Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Terrorism category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

The DFL is doing its best to deny their responsibility for hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent child care payments to happen. That’s what this MPR article amounts to.

The MPR article defends the Dayton administration by saying “Johnson said there wasn’t any evidence presented in the former cases to indicate ties to terrorism. He also said he found the $100 million figure to be not ‘credible.’ That would account for half of the child-care assistance program. ‘From what we know about the scope of fraud within the program, we’re obviously concerned about it, but it’s not at that level,’ said Johnson.”

Naturally, Keith Ellison is on the wrong side of this issue. The MPR article quotes Ellison as saying “Financial stability for the Somali people, both here and in Somalia, is one of our strongest protections against the terroristic threat posed by Al-Shabaab. We should be making it easier for our constituents to support their families, not impugning the community for it. Fox 9 should issue a thorough correction and apology for its irresponsible reporting.'”

Ellison knows better than to say this. A high percentage of the money being sent to Somalia is money that’s been gained through fraud. That’s been verified by Chuck Johnson, the acting commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, when he said “Essentially, it’s like a shadow situation where there’s not really care being provided for the children, but the children are signed up for care as if they are. And in some cases, the parents are paid a kickback to be part of that scheme.”

I’m certain this is a foreign concept to Rep. Ellison but Fox9 News shouldn’t apologize for reporting on this criminal activity. We know this is criminal activity because Chuck Johnson admitted that “an investigation that began in 2014 led to the closure of 13 child care centers, six felony convictions and $4.6 million in court-ordered restitution.”

Jim Abeler was interviewed by FNC’s Shannon Bream about the scandal:

Here’s Tim Pawlenty’s statement on the scandal:

Technorati: , , , ,

It isn’t difficult to find incompetence within the Dayton administration. The first high-profile example of incompetence, of course, was the MNsure disaster. This year, we’ve dealt with the MNLARS crisis, which is definitely a major case of incompetence.

State Sen. Karin Housley’s investigation into the nursing home abuse crisis is a case of both incompetence and corruption since the caretakers who abused their patients weren’t investigated. Only a portion of these cases were investigated.

The daycare scandal is both a matter of incompetence and corruption. It dwarfs the nursing home scandal. This morning, we learned through Fox9’s excellent reporting that “Scott Stillman spent eight years managing the state’s digital forensics lab, meaning he mined data from computers and smart phones. ‘I have never seen anything like this level or scope in my 27-year career as an investigator,’ he told Fox 9.” Later in the interview, Stillman “was so alarmed by what he found that in March of 2017 he fired off a series of emails to his supervisors at DHS. ‘We are working on and overwhelmed by a significant amount of fraud cases involving organized crime, defrauding hundreds of millions of dollars annually in taxpayer monies,’ he wrote.”

That means that the Dayton administration knew about this ripoff and did nothing. Let that sink it. The Dayton administration knew about this ripoff and did nothing. Now they’re denying hearing about it:

According to Stillman, he alerted a number of people in DHS including the Commissioner’s Chief of Staff with the following message: “Significant amount of these defrauded dollars are being sent overseas to countries and organizations connected to entities known to fund terrorists and terrorism.”

At a Monday press briefing, the governor told Fox 9 his office was not told about the warnings. Sources tell the Fox 9 Investigators people within the governor’s office were told about the concerns a couple of years ago. “My chief of staff, current and previous staff, from what I’m told, did not get any information alleging there was that kind of theft,” Dayton said.

The Dayton administration finished with this gem:

DHS responded with a statement: “The Deputy Commissioner, communications and legal staff learned there may be emails on this subject when Fox 9 made its data request in March. The then-chief compliance officer was informed at the time the emails were originally sent.”

What type of communications team did they establish in the Dayton administration? Or didn’t they bother with that whatsoever? Or are they just lying?

Think about this: hundreds of millions of dollars left in suitcases via MSP. An inspector notices this & reports it to the Department of Human Services. Nothing happens until this Fox9 investigation. Then Gov. Dayton insists that he never heard about these whistleblower reports.

This isn’t uncommon with Democrats. The Obama administration didn’t admit that news about Fast and Furious made it to Eric Holder’s desk. President Obama still insists that he found out about Hillary’s private email address through a news report even after he sent her emails at her private email address. Why should anyone think that Democrats care one iota about accountability and honesty?

This article is good news for GOP gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie, saying “The new poll of likely Virginia voters by Republican firm Optimus/Firehouse Strategies over Wednesday and Thursday shows Gillespie leading his Democratic opponent Ralph Northam by 40.4 percent to 37.4 percent.” The thing that’s most encouraging, though, is that the Latino Victory Fund ad enraged independents and fired up Republicans.

As a result, turnout should be high for the GOP candidate. Meanwhile, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam is having difficulty turning out the Obama coalition. Those 2 things should help deliver a victory for a victory to Governor-Elect-in-Waiting Gillespie.

Turnout for Northam might be hurt because he’s played into Republicans’ hands on sanctuary cities. The article says “Northam has also received criticism among party members and progressive voter groups for his break with party rhetoric on so-called sanctuary cities, which do not comply with federal immigration laws, saying he would sign legislation banning them ‘if that bill comes to my desk.'” First, that’s taking a defensive position, which isn’t good anytime but especially troubling the last week of a campaign.

Then there’s this:

Following headliner Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News, populist-nationalist 2018 U.S. Senate candidate Corey Stewart addressed the Remembrance Project National Conference in Washington, DC, Saturday. The event, at the capital’s famous Willard Hotel, featured a “who’s who” of leaders in the fight against illegal immigration, including headliner Bannon, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, and Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, in Remembrance Project’s largest annual event to honor Americans killed by illegal alien crime and the “angel families” they left behind.

Finally, there’s this observation:

“MS-13 is not just a Northern Virginia problem. It’s not just in Northern Virginia and tidewater,” Stewart told Breitbart News on Saturday. “It is spreading down the [Interstate] 81 corridor and is becoming a statewide issue … It’s an issue that will drive not only conservatives but independent voters who are concerned about it.”

The winner of the big elections is the candidate that finds the issue that evokes the most visceral reaction. I think MS-13 is this year’s visceral issue. We’ll see Tuesday night whether I’m right.

Technorati: , , , ,

After 3 days of waiting, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the actions of Antifa. IMHO, that isn’t nearly enough. Ashton Whitty, a prominent member of the College Republicans at U-Cal Berkeley, described a frightening situation in this post.

She told a reporter for Campus Reform that she’d been “targeted and stalked during an Antifa march that left several people injured this weekend.” Campus Reform’s reporter reported that “video footage reviewed by Campus Reform appears to show Antifa members stalking Ashton Whitty, a prominent conservative student at the university and Campus Reform Campus Correspondent, as she was being interviewed by the American Freedom Keepers.”

In this video, it’s clear that Antifa was proud of their stalking activities, saying that they were “hungry for supremacists”, adding that they were “real hungry for white supremacists and there’s more of us.” Additionally, one Antifa rioter said “you guys are all bleeping racist mother bleepers.”

Monday night, Whitty told Martha MacCallum that “They came with black masks, they carried weapons, they were pounding people down with their fists and feet. I knew I had to get out of there. Everything was great until Antifa showed up.”

This video confirms that Antifa was armed with unconventional weapons and that they didn’t hesitate in using those weapons against college students with whom Antifa disagreed. Further, Antifa didn’t see the irony of them using fascist tactics to prevent so-called fascists from speaking.

These aren’t the actions of a bunch of protesters. They’re the actions of a domestic terrorist group. What type of lunatic gets that bent out of shape? Antifa’s stated goal is to highlight fascism. I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job with that. The indisputable thing is that they’re acting like fascists. It’s indisputable because video doesn’t lie.

On a different topic, Antifa was upset that they’re getting negative press. My suggestion is to have them stop acting like vigilantes and/or anarchists. I’m positive this won’t happen but it would be refreshing to see Antifa stop acting like terrorists and anarchists.

The biggest thing that came through during President Trump’s speech on Afghanistan was that Gen. Obama’s (my term, not Trump’s) policies are history. President Trump couldn’t have state things more emphatically than when he said “First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win. Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq.”

In those words, President Trump said that withdrawing from Iraq in 2011 was a mistake because it created “a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill.” Later, President Trump said “No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia, but we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions.” I won’t be surprised if ‘Gen. Obama’, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Marie Harf deny that President Trump inherited “a challenging and troubling situation” in southwest Asia but that’s to be expected.

A key part of President Trump’s speech, at least for me, was when he explained his thinking for the strategy:

My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusion about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.

President Trump admitted what we all know: that he’s changed his mind on Afghanistan. He attributed his change of mind to sitting “behind the desk in the Oval Office.” I suspect most thoughtful people would accept that thinking.

The haters, though, won’t cut President Trump any slack. As the saying goes, haters gotta hate. It’s sad that too many people hate first, then think of the consequences later. In many ways, though, this was President Trump’s greatest speech. This riff was especially powerful and inspiring:

American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield – for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives, and though their lives – were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal and to remain one nation under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose.

They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion. That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They are all part of the same family. It’s called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law.

They are bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget, that a wound inflicted upon on a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt.

And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we sent to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas, and we will always win, let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name, that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

If that part of President Trump’s speech doesn’t inspire you, then you need to re-examine yourself. It’s that simple.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Michelle Brane of the Women’s Refugee Commission was on Tucker Carlson Tonight last night. During the interview, Ms. Brane said a couple things that were either spin or were dishonest. My first impression is that Ms. Brane’s statements were proof of her ignorance.

Carlson started the conversation by saying “I’m looking at the polling on refugee resettlement and the public cannot be described as supporting it, now or in the past, strikingly low support for resettling refugees in this country. And if you ask people ‘do you want them resettled where you live, in your neighborhood’, it’s even lower and I’m wondering why that is. I’m wondering why people don’t support it.”

Ms. Brane replied “Well, first of all, I’m not sure people don’t support it and some polls show that they don’t support it and I know that support for the programs varies. It varies over time. It varies geographically.”

Later, Ms. Brane stumbled onto something when she said “At least the Americans that I engage with, and I try and be diverse in my encounters with people, I do think that people do support it.” That’s important because it’s apparent that Ms. Brane hasn’t visited the cities with high refugee populations. People don’t support refugee resettlement because they’re a definite economic hardship on local communities.

The way that the program is set up, from what I’ve seen up close, it’s destined to fail. NPOs love the money that the State Department pays them to resettle refugees. Once they’re settled, though, the NPOs’ job is essentially finished. Because many of these refugees don’t have the skills to be employed, they either start applying for local government benefits or they’re perfect targets for radicalization.

Refugee resettlement programs are lucrative for organizations like Lutheran Social Services or Catholic Charities. The State Department pays these charities quite handsomely to find refugees a place to live. Once that’s over, however, the communities, not the charities, pick up the rest of the refugees’ tab.

Those of us that’ve dealt with the resettlement programs’ expenses know that the NPOs get the money but that the communities get the bills.

This article points to the possibility that the Democrats’ uproar over the so-called Muslim ban is manufactured. The article starts by saying “Many of President Donald Trump’s core political supporters had a simple message on Sunday for the fiercest opponents of his immigration ban: Calm down. The relaxed reaction among the kind of voters who drove Trump’s historic upset victory – working- and middle-class residents of Midwest and the South – provided a striking contrast to the uproar that has gripped major coastal cities, where thousands of protesters flocked to airports where immigrants had been detained.”

Let’s get serious about something. Democrats didn’t utter a peep in 2011 when then-President Obama temporarily stopped admitting Iraqis when 2 al-Qa’ida in Iraq terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, KY after getting admitted as refugees. The Washington Post’s ‘fact-checker’, Glenn Kessler tweeted his explanation for why the media didn’t say anything about Obama’s temporary halt in bringing in refugees, saying “two big differences: 1) pause was not announced at the time, done quietly. reporters only found out years later. 2) not based on religion.” Roxanne Chester put Kessler in his place with this tweet, saying “The most transparent adm did things they didn’t publish? Isn’t it the job of a free press to monitor that?”

The chances of the Democrats’ protests being spontaneous aren’t high. They’re pretty unlikely. It’s difficult to say that the grass roots are rising up when they’re rent-a-protesters. If these ‘grass roots’ activists are that into human rights, why didn’t they say anything about this?

These protests are as phony as the Democrats. It’s that simple.

The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.

William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.

Then there’s this:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:

I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:

It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.

Sen. Feinstein’s statement on President Trump’s executive order on extreme vetting represents the Democrats’ national security policy. In her statement, Sen. Feinstein, (D-CA), said “Under the president’s executive order, Syrian refugees can only come to this country if they are Christian—regardless of the level of persecution or need. To me, this an unbelievable action. It’s one thing to see that an individual is properly vetted. It’s an entirely different matter to say that because someone comes from a particular country or is a member of a particular faith that he or she has no access to this country.”

Sen. Feinstein isn’t telling the truth. Follow this link to read President Trump’s executive order on extreme vetting. The part that jumped out at me was the part that said “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

Then there’s this section:

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

It’s a dark moment when a supposed expert in national security plays games with America’s safety. Here’s Sen. Feinstein’s full statement:

Andy McCarthy’s article either proves that Sen. Feinstein is dumber than a sack of hair about the commander-in-chief’s authority or she’s dishonest. Either Sen. Feinstein knows about this provision or she hasn’t done her homework:

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The thing that’s frightening is that Democrats sat silent when President Obama tried rewriting existing laws through executive orders but are besides themselves when President Trump issues an EO that states that his administration will follow existing laws:

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

In other words, President Trump’s EO that temporarily stops refugees from entering our nation cites the specific law he’s obeying.

Think of this. A bill is passed by Congress, then signed by the president. How can something that gets bipartisan support and is signed by the president be un-American? Further, the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the affirmative responsibility of protecting the United States from terrorist attacks.

President Trump’s EO follows US law and the Constitution. That’s what Sen. Feinstein calls un-American. It’s frightening that Sen. Feinstein either doesn’t understand the Constitution or is too dishonest to admit that the Democratic Party is willing to ignore the Constitution for political gain.

One thing that’s becoming exceptionally apparent is that Sen. Schumer is a whiner and a drama queen. Friday night, Sen. Schumer responded to President Trump’s executive action to start extreme vetting by saying “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon. Taking in immigrants and refugees is not only humanitarian but has also boosted our economy and created jobs decade after decade. This is one of the most backward and nasty executive orders that the president has issued.”

Meanwhile, CAIR announced it was filing a lawsuit against President Trump. CAIR’s Lena F. Masri said “There is no evidence that refugees, the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation, are a threat to national security. This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality.”

If there was a 2-way contest to see who was more out of touch with the American people, I’m betting that CAIR and Sen. Schumer would both finish third or worse. Sen. Schumer insists that Americans don’t care about national security. CAIR insists that terrorists don’t infiltrate refugees even though ISIS has stated publicly that they’re frequently attempting to get into Europe and the United States by pretending to be refugees.

Democrats and CAIR have argued that, at most, 1 out of 1,000 refugees might be terrorists. Let’s suppose that that’s true. Last year, 117,000 Syrian refugees were admitted into the United States. If that ratio is accurate, that means the Obama administration let in enough terrorists to pull off 6 9/11-style terrorist attacks. Remember that 19 men pulled off 9/11.

To Sen. Schumer: why are you willing to let that many terrorists in in the name of maintaining the United States’ reputation as a nation of immigrants?
To CAIR: Why do you insist that all Muslims are peaceful? Clearly, most are. Clearly, too many aren’t. Isn’t it time we took these fanatics at their word?