear of Syrian refugees, however, the greater risk is almost certainly from domestic sources.” That’s stupidity personified.

According to Mr. Larson, domestic terrorism is the United States’ biggest terrorist problem today because “white lynch mobs” murdered black people 100 years ago. What type of idiot thinks that crimes committed a century ago constitutes a domestic terrorist threat in the 21st Century?

These paragraphs are breathtakingly painful:

News reports the past 15 years have included terrorist attacks by animal rights extremists, lone wolf snipers, a pilot angry at the IRS, religious extremists targeting Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and Christians, and, of course, multiple school shootings — at least some of which might also be described as acts of terrorism.

All of these attacks were committed by Americans against other Americans, and all with political or religious motivation to use terror to “intimidate or coerce.”

Under this definition, the word terrorism is utterly meaningless, which, I suspect, is the goal of anti-war lefties.

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.