Filed under: Crime, Europe, European Union, Immigration, Intelligence, National Security, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Austria, German BND, ISIS Fighters Smuggled Into Europe
A huge raid by about 800 Austrian police officers in Vienna and Graz, have rounded up fourteen Islamists, including three women and a handful of Imams connected to ISIS, after a two-year long investigation into the radical Salafist network. They will be charged with membership in a terrorist organization and the creation of a criminal organization.
The head of the criminal justice department of the Ministry of Justice said the Islamists spoke of creating a “State of God” or an Islamic Caliphate theocracy. Police also allege that the group had recruited at least 40 people to engage in jihad. Previous reports indicate that around 270 Islamists were under active observation by Austrian intelligence services.
The German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and the Austrian government reported last November after the attack at the Bataclan theater in Paris that hundreds of ISIS fighters have been smuggled into Europe as “refugees.”
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2016, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Law, Media Bias, Middle East, National Security, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism, Syria, The United States | Tags: "Fake News", Neither Illegal nor Unconstitutional, The Partisan Media
Progressives seem to have slipped their moorings once again. Donald Trump announced executive orders to fulfill his campaign promises about restricting immigration from dangerous countries until the immigrants could be effectively vetted.
In war-torn Syria, there is no effective government that can reliably say who people applying for immigration are. Reliable sources say that forged Syrian papers are widely available to anyone who has the cash. We have already lost too many of our own citizens to terrorist attack. We need to be sure that we are not admitting ISIS fighters or al Qaeda who mean to attack Americans. This is about trying to save American lives.
The ensuing uproar and protests at the airports are sponsored by George Soros who wants open borders. Other than the paid protesters, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth — “but they’re refugeeeees” — even Hillary chimed in to say (echoing Obama) “that’s not who we are.” It is becoming really irritating to be told “who we are,” when Washington elites clearly have no idea.
The problem is precisely that we don’t know if they are refugees. The executive order also included an order to favor Christian sanctuary seekers. How dare he favor Christians over Muslims!! Religious prejudice! Constitution! Christians are far more apt to be killed by jihadists than other Muslims are, in the case if ISIS, rather spectacularly, and their wives and female children turned into sex slaves.
I ran across a quotation I saved from a piece in Forbes magazine in 2013 that seems appropriate:
None of this should surprise anyone. Contrary to what they tell you (and tell you and tell you) progressives don’t have principles. Rather they have faddish opinions that are highly unstable and often contradictory. Kathryn Shaidle
That makes more sense than anything else I have read lately.
The airport protesters (The Soros bunch) want open borders. In other words, we are to leave the door of our house open to anyone who might choose to wander in. We don’t have to be concerned because all people, and all refugees, are good people, just needy? Even vetted, some will slip through. Some of our terrorists were citizens, born in this country but radicalized in American Mosques or by trips abroad.
The Democrat media’s narrative is that President Trump is banning
entry to possible terrorist populations Muslims because he is prejudiced against Muslims, and facts are not allowed to intrude. As Tom Lifson pointed out “Why is the United States supposed to admit Syrian refugees when oil-rich and piously Islamic Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the U.A.E. have not admitted a single Syrian? Their stated reason is the risk of terrorism.” So much for that faddish and unstable opinion.
From Sohrab Ahmari, writing from London, in the Wall Street Journal:
The irony is that freedom of movement is unraveling because liberals won central debates—about Islamism, social cohesion and nationalism. Rather than give any ground, they accused opponents of being phobic and reactionary. Now liberals are reaping the rewards of those underhanded victories.
Liberals refused to acknowledge the link between Islamist ideology and terrorism. For eight years under President Obama, the U.S. government refused even to say “Islamism,” claiming ludicrously that U.S. service members were going to war against “violent extremism.” Voters could read and hear about jihadists offering up their actions to Allah before opening automatic fire on shoppers and blasphemous cartoonists.
It’s strange to remember now how Europeans were welcoming “Migrants” from Syria with open arms, flowers, food, clothing and songs. It has been a long slow learning process and illusions of empathy and generosity have gone a glimmering. They refuse to admit what they have done, and what is happening on a daily basis, and their governments try to hush the minor things up, but they have “no-go” areas where it is unsafe for even police to intrude.
Democrats depend on people who don’t pay much attention to the news, cannot distinguish between “fake news” and real events. They come up with “talking points” to give their version of whatever it is that Republicans have done. President Trump has placed an immigration ban on immigrants from 7 nations that have been singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. There is no ban on Muslims.
Do you remember the media howling when President Obama banned any processing of visas for Iraqi refugees in 2011? The 2009 discovery of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green Kentucky prompted a six month ban on immigrants from Iraq. Or when President Carter suspended any issuance of visas to Iranians in 1980.
Hollywood celebrities can always be counted on to rush to the nearest reporter to express their deep understanding of current events. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo dramatically proclaimed himself a Muslim, then included a Jew, a Gay, Black, Christian, transgendered or a woman to make it clear that he was really inclusive. California wants to secede. Our own Gov. Inslee is filing a lawsuit—anything to distract attention from his budget request for another $11 billion in taxes because he can find no way to cut any expenditure. The Leftist media are improperly remaining in the fake news area, calling President Trump’s executive order religious bigotry, a “Muslim Ban.”
The Wall Street Journal had bet that it would take only 30 days for former president Barack Obama to start criticizing his presidential successor. But then he has never had George W. Bush’s grace. It only took 10 days. He couldn’t even wait until he finished his post-inaugural vacation. He had a spokesman issue a statement Monday afternoon reporting that the former president “is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country” against President Trump’s refugee order.
“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,” added spokesman Kevin Lewis. “With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”
No one doubts that, but then Syrian refugees became a global crisis in large part because Mr. Obama did almost nothing for five years as President to stop the civil war, much less help refugees. Here are the number of Syrians his Administration admitted: fiscal year 2011, 29; 2012, 31; 2013: 36; 2014, 105; 2015, 1,682. Only in 2016 did he increase the target to 13,000, though actual admissions haven’t been disclosed. Mr. Obama also barely lifted a hand to help resettle translators who worked with GIs in Iraq or Afghanistan.
This executive order is not illegal, not unconstitutional, and not unusual. They’re just still protesting losing the election, because they can’t get over it. Pathetic.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Middle East, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Ambassador Charles Hill, General James Mattis, The Problem of Iran
Charles Hill and General James Mattis on Uncommon Knowledge, July 28, 2015, discussing the Iran Deal and the state of the world with Uncommon Knowledge host Peter Robinson.They believe that the United States has handed its leading role to Iran, and essentially provided a dowry along with it. As the U.S. pulls back and the sanctions are lifted—Iran will start making oil money again. At this point the sanctions are gone.
They suggest that if we want better deals and and a stronger international presence we need to listen to other points of view, especially from the three branches of government. If we engage more with the world and use solid strategies to protect and encourage democracy and freedom at home and abroad, then we will have fewer military interventions abroad. That will put us in a better position to handle problems like ISIS. This conversation took place a year and a half ago, but remains illuminating.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Economics, Free Markets, Freedom, Health Care, Humor, Immigration, Intelligence, Media Bias, News, The United States | Tags: No Place for Adulation, Not Doing Journalism, Sycophantic Press Corps
We have mentioned the disgraceful partisanship of the Washington D.C. press before. The adoration is clearly shown in this mashup from President Obama’s final press conference. If you can’t maintain a skeptical point of view, you’re not doing journalism, but they apparently never learned that in journalism school. Elected politicians are supposed to do what they told us they intended to do. Presidents are imperfect, make mistakes, sometimes very big ones, and sometimes they turn out to be something other than what they claimed. If journalists don’t do their job, it makes it much harder for the rest of us who will probably never meet those politicians in person.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Education, Free Markets, Freedom, Immigration, Intelligence, Law, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, The Constitution | Tags: "We the People", Remaining Free People, The Constitution
Over at Powerline, Steven Hayward wrote that he stumbled across a speech that President Reagan gave in 1977 that describes our modern predicament very well:
But how much are we to blame for what has happened? Beginning with the traumatic experience of the Great Depression, we the people have turned more and more to government for answers that government has neither the right nor the capacity to provide. But government, as an institution, always tends to increase in size and power, not just this government—any government. It’s built-in. And so government attempted to provide the answers.
The result is a fourth branch added to the traditional three of executive, legislative, and judicial: a vast federal bureaucracy that’s now being imitated in too many states and too many cities, a bureaucracy of enormous power which determines policy to a greater extent than any of us realize, very possibly to a greater extent than our own elected representatives. And it can’t be removed from office by our votes.
That gets into the problem of the Administrative State which has become an increasingly larger problem under the Obama administration.
We go to hear their speeches and attend their events and vote for them for public office, and they begin to think that they are special, and if we reelect them, it increases, and newsmen call them by their title and print what they say and before you know it they start believing they are essential, and we start talking about term limits, and making rules that say that they cannot move from holding office to becoming highly-paid lobbyists valuable to their employers quite specifically because they know all the senators and representatives with whom they used to work, and thus the ability to influence them.
When they leave office, do they return home—or do they stay on in the nation’s capitol—unable to part with the power they once had? You see what an incestuous and closed circle it all becomes.
It’s easy to propose term limits for people of the other party, but term limits for your own favorites are another question. You may believe in them as wise legislators who advocate for causes you believe in, who are particularly valuable because they know their way around Congress. At what point do you agree to send them back home and elect a fresh new face who may or may not turn out to be as valuable? Hard questions.
If our government is to be, in Lincoln’s words, “a government of the people, by the people and for the people,” then it will be a constant battle and a constant question, but we have to opt for the people and for generations to come.
I can think of a number of members of Congress who have been returned to Congress by their constituents for years and years that are, frankly, just plain dumb. Is that pure party loyalty? No appealing replacement? Why keep sending them back? Term limits would take care of that, but you’d lose your favorite too.
Do you have a copy of the Constitution? Have you read the whole thing? The Cato Institute (Libertarian) sells a dandy little pocket Constitution which includes the Declaration of Independence as well. Single copies are $4.95 or are cheaper in quantity. There’s a special on 10 copies for $10.00.
Why would you want ten copies? They make nice gifts for high school seniors off to college or off to the work world. No guarantee that they will read it, but everyone should have their own copy, on the off-chance that they might find it useful to refer to from time to time.
It was Ben Franklin who once said: “It’s a republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Education, Intelligence, Law, Politics | Tags: Informed or Not, The Progressives, Trump's Cabinet Nominees
I have watched as many of the committee hearings on President-Elect Trump’s Cabinet nominees as I can, to find out more about just who they are. I am very impressed by the quality of these people. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have selected individuals who bring special knowledge and ability to the office to which they were nominated. The difference in the caliber of people is notable.
The questioning in the hearings by Democrats was largely embarrassing. Someone has done a deep dive into the media to see what they can turn up, and issued talking points for the questions, trying to prove the Democrats’ constant cries of “racist, sexist, and homophobe” and throw in “Islamophobe, fascist,” and anything Russian as well. If that sounds like I’m saying the questioning wasn’t very useful, well yes, that’s what I’m saying. It’s the oft-repeated observation that “how can they be qualified to hold a cabinet office when they have never served in government?”
The obvious responses would be Constitutional requirements, being bureaucrats is not a qualification for anything, and that old “We the People” thing.
The nominees were clearly selected for their individual abilities and ideas, rather than because they gave money to the campaign or were early supporters. It’s quite a contrast with President Obama who appointed Hillary as Secretary of State as the candidate he had defeated for the presidency. And seemingly, created a cabinet of yes-men (or women). Obama’s approach was a little different. He famously said:
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
He also chose, it was reported, to have intelligence briefings delivered in a short paper that he could read, rather than be “briefed” by intelligence personnel. It is a choice of the way to conduct the office, but telling.
The Left, in general, blames everybody else for Hillary’s loss. The media describes her frequently as “beloved” which clearly does not seem to be the case. John Lewis not only blames the Russians for Hillary’s loss, but will not attend the inauguration since he believes that Donald Trump did not legitimately win the election. Hillary claims that the “Russian hacking” was because of Vladimir Putin’s personal animus against her.
Andy McCarthy wrote that “Disclosure of embarrassing information should not be confused with disinformation.” When the public hears reference to cyber-espionage they are inclined to think spies and sinister stuff, not “an effort to publicize true but embarrassing information.”
Hillary’s improper emails and the court fights to get them released had long been public knowledge and worrisome for those who pay close attention to political matters. Hillary’s emails were a very big deal because 1. they included highly classified national security State Department secrets and 2. She put them on an unsecured computer open to any capable hacker at any time — which she was forbidden by law from doing, because she wanted to hide the graft of the Clinton Foundation, which had considerably enriched the family.
Hillary was a known compulsive liar and had been known as such since she was the wife of the Governor of Arkansas. She was also publicly known as vicious and rude to aides, military personnel, and the Secret Service members assigned to protect her life. No one could name an accomplishment from her tenure as Secretary of State, except for racking up air miles. Benghazi and Libya rankled for those who were paying attention. I know that there are many people who don’t like politics and don’t pay attention. It’s a choice. But they do damage to all of us because they are not informed voters.
The latest excuse for Hillary’s loss is grocery store checkout lines. Those awful headlines on the National Enquirer and it’s competitors, made voters change their minds at the last minute.
Obama believed that the media was to blame for rural Americans not voting Democrat this election despite his administration pumping billions of dollars into rural economies.
Obama made the remarks as part of an “exit interview” put out by CNN. The U.S. Department of Agriculture pumped out $6.5 billion in 2016 to fund rural electrical utilities, housing and community development. …
There are a lot of folks in places like West Virginia or Kentucky who didn’t vote for Hillary, didn’t vote for me, but are being helped by this,” Obama said.
Those coal mining communities were really helped by getting unemployment and food stamps when Obama closed down the mines because of his climate illusions. “Deplorables” indeed. As someone who grew up very, very rural, I can assure you that rural America is not exactly populated by the backward or unintelligent. Or Deplorable.
Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters will join John Lewis in boycotting the inauguration because she believes that Donald Trump’s campaign attacks against Hillary Clinton are impeachable offenses. Here’s Maxine on Chris Matthews:
“Well here’s what I’m trying to get to,” Waters responded. “If we discover that Donald Trump or his advocates played a role to help provide strategy — if they’re the ones who came up with ‘Crooked Hillary,’ if they’re the ones who came up with, ‘she’s ill, something’s wrong with her energy,’ and the way that he basically described her during the campaign — I think that is something that would put the question squarely on the table whether or not he should be impeached.”
So, you think you can commit an impeachable offense before you take office?” Matthews incredulously asked the California Democrat.
“Well, I think that at the point that investigations discover and confirm and can document any of that role in helping to strategize — they had a role in attempting to determine the outcome,” she answered regardless of the actual question. “That in many ways they used the information they got when they hacked into emails etc. — if that was used against Hillary Clinton in some way, yes I think that’s impeachable.”
Oh my! I rest my case.