Lessons America didn’t learn from 9/11

(Photo: Twitter)

(Photo: Twitter)

WND, by Paul Bremmer, Sept. 10, 2016:

This Sunday Americans mark the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It will be a day of solemn remembrance, as most Americans now living still remember that horrible day.

But has the United States learned all the lessons it should have learned from the events of 9/11?

Only six days after 9/11, then-President George W. Bush delivered an address at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., in which he declared “Islam is peace.”

“These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith,” President Bush said that day. “And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that… The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

The idea that Islam is a religion of peace is nonsense, according to former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney.

“In retrospect, 15 years later, was President Bush correct?” Haney asked during an interview with WND. “Has Islam proven itself to be, with the hindsight of 15 years, a religion of peace? There have been 29,100 and counting violent jihad attacks around the world since 9/11, scattered all over the world, not to mention conflicts in probably 15 to 20 different countries, with massive atrocities across the globe.”

The answer is obvious, according to Haney. Islam is a violent religion, and its adherents receive their commands to kill from the Quran itself. Haney cited Surah 9:111 of the Quran, which reads in part: “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.”

He also pointed to Surah 2:191, which reads in part, “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you.”

So the lesson to be taken from the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 15 years is that Islam is not peace, as President Bush stated.

“We’ve had 1,400 years of history to evaluate the effect of Islam, and if they were really serious about proving what George Bush said, haven’t they had plenty of opportunity to do so since 9/11?” Haney reasoned.

Not only did Bush fail to learn his lesson, but President Obama has refused to learn it.

Haney noted the Obama administration has allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose members hold dying in the service of Allah as their highest aspiration. He said the Muslim Brotherhood considers the Quran its highest law, not the U.S. Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so there is a fundamental conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and American democracy.

But last weekend Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front group. ISNA was exposed as a front group during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, as Haney documents in his revealing book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”

“So the department that was founded in March of 2003 to protect our country from terrorism and threats from terror has now formed an open and overt alliance with the very organizations that state plainly that they intend to oppose all forms of human government, including the Constitution, and implement Shariah law,” Haney said.

Not only did the Obama administration fail to see the connection between Islam and terror, but they have not taken national security as seriously as they should in a post-9/11 world, according to Haney. He pointed to a directive signed by HHS Secretary Johnson in February 2014 that stated individuals only marginally affiliated with known terrorist organizations may still receive a visa from the State Department. This directive severely hamstrung Haney and his fellow counterterrorism officials.

“The U.S. Southern Command notified us a week or so ago that in 2015 at least 31,000 individuals from countries of concern regarding terror crossed the southern border,” Haney revealed. “That means we’re abrogating our responsibilities to protect our citizens from threats, that we’re not doing all that it takes to protect our border, both the actual physical border and the more abstract border of our civil liberties and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Haney stressed that national security must come first when deciding who to let into America.

“Immigration, helping refugees are noble things, but not at the expense of the freedom and safety and civil liberties of American citizens,” he said.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of 9/11 has been the War on Terror, which has included crusades to overthrow a number of dictators in the Middle East and replace them with democratically elected governments. But this is a fool’s errand, according to Haney, because devout Muslims prefer to Shariah law to Western-style democracy. Therefore, if they have the chance to vote, they will vote for Shariah and all the repression it brings.

“You know a tree by its fruit,” Haney said. “You look at the countries where Shariah law is practiced, whatever spectrum of intensity, from mild to Saudi Arabia-type – are any of those countries free democracies? Is there a single free democracy anywhere in the Islamic world?”

Haney noted whenever Middle Eastern Islamic countries have the choice, they always move toward Shariah, not away from it. Yet the United States often supports these countries under the banner of supporting democracy. The former DHS officer warned Shariah could creep into America if our leaders continue to ally themselves with Islamic supremacists.

“There are many provisions of the Declaration of Independence and/or the U.S. Constitution that are in direct conflict with Shariah law, and when you have Shariah law, those freedoms go,” Haney said ominously. “They do not make provision for the freedoms discussed in the Declaration or the Constitution. They are eliminated, and if it was to happen here, the same process would happen.”

***

CSPAN, Sept. 6, 2016:

Act for America 2016 Conference, Part 6 Phil Haney, a former Customs and Border Patrol officer with the Homeland Security Department, talked about his allegations of an Islamic infiltration of the U.S. government. He said that his work tracking people affiliated with the Islamic Deobandi movement was stopped so as not to offend the Muslim community. He used slides during his presentation and then responded to questions from members of the audience. Mr. Haney is the co-author of the book See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.

“Refugee Vetting: Is Our National Security at Risk?” was a Refugee Resettlement segment of ACTCON 2016, Act for America’s “National Conference and Legislative Briefing: Taking Back America’s Security.”

philip-haney

***

Urgent messages from Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch:

‘Extreme Vetting’ is important, but America needs assimilation too

group of refugeesConservative Review, by Ben Weingarten, Aug. 21, 2016:

You can learn a lot about a nation by the bumper stickers its people affix to their cars.

One of the most ubiquitous among these, at least in the zip codes of our nation inhabited by cultural, political and economic elites, reads “COEXIST.”

We hear a lot these days about coexistence and far less about assimilation. The gap between the two concepts represents nothing less than whether the United States is a salad bowl or a melting pot — a balkanized multiculturalist bastion, or one people united by a common creed.

Consider the European alternative that holds coexistence among the greatest of goods, allowing for mass immigration regardless of the people’s desire to assimilate into their new surroundings … and then see the politicians react helplessly to the predictable societal fallout.

In Germany, asylum seekers are refusing to do work, claiming that as “guests of Angela Merkel” they do not need to contribute, unlike their highly productive, industrious German neighbors. A recent report also out of Germany revealed that there were more than 1,000 known child marriages in one of the most advanced nations on the continent — a complete anathema to free Western society.

Readers are surely aware of so-called “no-go zones” (Sharia enclaves littered throughout France and Sweden and elsewhere), the widespread sexual abuse scandal perpetrated largely by Muslims in Rotherham, England, and, of course the growing jihadist threat from Scandinavia to Spain.

Native Europeans are becoming foreigners in their own land. One part of a plan to combat the spread of Sharia-based Islamic supremacism to America was laid out in a recent speech by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in which he called for “extreme vetting” on the basis of such ideology.

Vetting for those who seek to spread a subversive ideology that undermines the Constitution and incites violence, or, perhaps worst, the more insidious cultural sabotage is eminently reasonable. So too is demanding that American immigrants assimilate to our culture — a cohesive, functional and dynamic society depends upon a love of freedom and a desire to become more than an American in name only.

This is a point that goes beyond national security and toward the very question of what kind of country we wish to be. Today, in the name of tolerance, we have accepted government documents written in 20 languages outside English. This is unacceptable, not because we decry other languages, but because a common language is essential to a well-functioning society. It is not America’s job to assimilate to other cultures, but for people who wish to become Americans to assimilate to ours.

Importantly, as Charles Murray wrote in Coming Apart, the elites who provide social cues that trickle down through media, academia and politics no longer preach what they practice — anything goes so long as it does not directly affect them. As such, the traditional Protestant values — focusing on a strong work ethic, duty and devotion to family and country — are no longer being widely imparted. That is, in Murray’s view and to this author’s mind, to our great detriment. Culture after all determines all else.

Coming to America merely because you want to provide for your family — that is, strictly for economic reasons — is a low bar for receiving the privilege of citizenship. America is not about accumulating material wealth, but about the freedom to pursue happiness, of which wealth may be one byproduct.

As I have written previously:

America is not just a landmass. America is not just an economic entity. America is principally an idea that exists in the hearts and minds of its people. In spite of the way in which the Left has reimagined it, the American Idea was revealed in our Founding documents and reflected in the debates that preceded and gave birth to it.

Thus, a sound immigration policy requires not only vetting for those who believe in the American idea on the front end, but a culture desirous of assimilating such peoples on the back end.

The challenge here is that many Americans — some here for many generations — are becoming unassimilated to a culture based in Judeo-Christian values and principles, a love of liberty, and belief in merit, self-reliance and voluntarism over politics, dependency and coercion. Many view our heritage as regressive.

This is one of the goals of the progressive Left: To fundamentally transform our culture by turning it against its ideological core so that the melting pot itself no longer exists. Melting pots do not make for competing groups to be cynically played off against each other, and melting pots consisting of those who believe in freedom present a mortal threat to the Leftist cause.

Americans should demand not only strict standards for immigration based squarely on our national self-interest — starting from the premise that citizenship is not the “right” of everyone in the world, but a weighty responsibility and gift — and value assimilation into a culture based on our founding.

If not, we will find ourselves foreigners in our own land. Sadly, based on the pervasiveness of progressive ideology, we may be there regardless of whether we invite peoples to America who share our fundamental belief in and love of freedom.

The great problem with our immigration system today is a crisis of confidence in our own culture.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration

immigration-ideological-test-islamists-can-be-denied-admission-b

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 20, 2016:

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria:

U.S. official: “Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.”

“Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life.

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo).

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America.

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality.

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

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:

Pentagon Investigated Innocent Non-Muslim Groups to Avoid Accusations

future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslim_1Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 15, 2015:

Here’s one reason our counterterrorism efforts are crippled. Instead of fighting Muslim terrorists, our best people are struggling with political correctness, as John Schindler reports at the Observer. (Via Nick Short)

That concern is widespread in American counterterrorism circles, where the Obama administration’s worries about appearing “Islamophobic” are well known. This White House early on warned intelligence personnel about using the term “Islamic terrorism” even in classified reports that would never be released to the public. “Since 2009 we’ve opened investigations of groups we knew to be harmless,” explained a Pentagon counterterrorism official, “they weren’t Muslims, and we needed some ‘balance’ in case the White House asked if we were ‘profiling’ potential terrorists.”

It’s bad enough when this happens all the time in local policing (and has gotten worse since Obama began his Ferguson War on Cops), but in counterterrorism it means that the opportunity to prevent mass casualty attacks which can kill dozens, hundreds or even thousands, is sacrificed to plausible deniability.

The people on the front lines on the battlefield and in investigation and analysis have to first create plausible deniability to avoid accusations of Islamophobia. They have to lay down false trails for the White House Social Justice Warriors, fend off the Islamist CAIR Crybullies and then hope that they’ll be allowed to do their job.

The Muslim terrorists and their accomplices have won.

“Before Snowden we had a definite bias for action,” explained a senior NSA official with extensive experience in counterterrorism. “But now we all wonder how the White House will react if this winds up in the newspapers.” “It’s all legal,” the official added, “the lawyers have approved, and boy do we have lots of lawyers – but will Obama throw us under the bus again?”

Instead of the terrorists being afraid, our counterterrorism people are afraid. Obama and his left-wing media allies, with a hand from Putin, Snowden and his useful idiots on the right and the left, assorted terrorist accomplices, have successfully terrorized our counterterrorism efforts.

Her allegedly extensive 2014-15 examination by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, subsequent to her marriage to Syed Farook, made no effort to look at Tashfeen Malik’s social media writings, even though they could have been easily found. She passed cursory ICE security screening, which now must be judged useless. Malik was granted her green card in July 2015 despite the fact that her public writings offered a clear indication of violent extremism.

This was not a failure of the system, this is how our system works today. The Obama administration, through the highest levels of the Department of Homeland Security, explicitly banned looks at the social media of immigration applicants. Tashfeen Malik got less scrutiny immigrating to the United States than average Americans receive when applying for almost any job or college.

But the point is to not find things. It’s see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil time. Any policy that stigmatizes Muslims, is off the table. Which means our national security has been compromised by our Islamoappeasement.

***

Fox News Insider: Former DHS Employee: Obama Is Acting More Like a Publicist Than a President

A secret U.S. policy that prohibits immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas was reportedly kept in place over fears of a civil liberties or public relations backlash

Former member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Red Cell program Brad Thor said on “The Kelly File” that there’s no constitutional right to a visa and no civil liberties issues with the social media screening of visa applicants.

“It is easier for a terrorist to get a visa than for a group with ‘Tea Party’ or ‘patriot’ in their name to get a 501(c)(3) classification from the IRS,” Thor said. “This is ridiculous!”

He added that Obama is acting more like a publicist than a president.

“As far as civil liberties groups or civil rights groups, they can all jump right in a lake, because they don’t have any leg to stand on here,” Thor said, asserting that foreign nationals applying for visas are not afforded the rights and protections that American citizens have.

“This is a bunch of malarkey. And why is [Obama] so much more concerned over people applying for visas than protecting American citizens?”

***

***

Also see: