The 3 flaws in Rep. McCaul’s plan to secure the homeland

Carolina K. Smith MD | Shutterstock

Carolina K. Smith MD | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz and Nate Madden, Sept. 21, 2016:

It’s impossible to craft a solution to a security threat when policy-makers refuse to identify the nature of the threat, its source, and its threat doctrine. Given that Democrats refuse to even recognize any correlation between any form of Islam and Jihad, their policies reflect a perfectly consistent and unvarnished willful blindness of the modern jihadist threat. In releasing the House GOP’s plan to combat Islamic terror, however, Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas. (F, 58%) exhibits the same systemic misdiagnosis of the problem, albeit one that is a step or two closer to the truth than the Democrats.

Yesterday, Chairman McCaul unveiled “A National Strategy to Win the War against Islamist Terror.” While the plan at least references Islamic terror as the key threat and very broadly and generally outlines worthy end-goals, the overarching outline has two fatal flaws.

  • It still refuses to name names when it comes to specific threats and;
  • The overall policy objectives, strategies, and suggestions, are overly general, almost vacuous, and obfuscate the true common sense path forward screaming out for much-needed attention from our political leaders.

This all stems from McCaul’s refusal to identify the specific threat of mass Sharia-adherent immigration, unreformed-Islam in general, and the fifth column that operates within this country to ensure that Muslim communities become disenchanted with America’s constitutional system of government.

The introduction sets the tone for the entire policy paper. McCaul asserts that “Islamist terrorists have perverted a major religion into a hateful worldview, and while most Muslims do not share their beliefs, their influence is spreading like wildfire.” While this definitely sounds more refreshing than the Democrat refusal to mention Islam at all, it is still a factually troubled statement because it completely divorces the problem from anything inherent in the practice of the religion itself by those who strictly adhere to Sharia. That is not a small group of people perverting a religion and it’s not isolated to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. While ISIS’s successful propaganda campaign has definitely fanned the flames and provided Sharia-adherents with a fulfillment of the caliphate, the problem existed long before 2013 and will continue after the caliphate collapses.

McCaul continues down this false narrative of divorcing “terrorists” (the scary network people abroad) from the general population of Sharia-supporting Muslims already living in America or those who seek to immigrate: “Terrorists are trying to send operatives to our shores and radicalize new ones in U.S. communities.”

Once again, McCaul believes that the threat is limited to potential infiltration of known terror networks into immigrant or native Muslim populations, completely disregarding the inherent threat of large populations of Sharia-adherents clustered together in the West. It’s as if McCaul can’t find Europe on a map.

Moreover, McCaul completely ignores the fact that civilization jihad is being waged on our shores, within the government, and within our political class by the Muslim Brotherhood to radicalize Muslim communities and marginalize reformists. They don’t need to send operatives to our shores when Hamas fundraisers are already here, obtaining security clearances and downright training our law enforcement in “counter terrorism.”

While this is not the bold Hillary/Obama form of willful blindness, it presents us with Bush 2.0, a woefully inadequate approach – especially after eight years of Obama’s malfeasance.

The willful blindness in identifying the threat and its doctrine manifests in many of the polices laid out by the report:

Immigration/Refugees

McCaul’s report speaks of the need for better “vetting” of immigrants. He even mentions researching an applicant’s social media posting to see if they have pledged support to a terror group. But foundationally, he has no inherent problem with the record-high immigration from the Middle East. While this approach is one step ahead of the Obama blindness, in which applicants have a right to “privacy” from DHS officials investigating their social media activity, it misses the point. This is not merely about vetting for known individual terrorists or those espousing support for terrorist networks. This is about those who subscribe to the ideology that cultivates the climate of homegrown terror in the family, neighborhood, and community.

Take the case of Somali immigration, for example. We have admitted well over 100,000 Somali refugees over the past two decades — in contravention to America’s national interests on any level. Dozens from the Minneapolis community have been charged with terrorism-related activities, and statements from the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota indicate that there is a culture that runs much deeper than those numbers suggest. Was this something we could have weeded out through “vetting” 15-25 years ago? Perhaps in a few cases. But for the most part, this is a cumulative problem inherent in mass migration from dangerous Islamic countries.

This is the enduring lesson from the jihadists of Boston, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, and the pair of Somali and Afghani immigrants who perpetrated attacks this past weekend. Typically, the parents will not engage in terrorism. Nonetheless, they cluster in communities that adhere to Sharia and are educated through Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. The attackers in each of these cases were the second generation; the children brought to America by their parents or born on American soil. McCaul’s plan to look myopically for connections or allegiance to a specific terror group might save a few more lives than under the Obama Administration, but it fails to identify the core of the problem and the enduring lessons from Europe.

Prison jihadism

To its credit, the report rightly warns that our prisons have become veritable jihadist breeding grounds, but it declines to name the biggest contributor to that reality. “As the number of convicted homegrown terrorists grows, so does the risk that our prisons will become wellsprings of fanaticism,” it reads. The report continues,

The federal government must examine non-governmental rehabilitation options for convicted terrorists to prevent more individuals from entering the prison system primed to spread their hateful ideology. The Bureau of Prisons should also take steps to combat prison radicalization, including proactively monitoring known extremists and putting measures in place to prevent them from inspiring fellow inmates to embrace terror.

One can only hope the federal government would be watching for groups with ties to organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. Or how about the Islamic Society of North America, which was found on a list of Chaplaincy Endorsers provided by the federal government earlier this year. However, without making that clear, we cannot expect the federal government to do just that.

Thirteen years ago, the FBI arrested Abdurahman Alamoudi,the man responsible for establishing the entire Muslim chaplaincy program within the Bureau of Prisons, for funding Al Qaeda. In 2003, Chuck Schumer railed against the Bush administration for doing nothing to investigate all the people Alamoudi appointed (more on this from Ben Weingarten’s article yesterday). What is McCaul doing to this very day to go after the Muslim Brotherhood in the chaplaincy?

Terrorist travel

Here, again, the report confronts us with a premise that, as a baseline, nobody can find much fault. However, in doing so, the report muddles the details. It rightly states that jihadists leaving the United States to visit high-risk countries is a massive security concern, but says very little substantively to directly confront the problem. Perhaps the worst part of the report is that it calls on the Obama administration — which did a phenomenal job of enlisting Muslim Brotherhood affiliates for its ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ program — to develop a plan to stop jihadists from re-entering the United States. It says nothing of the plans already before Congress, like the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would strip the citizenship of anyone who leaves to train with a foreign terror organization.

Instead, it says, “The White House should produce a strategy to combat terrorist travel and to prevent Americans from leaving to join terrorist organizations.” This is nothing short of laughable, given Obama’s track record.

Conclusion

McCaul is absolutely correct to observe that, fifteen years after 9/11, our counterterrorism policies have failed miserably. But they have failed because we didn’t accurately identify the threat confronting us, and that willful blindness did not begin with the Obama administration. Until political correctness is put aside and the threat is accurately identified, policymakers will continue missing the target with their solutions. This isn’t to say that it’s completely errant, however. Make no mistake, while McCaul’s proposals are far closer to the mark than anything we’ve seen from the Obama Administration thus far, they’re just far enough off of it to still be dangerous. And given McCaul’s prominent role in advising Donald Trump on homeland security, that should concern everyone who wants a bold change in direction.

A Bloody Day of Muslim Refugee Terror

klk

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 20, 2016:

The wave of Muslim refugee terror began with a bomb targeting a U.S. Marine charity run in New Jersey. By evening a pressure cooker full of shrapnel has exploded outside a Manhattan building for the blind. An hour later, a rampaging Muslim terrorist began stabbing people inside a Macy’s, asking them if they were Muslim and shouting the name of “Allah,” the genocidal Islamic deity of mass murder.

And that was one Saturday, two Muslim refugees and a wave of national terror 1,200 miles apart.

What did Elizabeth, New Jersey and St. Cloud, Minnesota have in common?

New Jersey has the second largest Muslim population in the country. This isn’t the first time it was used as a staging ground for Muslim terror.

11 of the 19 September 11 hijackers hung out in Paterson (known colloquially as Paterstine). Head toward Jersey City and you can see where Muslim enemies of this country stood on rooftops and cheered the attacks on September 11. It’s also where the World Trade Center bombing mastermind and the Blind Sheikh who provided religious guidance for a proposed wave of Islamic terror operated.

Go south and in Elizabeth you can pass the First American Fried Chicken joint where the Rahami clan made life miserable for their American neighbors before one of their spawn began his bombing spree.

New Jersey is a map of Muslim terror plots because of its huge Muslim population.

Ahmad Khan Rahami came to America as the son of an Afghan refugee. He stabbed a man two years ago. His family was a local nuisance who cried “Islamophobia” at the least provocation. His brother was a Jihadi sympathizer and may have fled the country after assaulting a police officer. By the time Ahmad was done, he had wounded a police officer and 29 other people. If his plot had succeeded, he might have pulled off the largest Muslim terror atrocity in the country since September 11.

Sadly, Syrian Muslim “refugees” continued to be dumped in Elizabeth, NJ to seed the next wave of Muslim terror. The International Rescue Committee, one of the two largest migrant agencies plaguing the Garden State, is based in Elizabeth, 8 minutes away from the Rahimi chicken place.

Last year Erol Kekic, the head of the group, insisted that the issue would “blow over.” Instead of blowing over, it’s blowing up.

Minnesota has suffered from the presence of the largest Somali migrant population in the country. And so a state which used to be known for its Swedish and German immigrants instead became a recruiting ground for ISIS and Al-Shabab. Al-Shabab, which is aligned with Al Qaeda, attacked the Westgate mall in Kenya a few years ago. The Somali killers quizzed their victims to distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims.

Dahir Adan, the Somali Muslim migrant who invaded America from a refugee camp in Kenya, attempted to duplicate that attack, asking those he stabbed at the Crossroads Mall if they were Muslims.

Dozens of Somali migrants in America have joined Al-Shabab and ISIS. The only difference between Dahir Adan and them is that instead of getting on a plane back to his native Somalia to join the local Jihadists, he carried out his Jihad against the nighttime shoppers in a Macy’s.

The Crossroads attack was the tragic price paid by innocent people for Muslim refugee resettlement.

Muslim Somali migration dramatically increased under Obama, rising from 2,500 in 2008 to around 8,000 and 9,000 in the last few years. Somali settlers represent almost 1 percent of the population of Minnesota. Most of the “refugees” dumped in St. Cloud were Somalis migrants and Lutheran Social Services has taken the lead in inflicting Somalis on the unfortunate natives of St. Cloud.

From the very beginning of their arrival, the Somali colonists were a problem for the people of St. Cloud. They displaced American workers and clashed with the native population. In this decade, St. Cloud has become 10% Somali. The Crossroads attack was the inevitable result of that demographic growth.

What happened in New Jersey and Minnesota is the same thing that has been happening in Europe. Islamic terrorism is caused by Muslim migration. As the Muslim population grows, so does its terror.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton had declared that the Somali occupation of the state is here to stay. “Minnesota is not like it was 30, 50 years ago,” he sneered. “Anybody who cannot accept your right to be here should find another state.”

Now Dayton has condemned the “religious bigotry” that motivated the Crossroads attack and declared that, “There is no place in Minnesota for intolerance of all Americans’ constitutional right to worship according to their beliefs.”

But the preferred mode of worship of Dahir Adan came from the religious book that he listed as his favorite, the Koran. “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” (Koran 9:5), “Strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip,” (Koran 8:12) and “Fight them until there is no unbelief and the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Koran 8:39). Islamic worship is murdering those who exercise religious freedom. That’s what Dahir Adan was doing at the mall when he asked his victims if they were Muslims.

You can have religious freedom or Islam. You can have the Constitution or the Koran. But you can’t have both.

“I ask everyone in the St. Cloud area and throughout Minnesota to rise above this atrocity and act to make religious and racial tolerance one of the ways in which Minnesotans again lead our country,” Governor Dayton has said. If he and other Minnesotans really want religious tolerance, then the only possible way to achieve it is by ending the disastrous settlement of Somali Muslims in Minnesota.

The anniversary of September 11 has come and gone. And we have learned nothing from the experience. The cesspools of Muslim terror in New Jersey have only grown. And no amount of moments of silence will clean them up. The latest terror plot in New York City originates from the same swamp.

Meanwhile peaceful states like Minnesota have become terror hubs through refugee resettlement.

Refugee resettlement is becoming our biggest terror threat. Obama wants to hike next year’s refugee admissions to 110,000. That’s a 57% increase since 2015. The summer’s statistics showed that more Muslims were being admitted as refugees than Christians.

This weekend’s wave of terror is the result of our refugee policy. And that policy is getting worse.

Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan were the products of our refugee policy of yesteryear. Today’s refugee policy will have far deadlier consequences and produce far more terror attacks.

Saturday was a bloody day of Muslim terror, but as the red tide of Muslim migration washes up on our shores, every day in our future will be a day of Muslim terror.

Only ending Muslim migration can stop that.

 

It’s Time We Faced the Facts about the Muslim World

Ahmad Khan Rahami seen on video surveillance. (Photo: New Jersey State Police/Handout/Reuters)

Ahmad Khan Rahami seen on video surveillance. (Photo: New Jersey State Police/Handout/Reuters)

Islam has a serious problem. America needs to start acting accordingly.

National Review, by David  French, Sept. 19, 2016:

Here is a plain, inarguable truth: A series of Muslim immigrants and “visitors” are responsible for killing more Americans on American soil than the combined militaries of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Two more attacks over the weekend left 38 Americans wounded, and it appears that both were carried out by Muslim immigrants.

In Saint Cloud, Minn., Dahir Adan’s family identified him as the man who stabbed eight people in a mall before being shot and killed by an armed civilian, an off-duty police officer named Jason Falconer. Adan’s family said he was born in Kenya. In New York, police arrested an Afghan-American named Ahmad Khan Rahami after a shootout. He’s a “person of interest” in bombings in both New York and New Jersey that injured 29.

Despite making up a tiny fraction of the American population, Muslims are responsible for exponentially more terror deaths than any other meaningful American community. Even if you use the Left’s utterly ridiculous standard of “terror deaths since 9/11” (why exclude America’s worst terror attack when calculating the terror threat?), Muslim terrorists have killed almost twice as many people as every other American faction or demographic combined.

Yet when any politician or pundit suggests restrictions or even special scrutiny applied to Muslim immigrants — especially Muslim immigrants or visitors from jihadist conflict zones — entire sectors of the Left (and some on the right) recoil in shock and horror. Whenever there’s a terror attack, there’s an almost palpable desperation to determine that the attacker was not Muslim and the attack had “no connection” to international terror, in spite of the fact that it is now ISIS and al-Qaeda strategy to inspire lone wolves.

The simple explanation for this desperation is that there’s a fear that any terror attack helps Donald Trump win the presidency. But the desperation long predated Trump’s rise. It’s a desperation born out of the realization that facing actual facts about the Islamic world threatens an entire, absurd ideology of “diversity” that views different cultures (except of course for the hated Christian oppressor) as the equivalent of Neapolitan ice cream — each flavor and color has a distinct taste, but it’s all still sugary goodness.

The reality is different. The Muslim world has a severe problem with anti-Semitism, intolerance, and terrorism. As I’ve documented before, using data from Pew Foundation surveys, it’s plain that more than 100 million Muslims have expressed sympathy for terrorists such as Osama bin Laden or for barbaric jihadist groups such as ISIS. Hundreds of millions more express support for the most intolerant forms of sharia law. Telethons in Saudi Arabia have raised vast sums of money for terrorist causes, and jihadists have been able to recruit hundreds of thousands of fighters to deploy against Americans, Israelis, and our Muslim allies.

Given these facts, why is it bigoted to propose plainly constitutional ideological litmus tests? How is it bigoted to halt — absent compelling extenuating circumstances — immigration from jihadist conflict zones or jihadist-dominated regions? We have implemented ideological tests before, during the Cold War, when there was an active national-security threat. We should do so again.

However, as long as we’re facing facts, it’s also critical to remember that while the effective use of American military force and effective border controls can limit the jihadist threat, only Muslims can truly reduce the reach of jihadist ideology. American Christian rhetoric, secular religious arguments, and diversity-speak are largely irrelevant to the internal Muslim debate about the meaning and interpretation of the Koran and the various hadiths.

That makes it all the more important that we double down on our support for proven Muslim allies. The Kurds, for example, are perhaps our most stalwart allies (outside of Israel) in the entire Middle East. The current Egyptian regime is a declared enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has called for a “religious revolution” within Islam. If we don’t want extensive American ground forces engaged in permanent ground combat in the Middle East, we need local allies. It’s that simple.

And that means there are no easy answers. Politicians have to shed their illusions about the Muslim world and admit the sad fact that mass immigration from jihadist zones — even of refugees — carries with it profound risks. At the same time, entirely walling off the nation from Islam is neither feasible nor prudent. We must cultivate relationships with key allies under the principle of “no better friend, no worse enemy.”

Genuine alliance with America should be the path to true international engagement and access to international markets. But access cannot be unconditional. We must close our borders completely to those who embrace Islamic fundamentalism. Those who come from a jihadist-dominated region must be forced to provide a record of their alliance and affiliation with American values and interests before they are allowed in.

This isn’t invidious discrimination; it’s evidence-based policy-making. It’s not bigotry; it’s national defense. When “diversity” brings death, it’s time to shed fairy-tale ideologies and recognize grim truth. The Muslim world has a problem. It’s time our nation responded accordingly.

— David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

***

In Wake of Recent Terrorism, Rewatch This: Peaceful Muslims Irrelevant

***

Flashback: Shapiro On The Myth Of The Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

Also see:

Forget the Economy—It’s the Jihad, Stupid!

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (R) and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (2-R) look over a mangled dumpster while touring the site of an explosion that occurred on Saturday night in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York, USA, September18, 2016. (Photo and caption: REUTERS/Justin Lane/Pool.)

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (R) and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (2-R) look over a mangled dumpster while touring the site of an explosion that occurred on Saturday night in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York, USA, September18, 2016. (Photo and caption: REUTERS/Justin Lane/Pool.)

PJ Media, by Roger L. Simon, Sept. 19, 2016:

In presidential elections,  traditionally it’s the economy, stupid.  But if there’s one thing that trumps the economy, it’s whether you live or die.  And as events play out in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota (not to mention Iran, Syria, Libya, etc., etc.), it seems more than ever that for 2016—it’s the jihad, stupid.

There’s little question the Obama administration has done an horrendous job dealing with Islamic terrorism.  The rise of ISIS is significantly on the president’s hands, not just because he inanely called the mega-terrorists a JV team, but because his failure to keep sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq gave the Islamic State the opportunity to grow and thrive.

The success of the Islamic State has given rise to a worldwide epidemic of so-called “lone wolves” who aren’t really alone, but local players (sometimes banded together) who take their inspiration from ISIS. They don’t care whether the Islamic State is controlling Mosul or even Raqqa. They care about jihad. And there seem to be more of them every day, in all corners of the world.

As I write this, five men have been taken into custody near the Verrazano Bridge. Are they jihadists?  I don’t know, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Meanwhile, after Saturday’s IED explosion on 23rd Street and the near tragedy at a Marine charity run in Seaside Park, New Jersey, more pipe bombs have been found near the train station in Elizabeth, New Jersey. (Are there pipe bombs everywhere now?)

By all rights Hillary Clinton, an obvious principal in the development of this ongoing disaster, should have no chance at the presidency in a rational world. But an extraordinarily biased and morally narcissistic media, unable to face their own inadequacies or change a narrative seemingly set in stone, apparently will do anything to see her elected.

Coming soon is an electoral showdown the likes of which we have never seen—and it will largely be over how our country handles the jihad. Do we want to live like this for the rest of our lives? Do we want ongoing terror attacks, large and small, to be the new normal for us, our children and our children’s children?

The time has come to take a serious look at Donald Trump’s “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants.  So far it is the only proposal that would have much of effect on the status quo. I haven’t seen a single other suggestion of much relevance, especially since there is little appetite for a full-scale war in the Middle East.  You can “see something, say something” until you’re blue in the face, but there’s no way everything can be caught.

Unfortunately, “extreme vetting” is, as we are constantly reminded by that same media, a form of discrimination against Muslims. The problem is, allowing a free flow of immigration, or anything close, is discrimination against everyone else.

I could fill the rest of this page and a half-dozen more with all the nationalities and religions that are not waging jihad. There is only one that is.

Until that ends, they must be stopped. We simply have no other choice. Otherwise we will be like Europe before we know it—and the European situation has become almost untenable.  We may already be untenable ourselves. The sad events in St. Cloud attest to the great resistance their Somali community has to assimilating. We cannot have more of this. We must shut it down before it overwhelms us.

To say that is not Islamophobia. It is reality.  We will actually benefit the Islamic world by closing our borders to their immigrants. Give them an escape-valve and they will remain forever as they are, adrift in the modern world, destroying each other.

If you want an actual definition of “Islamophobia,” this is the best one I’ve seen: “A word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.” Most of those cowards are in our media and the academy.  They are our adversaries in election 2016.  The battle is about to be joined.

Roger L. Simon is a prize-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media.  His most recent book is—I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already.

French Scholar of Islam Gilles Kepel: Prepare for War

sislam-will-dominate1Expect the jihad to worsen across Europe, to the point that many states fall into civil war over what to do about the terror.

CounterJihad, Sept. 13, 2016:

How much worse will Islamist terrorism in Europe get?  According to French scholar Gilles Kepel of the Sciences Po institute, it is likely to get so much worse that European states fall into civil war over government inability to stop it.

Professor Gilles Kepel, from the Sciences Po in Paris, France, said a growing ‘Jihad Generation’ is likely to continue to carry out terror acts in European cities.  The aim of their terror activity is to both incite hatred towards Muslims and, in doing so, cause further radicalisation among young people, the professor of political science said.

He told the German newspaper Die Welt that this in turn could lead to the point where Europe enters into civil war.

 

Specifically, Kepel is concerned that this continual wave of terror attacks cannot be effectively stopped by traditional policing methods.  The French government seems to agree, as French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said this week that there would definitely be more successful attacks even though his government is stopping attacks “every day.”

Partially this is because police do not have anything like the resources they would need.  The numbers of Muslims on terrorism watch lists in France alone tops 15,000, having tripled in recent months.  It takes many police officers to establish a full-time watch on one particular suspect.  The French have far less capacity to watch these suspects than does the American FBI, and even they have only “a few dozen” surveillance teams — far too few to watch the thousand-plus suspected Islamic terrorists here.  There is simply no way for police work alone to deal with so large a problem.

Thus, terrorist acts on the scale of the recent Paris attacks are likely to continue, and the European populations will eventually find it intolerable.  They will then move to expel Islam from Europe by endorsing right wing parties, Kepel says, and that will lead to the civil wars he fears.

Nor will that be the end of the violence.  The Islamist radicals will not be satisfied with destabilizing Europe, in Kepel’s view.  They will want to build an Islamic society from the wreckage:

The long-term goal of the Jihad Generation is to destroy Europe through civil war and then build an Islamic society from the ashes, Prof. Kepel said. The strategy is similar to the expansion of Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and Libya where the terrorist organisation was able to use the chaos of civil war to slowly build its forces, grow in power, and rapidly seize territory.

There are things that can be done to lessen the danger, according to Professor Kepel.  One of the main ones is that Islamic leaders should reject Salafism, a form of Islam that requires a kind of disconnection from the secular states characteristic of contemporary Europe.  Kepel proposes that Islamic scholars have a “duty” to reject Salafism, and that most are failing this duty by remaining silent in the face of a rising tide of this ideological movement.

The young are particular persuaded by Salafi ideas, according to Breitbart, as also are thought to be the recent immigrant wave from the crises in the Middle East.  They point out that Germany has begun to raid Salafi preachers, targeting some 45,000 in recent months.  But of course that returns our attention to the scale of the problem.  Raiding 45,000 homes is possible.  Monitoring 45,000 preachers full time is probably quite beyond the resources of any European state, and possibly beyond even the United States.

Victory Over Jihad: Five Steps to Win the War

Published on Aug 30, 2016 by CounterJihad Video

Nations are crumbling. Religious murder haunts Western streets. Millions of refugees swamp our borders, with unknown numbers of terrorists hiding among them. The Obama administration’s foolish policies ignited a fuse that has set off global jihad. Now they are keeping those same policies in place, and letting the crisis fester.

Join the CounterJihad, and help us enact our five-part strategy:

1. Stop Importing Jihadists

2. Cut Down the Black Flag and defeat ISIS

3. Cure Willful Blindness

4. Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorist organization that it is

5. Tear Up the Iran ‘Deal’

Learn more at http://counterjihad.com

screen-shot-2016-02-21-at-11-54-52-pm-640x480

Hillary First Broached Saudi Visa Deal During Visit to Huma Abedin’s Mom’s Saudi Madrassa

abedin-clinton

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudis soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure, hitting a record 108,578 per year in 2013.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 31, 2016:

Earlier this month, CounterJihad.com broke the story that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was instrumental in cutting a special deal with the Saudi government to reverse post-9/11 restrictions on Saudi visas, triggering an unprecedented explosion in Saudi students entering the US. CJ has since learned that the seeds of this major change in immigration policy — one with serious national security implications — were planted during a 2010 visit by Clinton to a Saudi college founded by her top aide’s radical Muslim mother — a college that turns out to have direct ties to terrorists.

Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin arranged the trip to the radical Saudi school, overruling concerns by diplomatic security, in what was yet another example of Abedin, a self-described “devout Muslim” whose family has direct ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, playing an outsize role in influencing US policy when it comes to the Middle East and Muslim empowerment.

The policy reversal appears to have had its roots in a speech Clinton gave at the Dar al-Hekma girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, at the behest of Abedin, whose mother, Saleha Abedin, helped found the school and currently serves as its dean. Abedin also runs the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which seeks to boost Muslim immigration rates in the the U.S. and other Western countries, while also propagating Sharia law in those nations.

“You know that after 9/11, the United States closed its borders to students from around the world, and the number of Saudi students studying in our country fell dramatically,” Clinton lamented in her talk before the elder Abedin and her students. “Well, I am very pleased that we are now back to the levels that we had before 9/11.”

“But I am not satisfied,” Clinton quickly added. “I would like to see more exchanges, and more of them being two-way exchanges, where American students and American faculty come here, to Saudi Arabia, as well as going from here to there.”

Clinton delivered on her promise, big-time.

Despite evidence Saudi terrorists exploit the U.S. visa program, Clinton doubled the number of visas for Saudi visitors to the U.S., while helping broker a deal with the Kingdom to waive security procedures for Saudi nationals upon their arrival in the U.S.

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudi nationals soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, federal data show, hitting a record 108,578 in fiscal 2013 and reversing a post-9/11 pause in Saudi visa approvals.

Before leaving office, Clinton helped negotiate a little-noticed January 2013 administration deal with Riyadh to allow Saudi visa-holders to enter the U.S. as “trusted travelers” and bypass the normal border security process. The next year, the State Department issued an all-time-high 142,180 Saudi visas, consular data show.

All told, the Obama administration has opened the floodgates to more than 709,000 Saudi nationals, most of whom applied for student or business visas, records show.

It’s as if 9/11 never happened and 15 Saudi terrorists never infiltrated the country on rubber-stamped visas. The surge represents a major shift from changes in immigration policy made in the wake of 9/11, when the number of visas issued to Saudi Arabians plummeted 69.7%. In fiscal 2002, Saudi visas slowed to a relative trickle of just 14,126.

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Saudi immigration was tightened after it was revealed that the State Department’s Visa Express program benefited some of the Saudi hijackers on 9/11. Less known is that two other al-Qaida-tied Saudi nationals visiting America on student visas also took advantage of the lax policy. It turns out that, according to the recently released 29 pages detailing Saudi involvement in 9/11, these other young Saudi men made a “dry run” to test airline security ahead of the 9/11 hijackings.

Dar al-Hekma, which is Arabic for House of Infinite Islamic Wisdom, was co-founded and funded by a federal designated terrorist — Yaseen Kadi — and by key Saudi bankers named as defendants in the 9/11 lawsuit, as well as members of the bin Laden family, according to a list of “establishers” and “trustees” the school published on its website after it first opened in 1999.

It turns out that the burka-clad girls who gathered at the Saudi women’s college to hear Clinton speak heckled her in Arabic, as Huma and her mother stood by, according to accounts reported at the time in the Arabic press.

Also see:

Europe: The Substitution of a Population

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, August 27, 2016:

  • In one generation, Europe will be unrecognizable.
  • Eastern Europe now has “the largest population loss in modern history”, while Germany overtook Japan by having the world’s lowest birth rate.
  • Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.

Deaths that exceed births might sound like science fiction, but they are now Europe’s reality. It just happened. During 2015, 5.1 million babies were born in the EU, while 5.2 million persons died, meaning that the EU for the first time in modern history recorded a negative natural change in its population. The numbers come from Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union), which since 1961 has been counting Europe’s population. It is official.

There is, however, another surprising number: the European population increased overall from 508.3 million to 510.1 million. Have you guessed why? The immigrant population increased, by about two million in one year, while the native European population was shrinking. It is the substitution of a population. Europe has lost the will to maintain or grow its population. The situation is as demographically as seismic as during the Great Plague of the 14th Century.

This shift is what the British demographer David Coleman described in his study, “Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries: A Third Demographic Transition.” Europe’s suicidal birth rate, coupled with migrants who multiply faster, will transform European culture. The declining fertility rate of native Europeans coincides, in fact, with the institutionalization of Islam in Europe and the “re-Islamization” of its Muslims.

In 2015, Portugal recorded the second-lowest birth rate in the European Union (8.3 per 1,000 inhabitants) and negative natural growth of -2.2 per 1,000 inhabitants. Which EU country had the lowest birth rate? Italy. Since the “baby boom” of the 1960s, in the country famous for its large families, the birth rate has more halved. In 2015, the number of births fell to 485,000, fewer than in any other year since the modern Italy was formed in 1861.

Eastern Europe now has “the largest population loss in modern history“, while Germany overtook Japan by having the world’s lowest birth rate, when averaged over past five years. In Germany and Italy, the decreases were particularly dramatic, down -2.3% and -2.7% respectively.

Out with the old, in with the new… Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.

Some businesses are no longer even interested in European markets. Kimberly-Clark, which makes Huggies diapers, has pulled out of most of Europe. The market is simply not cost-effective. Meanwhile, Procter & Gamble, which produces Pampers diapers, has been investing in the business of the future: diapers for old people.

Europe is becoming gray; you can feel all the sadness of a world that has consumed itself. In 2008, the countries of the European Union saw the birth of 5,469,000 children. Five years later, there were nearly half a million fewer, 5,075,000 — a decrease of 7%. Fertility rates have not only fallen in countries with aching economies, such as Greece, but also in countries such as Norway, which sailed through the financial crisis.

As Lord Sacks recently said, “falling birth rates could spell the end of the West“. Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.

Liberals and secularists tend to dismiss the importance of demographic and cultural issues. That is why the most important warnings come from some Christian leaders. The first to denounce this dramatic trend was a great Italian missionary, Father Piero Gheddo, who explained that, due to falling birth rates and religious apathy, “Islam would sooner rather than later conquer the majority in Europe”. He was followed by others, such as Lebanese Cardinal Bechara Rai, who leads the Eastern Catholics aligned with the Vatican. Rai warned that “Islam will conquer Europe by faith and birth rate“. A similar warning just came from yet another cardinal, Raymond Leo Burke.

In one generation from now, Europe will be unrecognizable. People in Europe now largely seem to feel that the identity of their civilization is threatened primarily by a frivolous libertarianism, an ideology under the guise of freedom, that wants to deconstruct all the ties that bind man to his family, his parentage, his work, his history, his religion, his language, his nation, his freedom. It seems to come from an inertia that does not care if Europe succeeds or succumbs, if our civilization disappears, drowned by ethnic chaos, or is overrun by a new religion from the desert.

As a paper in the Washington Quarterly explains, the fatal meeting between Europe’s falling birth rates and rise of Islam has already had significant consequences: Europe has turned into an incubator of terrorism; formed a new poisonous anti-Semitism; seen a political shift to the far right; undergone the biggest crisis in European authoritarian unity and witnessed a refocusing of foreign policy since Europe’s withdrawal from the Middle East.

Demographic suicide is not only experienced; it appears to be wanted. The xenophile European bourgeoisie, which today controls politics and the media, seem imbued with a snobbish and masochistic racism. They have turned against the values of their own Judeo-Christian culture and combined it with a hallucinatory, romanticized view of the values of other cultures. The sad paradox is that Europeans are now importing young people in large numbers from the Middle East to compensate for their lifestyle choices.

An agnostic and sterile continent — deprived of its gods and children because it banished them — will have no strength to fight or to assimilate a civilization of the zealous and the young. The failure to counter the coming transformation seems to come down on the side of Islam. Is what we are seeing the last days of summer?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

While Living in Maine, Killed ISIS Jihadist Was on Food Stamps, Government Assistance

food-stamps

After four months, the refugee’s “sponsoring” organization is not even required to know where the refugee lives.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 25, 2016:

Before he ended up dead after fighting for the Islamic State in Lebanon, an Iranian Muslim immigrant named Adnan Fazeli received U.S. government assistance while radicalizing in the United States.

Maine’s officials have revealed that “Fazeli was on food stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for at least four years until 2013.” Maine’s Governor Paul LePage is ordering an examination into “all such benefits in his state.” But Fazeli wasn’t the only beneficiary of government funding in the case, so were Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the major contractors (voluntary agencies – VOLAGs) the U.S. government gives substantial funds to in order to resettle refugees. Capital Research Center, an investigative think tank, reveals some startling information about the radical makeup of Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops despite their benign sounding names:

These nominally Catholic organizations are the largest VOLAGs, with hundreds of offices spread throughout the country. They are prominent members of the open borders/amnesty movement. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) is “the domestic anti-poverty program of the U.S. Catholic Bishops” and a grant-making vehicle of the USCCB. It was founded in Chicago in 1969 with the help of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, specifically to fund Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. CCHD has been a radical leftist funding vehicle ever since, giving millions to ACORN, the radical training school Midwest Academy, and others. The Industrial Areas Foundation, where a young Barack Obama was trained in “community organizing” with financial support from the Chicago Archdiocese, receives the largest percentage of CCHD grants of any CCHD grantee.

Furthermore, Capital Research Center provides data that shows the millions of dollars in government grants that Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have received over recent years to resettle refugees.

So how does Catholic Charities relate to the Fazeli case? Let’s find out.

There’s not a lot of divulged information about Fazeli’s start in America, but he did originally arrive in Philadelphia via a Catholic Charities program. However, the affidavit allegedly doesn’t mention “where that program was based.” According to the Portland Press Herald, after Fazeli made his way to Maine in 2009, he didn’t qualify for assistance from Catholic Charities Maine, but the organization apparently hired him for several months that same year where he operated as a part-time translator. It seems like our tax money is being thrown at VOLAGs like Catholic Charities to resettle refugees, but with little in return for U.S. national security, Refugee Resettlement Watch states:

Refugee resettlement is profitable to the organizations involved in it. They receive money from the federal government for each refugee they bring over. They have almost no real responsibilities for these refugees. After 4 months the “sponsoring” organization is not even required to know where the refugee lives.

What’s even more disturbing is the attitude of Catholic Charities Maine’s Tarlan Ahmadov, the program director of refugee and immigrant services, in regards to the Fazeli incident: “This country is based on immigration,” Ahmadov said. “We are all here with good intentions.

“I’m just worried about his family and his children and his wife, that they would not become hated by their neighbors or other people. This was the choice of their father and husband to make. It’s nothing to do with the children. I think we should look at that different perspective.”

If Ahmadov really thinks all immigrants come to the U.S. with “good intentions” maybe he could do a Bible study on human nature (Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 15:19, etc.). Furthermore, Ahmadov should be more concerned about the next potential jihadist that walks through Catholic Charities’ doors and keeping their taxpayer funded (partially) services from being used to further jihad, especially against the American people. This is the type of reaction one generally sees from Islamist groups like the Hamas linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who are more concerned about protecting non-violent ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ than exposing their co-religionists that blow innocent people up.

There are also a lot of questions into how Fazeli radicalized, and if his family actually knew about his desire for jihad. Of course, some will focus on the part of the affidavit that allegedly claimed “Fazeli frequently watched hours of Islamic videos online…” giving the impression that his radicalization was isolated. There’s almost always a network of contributors involved in these cases of radicalization besides just online videos. George Loder, a detective for the Maine State Police, gives some insight into possible members of Fazeli’s network, allegedly written in the affidavit:

“Fazeli’s change in behavior alienated him from many of his Shia and moderate Sunni friends in the area. However, there were a few local Sunnis who supported his fervor and treated him with a great deal of respect. Fazeli started holding occasional religious meetings at his home in Freeport,” Loder said in the affidavit, describing what one informant had said.

The family, as usual, denies all knowledge of Fazeli’s radical plans to join ISIS. Supposedly they only found out after he called his wife when already outside the U.S. Soon after that call is when Fazeli’s nephew, Ebrahim Fazeli, informed the authorities about his uncle.

There are many things in the Fazeli case that don’t add up. More information about the case will likely continue to come out to help clarify current intelligence gaps. We know that more needs to be done to enhance the security and accountability of the refugee resettlement process as well as measures that lead to welfare reform. Until changes happen to the current system we can expect more welfare funded jihadis in America.

MORE ABOUT COLONIZATION BY IMMIGRATION

Thanks to Trump, maybe more Republicans will start to go on the offensive:

Just how radical has Hillary become on illegal immigration?

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, Aug. 19, 2016:

Many of us who follow politics every day are like frogs in slow boiling water who don’t realize the gradual yet inexorable change in political temperature. Many commentators are trying to suggest that a group of conservatives have departed from our traditions and have moved far to the right on immigration. The reality is just the opposite. The entire political landscape has shifted so far to the left that most contemporary Republicans are to the left of where prominent Democrats used to be on the issue of immigration just one generation ago — and that is when the problem was trivial compared to the enormity of the security, economic, and cultural issues we face today. To get a sense of how radical Hillary Clinton’s views have become over the years — and how tepid the GOP reaction to it has been — watch the following clip from none other than Hillary’s husband during the 1995 State of the Union Address:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

Can we run the Bill Clinton of 1995 for the GOP nomination, please?

When do we ever hear even Republican politicians speak with this much clarity on immigration, let alone any issue? Clinton referenced the “Jordan Commission,” which was headed by a liberal Democrat and pushed an all-out war against illegal immigration. Oh, and it called for reductions in legal immigration. That was at a time when our immigration level was a fraction of what it is today. I think most of us would pine to go back to the “1995 problems.” It was that effort that led to the series of immigration laws passed by the GOP Congress in 1996 (back when eve moderate Republicans actually stood and fought for real big ideas). Unfortunately, all of those laws were ignored. Nonetheless, when it came to deportations, the Clinton administration still repatriated four times the number of illegal aliens that Obama has deported.

How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books?

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Harry Reid (D, Nev. (F, 2%) had made similar comments about mass migration and illegal immigration and promoted enforcement legislation, the likes of which we don’t see today from Republicans.

Fast-forward just 20 years and the wife of the former president who spoke so clearly about the unfairness and dangers of illegal immigration (in a pre-9/11 world) has openly tapped an illegal alien as a campaign operative. As the Washington Free Beacon reports, the illegal alien employed by Hillary to register Latino voters is tied to George Soros’s operation to campaign against America sovereignty.

Let’s put aside for a moment the extreme nature of holding such a political view — that America must have complete open borders. How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books? Even if one believes in open borders and desires to change our existing laws, they have no right to flaunt illegal aliens in broad daylight and tap them for campaign positions.

We have a very polarized nation and we disagree on politics. But there is no disagreement on the rule of law. Sure, there is a concept of unjust laws or faux laws “passed” by federal courts that, as our Founders explicitly said, have no force of law behind them when they step beyond their constitutionally enumerated powers. However, nobody disagrees that immigration laws are the bedrock of sovereignty for any nation-state, and in this country, that power lies exclusively with the United States Congress. One may disagree with those laws as a matter of policy, but has no right to question their legality. For Hillary to run for an office predicated upon the faithful execution of the laws and then openly violate the most bedrock laws of a sovereign nation — openly hiring illegal immigrants and calling for the right to vote against the sovereign citizen — is beneath contempt.

Watching Democrats openly flaunt illegal behavior and dismantle the most inviolable laws of a nation state is yet another demonstration of how this is no longer a liberal party. It is a party of de-civilization.

***

Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, Aug. 18, 2016:

DANIEL HOROWITZ, senior editor at Conservative Review, author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America”:

Podcast : Play in new window | Download

  • Supplanting Western civilization through Muslim immigration
  • Support system in the West enabling radicalization
  • The latest on criminal justice reform

Also see:

What’s Trump’s Policy on Visas for Muslims?

Trump and PenceMEF, by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
August 17, 2016

The discussion began last December, when Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This proclamation aroused so much opposition that Trump changed his position – several times, in fact. Where do things stand now on this supremely contentious issue and what can we expect were he elected president?

Trump’s position began to evolve on July 14, when he called for the “extreme vetting” of immigrants: “if a person can’t prove that they’re from an area, and if a person can’t prove what they have to be able to prove, they’re not coming into this country.” Nothing about Muslims here, just about accurate identification.

In a joint interview with the Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence on July 17, Pence was asked to explain the discrepancy between his earlier denunciation of Trump’s ban on Muslims and his new-found support for it. But before Pence could answer, Trump jumped in: “So you call it territories. Okay, we’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are.” He elaborated about prohibiting nationals from what he called “terror states and terror nations” from entering the United States.

Accepting the Republican nomination on July 21, Trump offered a more articulate and authoritative statement of this new position: “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. We don’t want them in our country.”

On July 24, Trump specified two of those “terror nations”: “I’m talking territory instead of Muslim. …We have nations and we’ll come out … over the next few weeks with a number of the places. And it’s very complex. We have problems in Germany and we have problems with France. So it’s not just the countries with …” (it appears he was going to say “a Muslim majority” but was interrupted and did not finish the sentence).

Those few weeks later, on Aug. 15, Trump did not provide more places. Quite contrarily, he called for “a new screening test” to exclude all those with “hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Shariah law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country. Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas.” He again called for the temporary suspension of immigration, but this time “from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.”

This medley of inconsistencies and contradictions points to several conclusions.

Obviously, Trump is no policy wonk but an amateur working out his thoughts under the glare of the biggest klieg lights. Put differently, he does respond to sustained criticism, even fundamentally changing one of his signature policies. Indeed, Trump has gone further and in May signaled his complete flexibility: “Look, anything I say right now – I’m not the president – everything is a suggestion.” Thus did he put Americans on notice that he reserves the right to switch views on any topic at any time.

Second, his change from banning Muslims to citizens from countries “compromised by terrorism” took him from a coherent, if ugly, policy to one that is self-evidently infeasible. If Germans and French are unwelcome on account of their jihadis, who might enter the United States? The border will be slammed shut to all save for the nationals of such fortunate countries as Iceland and Costa Rica. Israel, “our greatest ally,” must be near the top of Trump’s no-entry list.

The most recent change both makes sense and is laudable; indeed, it very satisfyingly tracks my advice of eight months ago suggesting that Trump “ban Islamists, not Muslims.” He’s no longer rejecting all Muslims but discerning friend from foe, a crucial distinction that can indeed be achieved given sufficient resources, time, and intelligence.

This sequence points to Trump being able to learn – slowly and erratically, to be sure – from his mistakes. It also indicates that, were he elected president, he would have a mandate to adopt virtually any policies he wishes on the grounds that “everything is a suggestion.”

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

***

CJR: Do have a look at the article linked above to see a detailed explanation of what “extreme vetting” looks like: 

I especially like the following suggestion regarding the framing of questions. It acknowledges the different meanings that potential jihadists apply to our Western terminology as explained in my recent post, Weaponized rhetoric of jihad.

Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of “Is Islam a religion of peace?”, “Do you condemn terrorism?” “How do you respond to the murder of innocents,” depend too much on one’s definition of words like peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person’s outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: “May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?”

Also see:

The Case for Extreme Immigrant Vetting

download (3)

It’s a practice as American as apple pie—and for good reason.

Politico, by GEORGE J. BORJAS, August 17, 2016

In his major foreign policy speech earlier this week, Donald Trump explained how he would expand the “ideological” vetting of immigrants who want to come to the United States. “The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today,” he said. “I call it extreme vetting.” In particular, Trump proposed, “We must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles—or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

As with practically all of Trump’s policy statements, the over-the-top commentary came swiftly. Over at the Washington Post an opinionator opined (and I’m only slightly paraphrasing) that Trump’s ideas were crazier than crazy. I knew it wouldn’t take long before somebody called them un-American, and MSNBC nicely obliged; a commentator commented that “this is the single most un-American thing I have ever heard in my life.”

If all those pundits had bothered to do just a couple of minutes of googling before reacting, they would have discovered that immigrant vetting, and even extreme immigrant vetting, has a very long tradition in American history. Since before the founding even, U.S. policies about whom the country chooses to welcome and reject have changed in response to changing conditions. As early as 1645, the Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited the entry of poor or indigent persons. By the early 20th century, the country was filtering out people who had “undesirable” traits, such as epileptics, alcoholics and polygamists. Today, the naturalization oath demands that immigrants renounce allegiance to any foreign state. Even our Favorite Founding Father du jour, Alexander Hamilton (himself an immigrant), thought it was important to scrutinize whoever came to the United States. He wrote:

To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country … would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty. … The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. … In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

In other words, immigration vetting is as American as apple pie.

In the colonial era, governments were particularly concerned with the entry of “public charges” who could impart substantial costs on the indigenous population. In 1691, the Province of New York must have hired a professional economist to design a bonding system that would discourage the entry of people who would be a drag on public resources:

All Persons that shall come to inhabit within this Province … and hath not a visible Estate, or hath not a manual occupation, shall, before he be admitted an Inhabitant, give sufficient surety, That he shall not be a burden or Charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit. Which Security shall continue for two years.

And in 1740, Delaware enacted legislation to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons being Imported.” Many of these colonial-era restrictions remained in place until 1875, when the Supreme Court invalidated state-imposed head taxes on immigrants to fund the financial burden of caring for poor entrants, and made immigration the sole purview of the federal government. But that wasn’t the end of immigrant filters. Congress responded by creating the vetting system that—although modified many times—remains in place today. In 1875, Congress prohibited the entry of prostitutes and convicts. In 1882, Congress suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers, and added idiots, lunatics and persons likely to become public charges to the list for good measure.

One of my favorite examples of the extreme vetting is the 1917 Immigration Act, which, in addition to effectively barring immigration from Asia, listed the many traits that would make potential immigrants inadmissible. The following quote is very long, but it shows the excruciating detail with which Americans have historically resorted to extreme vetting:

All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons; persons who have had one or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority; persons with chronic alcoholism; paupers; professional beggars; vagrants; persons afflicted with tuberculosis in any form or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who practice polygamy or believe in or advocate the practice of polygamy; anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property; persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers … of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government.

In other words, even a century ago we had put in place ideological filters against anarchists, persons who advocate the destruction of property, and persons who believe in overthrowing the government of the United States.

Of course, some of these filters, such as those restricting the entry of epileptics or Asians, have long since been rolled back—and for good reason. But many of them—especially those pertaining to criminals, and people who are likely to work against U.S. interests—remain in current law, with additions that reflect the changing security landscape. Hijacking and drug trafficking, for example, became major concerns only in the past few decades, and the law changed accordingly to ensure that it became more difficult for hijackers and drug traffickers to enter the country.

Here is the application filled out by green card applicants today (Form I-485). Among the many questions are:

Have you EVER, in or outside the United States:

a. Knowingly committed any crime of moral turpitude or a drug-related offense for which you have not been arrested?

Have you EVER:

a. Within the past 10 years been a prostitute or procured anyone for prostitution, or intend to engage in such activities in the future?

b. Engaged in any unlawful commercialized vice, including, but not limited to, illegal gambling

c. Knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or aided any alien to try to enter the U.S. illegally?

d. Illicitly trafficked in any controlled substance, or knowingly assisted, abetted, or colluded in the illicit trafficking of any controlled substance?

Have you EVER engaged in, conspired to engage in, or do you intend to engage in, or have you ever solicited membership or funds for, or have you through any means ever assisted or provided any type of material support to any person or organization that has ever engaged or conspired to engage in sabotage, kidnapping, political assassination, hijacking, or any other form of terrorist activity?

Do you intend to engage in the United States in:

a. Espionage?

b. Any activity a purpose of which is opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unlawful means?

Have you EVER been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?

Did you, during the period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, in association with either the Nazi Government of Germany or any organization or government associated or allied with the Nazi Government of Germany, ever order, incite, assist, or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion?

And, finally, here’s part of the oath that immigrants who wish to become citizens of the United States must recite at the naturalization ceremony:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; … that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law.

In view of this almost 400-year track record, is it really that big a stretch to add questions, as Trump proposes, that would expand the filtering to reflect political conditions and national security concerns today? In particular, is it really that big a departure from what we have done in the past if we also asked green card applicants: “Do you believe that religious law should supplant the Constitution of the United States?” Or if we asked: “Do you believe that the law should treat people differentially based on their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation?” And would it really be that unreasonable if we had second thoughts about admitting persons who answered those questions in the affirmative? Are there really that many Americans who would disagree with the notion that a reasonable immigration policy should, in Trump’s words, keep out “those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred”?

Of course, it is sensible to wonder whether such filters are effective. I doubt that the 9/11 terrorists admitted in their applications for foreign student visas that they planned to use their flight training to fly planes into the World Trade Center. But the fact that such filtering is far from perfect does not imply that we should not have any filters whatsoever. If nothing else, the perjury in the visa application gives the government an easy way for detaining and deporting dangerous immigrants living in our midst, even after they become American citizens. The falsification or concealment of relevant facts during the application process provides grounds for the removal of a green card, for the revoking of naturalization, and for eventual deportation.

The many filters that have been used throughout American history to determine who will and will not get an entry visa have an obvious purpose. Yes, some of them, in the hindsight of history, seemed to have had no constructive purpose. But for the most part, they helped to strengthen the social and political fabric of our country and they helped to define the common set of values that distinguishes us as Americans. Or to quote Alexander Hamilton again: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits.”

So, regardless of what you think about the Trump candidacy, the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal for immigrant vetting is un-American, the correct response is that it is American to its core. And the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal is crazier than crazy, the correct response is that—given the mess the world is in—it is the notion that we should not vet immigrants more carefully that is certifiably insane.

George J. Borjas is a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. This article from has been adapted from an essay previously published on his blog.

***

Trump Counter-Terror Speech: What’s Right; What Needs Work

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (Photo: video screenshot)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (Photo: video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Aug. 16, 2016:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump outlined his proposed counter-terrorism strategy yesterday. He laid out an impressive ideology-based strategy that includes uplifting Muslim reformers; however, he also vindicated decades of Islamist propaganda by emphasizing his opinion that the U.S. should have taken Iraq’s oil from its people, which would have required a long-term military occupation to protect it.

What Was Right

The parts of the speech about waging an ideological war on radical Islam were a breath of fresh air.

Criticizing of the past two administrations for not identifying the enemy is not an inconsequential squabbling over semantics. It’s an organizing principle. It is necessary for distinguishing friend from foe and waging the war of ideas. Confronting this ideology should be enthusiastically received by liberals/progressives and conservatives alike.

Trump explained, “Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.”

“My administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. Our administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East and will amplify their voices. This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings…” he continued.

When it comes to outlining the radical Islamic beliefs that we must confront, Trump knocked it out of the park, saying:

“A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people. In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test of the threats we face today.

“In addition to screening out all members of sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles—or who believe that sharia law should supplant American law.

“Those who do not believe in our Constitution or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

He also called for deporting non-citizens who preach hatred, teaching our values and patriotism to newcomers and wisely talked about why assimilation is an “expression of compassion,” rather than “an act of hostility.”

Casting aside his ridiculous and offensive idea of a ban on all Muslims from entering the U.S., he instead advocated “extreme” ideological vetting based around American values.

Dr. Daniel Pipes has some recommendations on a vetting process can separate Islamists from Muslims we should embrace showing that this process is possible by using background checks, link analysis of what groups potential immigrants have associated with and questioning.

What Needs Work

Although this may be coming at a later date, Trump did not provide details of his counter-terrorism strategy except for his plan to halt inappropriate immigration. Trump pledged to uplift moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, something that is extremely necessary, yet did not mention embracing the Iranian opposition.

If Trump wants to be an ally with Muslim reformers and pro-human rights, his plan for a temporary ban on immigration from unstable countries known for exporting terrorism has to be amended to account for persecuted minorities or reformist Muslims fleeing those countries. For example, immigration for persecuted Coptic Christian from Egypt or a Muslim who is swarmed with death threats for challenging honor killings in Pakistan must fall into a special category.

Interestingly, Trump sees “secular” dictators like Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Muammar Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak as net pluses. In other speeches, he has blasted the pursuit of regime changes and undermining of governments.

Isn’t this a contradiction to promoting Muslim reformers?

Playing Into the Hands of Islamists

In the speech Trump firmly stated his opinion that the United States should have seized Iraqi’s oil production capabilites, which have required an indefinite occupation of the country.

“I was saying this constantly and to whoever would listen: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil. I said, ‘don’t let someone else get it.’…In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils,” he said.

For decades, one of the main—and most fruitful—Islamist talking points is that the West, particularly the U.S., is scheming to steal oil from the Muslims and is happy to lie and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents to get it.

This breeds relentless hostility to American and the West and favorability towards Islamism. If that propaganda is seen as an undeniable fact (though statements such as these), then it becomes almost impossible for moderate Muslim reformers to succeed.

Those who argue that violent jihad against America is permissible use this very argument.

Until now, when speaking to the masses, Islamists had to block statement after statement from American politicians that America is not after the oil of the Muslims.

Now, jihadis have clips of an American presidential candidate supported by about 41% of the country advocating what they’ve claimed all along—that the U.S. wants to militarily conquer their land and take their resources.

***

Prof. Ryan Mauro, Clarion Project’s national security analyst, appears on “The Thom Hartmann Show,” the #1 progressive radio show, to discuss Donald Trump’s counter-terrorism speech on August 15.

‘The War Is Here’: Trump & Gorka Warn of Worsening ISIS Threat

gorkatrump

Fox News Insider, Aug. 18, 2016:

Donald Trump joined Sean Hannity tonight for an exclusive town hall conversation about the threats of ISIS and radical Islam.

Counterterrorism expert and author Dr. Sebastian Gorka joined Trump and Hannity onstage at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee, declaring that President Obama, Hillary Clinton and those who think like them simply don’t understand the dire threat we’re facing.

“The war is real and the war is here,” Gorka said. “This is a threat that is real and is escalating every day.”

He pointed out that not only has ISIS turned Iraq and Syria into a “hellhole,” there is now an ISIS-related attack abroad every 84 hours.

Gorka said that Trump’s proposals will “absolutely” keep Americans safer than those of Obama or Clinton.

“If you don’t have borders, you don’t have security,” Gorka said. “If Hillary Clinton becomes the commander-in-chief and continues the policies of this administration, American lives will be endangered.”

***

Trump Meets Victims of Radical Islamic Terror at ‘Hannity’ Town Hall

During a “Hannity” town hall event tonight, Donald Trump spoke to several victims of radical Islamic terror.

Karen McWatters, who lost a leg in the Boston Marathon bombing, said that we need leaders who will speak openly and honestly about the threats facing our country.

Trump said that unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton, he actually wants to do something to protect Americans from radical Islamists, and that’s why he’s advocating “extreme vetting” of any immigrants coming into the U.S.

Kris Paronto, one of the heroes of Benghazi, and Dorothy Woods, whose husband Ty Woods was killed in the 2012 terror attack, agreed that there’s no doubt that we’re at war with radical Islam in the U.S. and abroad.

“I believe in the vetting process,” Paronto said. “Not all Muslims are bad, but the Muslim community in America – they are Americans because they’re here – they need to start speaking out publicly and condemning.”

***

Trump on ‘Extreme Vetting’: Orlando Shooter’s Dad Should Be ‘Thrown Out’

The Orlando shooter’s father should be “thrown out” of the United States, Donald Trump said in a Hannity town hall event that aired last night.

Trump, who earlier this week laid out his plan for “extreme vetting” of those who want to emigrate from Middle Eastern nations, was asked about how he would handle Seddique Mateen.

“I’d throw him out,” said Trump, mentioning Mateen’s attendance at a Hillary Clinton rally in Florida earlier this month.

“He’s got a big smile on his face throughout the whole thing. He obviously liked what he heard from her,” said Trump.

Hannity noted that Mateen, whose son murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub, had expressed “radical” views in the past and support for the Taliban.

Trump said Muslims living in the United States need to help authorities in identifying possible terrorists before they strike.

“If they’re not gonna help us, they’re to blame also,” he said.

Trump argued that in San Bernardino there were warning signs about the couple that carried out the attack on an office building last year. But he said that neighbors did not call policebecause they didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling the couple.

Watch the whole thing: