Judge Pirro on Why Hillary Won’t Be Indicted for Her Emails

Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted this morning to the news that Attorney General Loretta Lynch will defer to non-political subordinates on whether to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

The expected announcement comes after Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton, widely seen as a potential conflict of interest in the case.

The New York Times reported that Lynch was planning this course of action for months.

Pirro said that Clinton is not going to be indicted in the email case because of the series of events that the charges would trigger.

“The reason she will not be indicted is because her first witness as a defendant in a criminal case is the President of the United States. Why? Because Hillary Clinton emailed President Barack Obama. He knew she had a private email server. So he is complicit. And they will not allow a constitutional crisis where the President of the United States knew about the risking of security of the United States,” said Pirro. (Read more from “Judge Pirro on Why Hillary Won’t Be Indicted for Her Emails” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Grizzly That Has Charged at People at Denali National Park Attacks Again, Officials Say

Park officials say a grizzly bear that has previously charged at people has bitten and scratched a hiker, and they will kill the animal when they find it.

Officials say the juvenile grizzly bear attacked a 28-year-old woman about 7 p.m. Friday while she was hiking on the Savage Alpine Trail in Denali National Park.

They say the woman was hiking with two other friends when the bear scratched and bit her and then walked away. When the bear came back, one of the three hikers threw rocks at it, causing the bear to run away. (Read more from “Grizzly That Has Charged at People at Denali National Park Attacks Again, Officials Say” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Now Even Breasts Become Part of the Political Debate

Is breastfeeding natural? Yes and no, says a paper in the prestigious journal Pediatrics.

It may be “natural” to breastfeed, concludes the treatise, but the authors warn against use of the term by government officials or doctors because it might inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family, for example, that women should be the primary caretakers of children.

Ironically, one of the authors of the paper in the peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, previously wrote a book titled, “Back to the Breast: Natural Motherhood and Breastfeeding in America.”

No word on whether she has forgone accepting royalties on the title released only last year.

The paper, “Unintended Consequences of Invoking the ‘Natural’ in Breastfeeding Promotion,” was authored by Anne Barnhill, a Ph.D and assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jessica Martucci, a fellow (no apology for the gender-oriented title) in the same department who describes herself as a “feminist” historian of “sci/tech/med” and a “twitterstorian.” (Read more from “Now Even Breasts Become Part of the Political Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DOJ Walks Back Lynch Comment That She’ll Follow Prosecutor Lead in Hillary Email Probe

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch made news late this week when said she would accept the recommendations of the FBI and career prosecutors concerning whether Hillary Clinton’s email practices broke federal law. But a Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson has now walked that statement back, suggesting Lynch could overturn any recommendations.

“They all expect to receive and accept the recommendations,” Melanie Newman told Yahoo News when asked about the roles Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates might play in any DOJ decisions about former Secretary of State Clinton. But Newman also said the recommendations will not dictate that process. “It is unlikely there will be such a circumstance” where career prosecutors are overruled. “But, obviously, that possibility exists,” Newman said, adding, “The AG is the ultimate decider.”

Lynch has been under bipartisan criticism for meeting privately with former President Bill Clinton for 30 minutes on her airplane. Bill Clinton’s wife has been under FBI investigation for months related to whether she violated federal law as Secretary of State, yet Lynch says she and Clinton made small talk about their grandchildren and other matters of little consequence.

On Friday, Lynch admitted she made an error. “I certainly wouldn’t do it again because I think it has cast a shadow over how this case will be perceived,” The Daily Caller reported her saying.

Lynch said she would rely on career prosecutors for what course should be taken. “Then, as is the common process, they present it to me and I fully expect to accept their recommendations,” she said.

Lynch also said that while she would not recuse herself from the Clinton findings — “A recusal would mean I wouldn’t even be briefed on what the findings were,” she explained — she does not “have a role in those findings or coming up with those findings … I will be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations.”

Newman’s comments, however, indicate Lynch could override recommendations from career prosecutors. Whether she will — and what role if any President Obama may have in the decision-making process — is the question of the hour. (For more from the author of “DOJ Walks Back Lynch Comment That She’ll Follow Prosecutor Lead in Hillary Email Probe” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What My Grandfather Taught Me About America

My appreciation for the greatness of America’s founding was first instilled in me by my grandfather, Antonio Gimenez. Born in Puerto Rico in the early 1920s, he and seven of his brothers are combat veterans from WWII, along with two more brothers who (to their dismay) were ineligible for combat but served the Army in in non-combat roles, and two sisters who served in the Women’s Army Corps (WAC). Twelve in all! My grandfather landed at Normandy on D-Day, fought in many of the major battles in Europe, and even met my grandmother in Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. He never likes to talk about the war, but his patriotism is irrepressible.

He never forgot what he was fighting for, and revered the founders for their vision of a society dedicated to liberty. His favorite anecdote about America’s greatness was how anyone, any single individual, who had been wronged by the government had the right – guaranteed by law – to stand up for himself and challenge the government. This is the complete polar opposite of the fascism he fought against, a system where the individual is nothing and completely expendable to the interests of the state.

This is the true spirit of the American Revolution. What made the colonists revolt against the British crown was not so much the taxes but the fact that laws were being imposed without the consent of the governed, and that peaceful attempts to redress grievances were met with military occupation.

In 1780, with the war still ongoing, the people of Massachusetts were asked to ratify a state constitution. They refused every draft until one was constructed that recognized the sovereignty of the individual and derived authority from the consent of the governed. It was there that the term “We the people” originated. And the best method of securing and ensuring individual liberty was the central issue in the ratification debates of the constitution. (For more, see Ratification: The people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier)

This individuality and the way it pervades everyday life was the central, shocking discovery of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

The other key to our founding is the principals of Judeo-Christian values, and – unless you are a leftist intent on distorting the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Danbury Letter – it is impossible to miss this:

Benjamin Rush: “I proceed…to enquire what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

George Washington: “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

James Madison: “The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.”

The best recent summation of the ideals of America comes from Norman Podhoretz in the October 2012 issue of Hillsdale College’s Imprimis, in a speech titled “Is America Exceptional?”:

First of all, unlike all other nations past or present, this one accepted as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. What this meant was that its Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone. There remained, of course, the two atavistic contradictions of slavery and the position of women; but so intolerable did these contradictions ultimately prove that they had to be resolved—even if, as in the case of the former, it took the bloodiest war the nation has ever fought.

Secondly, in all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. Thus, foreigners who were admitted for one reason or another could never become full-fledged members of the society. But America was the incarnation of an idea, and therefore no such factors came into play. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

Thirdly, in all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

This July 4th, many of us will have the sad shadow of this election hanging over it – where the leading candidates are so far removed from our founding ideals that both agree on government control of healthcare. If our damn politicians cannot restore our republic – then we should give the Article 5 convention of states strong consideration. If our former rivals – now dear friends – in England can have a democratic uprising to bypass their political elites and restore their rights, then so can we. (For more from the author of “What My Grandfather Taught Me About America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could Facebook and YouTube’s New Anti-Terror Software Censor Conservatives?

Bad news, extremists. Facebook and YouTube have announced that they are updating their software to automatically remove content deemed to be “extreme,” by which we can only assume they mean videos associated with terrorist groups or other violent individuals. The goal is to make the spread of hate and violence more difficult via these popular internet channels, which is undoubtedly a laudable goal. Yet I can’t help wondering whether this policy is wise, even in the unlikely event that it will be successful.

Until now, these sites have relied on users reporting objectionable content, in order to ensure that inappropriate content is not allowed to remain publicly available. Apparently, not enough users were outraged about ISIS-related content to complain. At least, that would be the implication. And while’ it’s easy to see efficiency advances in automating this process, it also raises some new questions.

The biggest one for me is, how do these algorithms decide what counts as “extremist” and what doesn’t? By removing the element of human judgment from the equation, it’s hard to see how a piece of software can know enough to distinguish a video that should be taken down from one that is making a satirical or political point. Machines are notoriously bad at detecting sarcasm and irony, for example.

Of course, the specifics of the algorithms to be used are being kept a closely-guarded secret, for the simple reason that extremist groups who know what they’re looking for can disguise their videos to avoid the filter. That’s a reasonable explanation, but it doesn’t answer the concerns about pulling down perfectly legitimate content by mistake. And even if the program is perfect and does only identify what its masters consider “extremist,” what’s to stop them from using that power to designate conservative, tea party or libertarian organizations as among those too hot for TV?

We know that Facebook has a bad history with political bias. We also know that the FBI considers anti-government sentiment to be extremist, by which measure I must certainly be on a list somewhere. To what extent is this policy change going to protect people, and to what extent will it be used to suppress unpopular but legitimate opinions? That’s my worry.

Now of course, Facebook and YouTube are both private companies, meaning they have the right to remove any content they don’t like, for any reason whatsoever. It’s their site and they get to choose what goes on it. Fair enough. But The Hill describes these companies as responding to “pressure from President Obama and European leaders.” What sort of pressure are they reacting to, I wonder. When government gets involved, there is usually a pretty strong distinction between a company policy freely chosen for benefit of the users and shareholders, and one chosen because of threats, whether explicit or implied, of government retaliation.

The internet has always been a haven of free speech, where anything goes and nothing is over the line. This is a double edged sword. In order to allow meaningful political dissent, you also have to allow hateful, indefensible things said by potentially violent people. I think the benefits of such a system outweigh the drawbacks by rather a large margin. But if the web’s most powerful companies start engaging in automatic, unthinking censorship of speech they find offensive, we may be in danger of losing the greatest forum for free thinking and new ideas in the history of mankind. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. (For more from the author of “Could Facebook and YouTube’s New Anti-Terror Software Censor Conservatives?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Family of Disabled 19-Year-Old Girl Suing TSA for Mistreatment

Hannah Cohen, 19, and her family are suing the TSA after a head injury suffered as the result of a TSA officer tackling her onto the floor. Hannah is a St. Jude’s cancer patient, who is partially deaf and blind in one eye. She is a patient at St. Jude’s, in treatment for a brain tumor discovered 17 years ago.

The horrible incident occurred as she was on a trip home to Chattanooga with her mom Sarah Cohen, after a series of treatments for the tumor at St. Jude’s Hospital.

The family has made the trip for 17 years since the tumor was discovered, and have never experienced any troubles at the airport. This time however, as Hannah and her mom were progressing through a TSA checkpoint at Memphis International Airport, she set off the metal detector.

Hannah, young and in a disabled state, was understandably confused by the TSA agents who suddenly approached her. She tried to avoid them, and moved away confused by the sudden approach of the officers.

Prior to approaching Hannah, the TSA agents told her mother they wanted to do additional screening after the alarms went off.

What was originally intended to be “additional screening” turned into a physical and bloody scuffle.

As Hannah tried to escape what she perceived to be a threat, one of the agents tackled her to the ground, ramming her head into the floor in the process.

“She’s trying to get away from them but in the next instant, one of them had her down on the ground and hit her head on the floor. There was blood everywhere,” recalled her mother.

During the incident, her mother tried to tell the officers multiple times that Hannah had various medical issues and that she was just confused, but was forced back as the agents took her daughter away in handcuffs.

After the misunderstanding-turned-spectacle subsided, Hannah was arrested and booked in the airport’s jail, apart from her mother.

The Cohen family unexpectedly spent the night in the airport, with Hannah isolated, and no access to their luggage.

“Here we were with nowhere to go, not even a toothbrush, our bags had gone to Chattanooga,” Hannah’s mom recounted.

The charges were later thrown out by authorities and Hannah was finally released.

“She’s 19 but she’ll always be my baby. We’ve been through so much.”

The TSA would not comment directly to the incident, but released a statement in the aftermath saying, “Passengers can call ahead of time to learn more about the screening process for their particular needs or medical situation.”

Upset with how things were handled, the Cohen family is planning to bring a lawsuit against the Memphis Airport, Airport Police and the TSA for negligent conduct and injuries suffered by Hannah. (For more from the author of “Family of Disabled 19-Year-Old Girl Suing TSA for Mistreatment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Norwegians Discover Way to Defeat American Marines Using Bacon and Small Children

Hilarious (and presumably true) tale spotted at Reddit and authored by 1nf1del (caution: strong language):

In the U.S. Marines, doing a mock war in the Norwegian city of Trondheim with the Dutch, Germans and other allies, training in urban combat. My infantry unit was positioned in a large soccer field next to an elementary school. Keep in mind there was no actual combat, even simulated; it was mostly just practicing maneuvers and tactics. But we still looked out of place with weapons and gear, etc. It’s f***ing February. In Norway. Cold as balls. Snow up to our knees. Norway obviously has no snow days, so the kids were all in school.

Anyway, so Norway has this most delicious and amazing delicacy, I have no idea what it’s called, but it’s basically a bacon-wrapped hot dog; we just assumed it was called Candy of the Lord. As Americans we were naturally and instantly addicted. You find them at gas stations, and there just happened to be one on the other side of the school where we were camped. A few of my fellow Marines and I requested permission to go to the gas station and we set out on our way.

We made it to right about where the main entrance of the school was, and the doors opened; school was out. There were only a few kids, probably 6 or 7 years old. Lots of talking and laughing. Gawking at us as we walked by, with our guns and huge ridiculous snow suits. One precocious little bugger made shooting noises at us. We made shooting noises back.

And then someone in my group. I don’t know who. God help me I don’t know who…
Someone threw a snowball and hit a little girl in the leg.

And those little Norwegian children unleashed hell.

There was a shrill cry in unintelligible Norseman and the doors to the school burst open. School children flooded out like a never-ending flood of something that never ends. Screeching, smiling, sprinting – how the f*** were they sprinting?? – little bastards were slinging snowballs faster than the laws of physics should allow. It was like that movie Elf. If you can imagine riding in a fast car in a snowstorm and sticking your head out the window. Now imagine the snowflakes that are hitting your face are the size of snowballs. We couldn’t f***ing see. We couldn’t run. We could barely breathe. Holy f***….

We tried to return fire and threw one, maybe two half-packed, shitty snowballs that fell apart in the air, arms flailing like drunk octopi. I am from Texas. We were a unit stationed in North Carolina. We were so outmatched and out of our element, it only made them laugh harder. We were cutoff from our main forces. We tried to perform a flanking maneuver but f*** me they were fast. I think some of them were throwing rocks!

My comrades. I could see them speed waddling in their huge suits back to camp like a f***ed up pair of white Teletubbies, under withering fire. f*** tactics, f*** me, f*** the Candy of the Lord, this was survival! I was the slow one in the group. My snowboots were too big but they were the smallest size they had at Issue g**dammit!! My Marines left me behind.

I tried pulling my hood over my head and keeping my head down. No longer content to pelt my defenseless body with ballistic snow, the enemy swarmed me and dragged me down, cackling like a pack of hyenas descending on a wildebeest. I tried to sling them off by spinning. I came out of one of my boots and fell. I began to scream and plead for them to stop but they neither understood nor gave a single Nordic f***. They literally pinned me down with about five kids on each limb. It was then that I actually thought – oh shit. I’m really in trouble. My snow-mittens were ripped off and flung into trees. They started shoving snow down my suit. Have you ever had anyone drop an ice cube down your shirt?

Well now imagine someone shoveling handfuls of ice cubes down your shirt. It literally shocked the breath out of my body.

They left me laying like a Family Guy accident victim. Moaning and screaming in the cold. Rifle packed with snow and dirt. Boot buried some-f***ing-where. They ran away laughing, jabbering in their crazy language. I lay there trying to figure out just what in the great American f*** had happened.

TL;DR – Norwegians discover way to defeat American Marines using bacon and small children.

LPT -don’t ever, ever get in a snowball fight with Norwegian school kids.

TIL – there are more names for shoving snow down peoples’ clothes than should be reasonably expected.

EDIT – Wow. Thanks for the GOLD and thanks for all the kind words! You guys rock. Glad I could make you laugh with my inadequacies. hahahaha. Worst snowfighters ever.

EDIT EDIT Candy of the Lord= baconpølse, and yes – it was filled with cheese! Very important detail that I left out. Sorry.

(For more from the author of “Norwegians Discover Way to Defeat American Marines Using Bacon and Small Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chris Christie’s Bizarre Love Affair With Radical Islam

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s nomination of Sohail Mohammed to be a state judge shows the governor’s tin ear for radical Islam. Not only did he appoint a longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists to be a judge, but Christie has also turned a blind eye to the activities of one of Mohammed’s clients – radical imam Mohammed Qatanani, head of one of New Jersey’s largest mosques.

Qatanani has a history of Hamas support and was related by marriage to a leading Hamas operative in the West Bank. This fall, Qatanani will return to a New Jersey immigration court, where the Department of Homeland Security is fighting to have him deported. In his initial application for a green card filed in 1999, government lawyers say Qatanani failed to disclose a conviction in an Israeli military court for being a Hamas member and providing support to the terrorist group.

Oddly, Christie – a Republican who was then the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey – sided with Qatanani against DHS, allowing a top lieutenant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness at Qatanani’s first immigration trial, and publicly embracing the imam at a Ramadan breakfast at his mosque. Christie later appointed McKenna as New Jersey’s head of homeland security..

As general counsel to the American Muslim Union (AMU), Mohammed often represented clients subject to government allegations concerning terrorists. The AMU often is highly critical of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

One online newsletter even included a claim that a “Zionist commando orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks” and shows support for a “Rabbi” from the extremist Jewish organization Neturei Karta, which denies the right of Israel to exist and supports its dismantling.

The AMU has criticized some of the response to the September 11 attacks, especially regarding the PATRIOT Act. Explaining why the AMU had become more politically active and was holding voter registration drives, one employee of AMU said: “Right now, the Patriot Act—basically it’s unconstitutional…I believe it targets Muslims unfairly. If someone’s going to come out with a bill that’s discriminatory, I’m not going to vote for them.”

As general counsel, Mohammed bucked several high-profile terror support prosecutions. After authorities shut down the Holy Land Foundation near Dallas for alleged Hamas support in 2001, Mohammed told the Record of Bergen County, N.J., that the government was unjustly singling out Muslim organizations.”People see this as another example of how heavy-handed the administration has been thus far,” he said.

The move was newsworthy in New Jersey because an HLF officer, Mohammed El-Mezain, preceded Qatanani as imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County. El-Mezain and four fellow defendants were convicted of illegally routing millions of dollars to Hamas in 2008.

During a lecture given a year earlier, Qatanani included the HLF defendants in a prayer for relief from oppression. “Oh Allah assist our brothers and sisters in Philistine [Palestine], and Iraq and Chechnya,” he said. “O Allah remove occupation and oppression and o Allah improve the matters of our community … to assist our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land Foundation, ask oh Allah … to assist them and to remove the difficulty that they have been inflicted with all of the brothers and sisters in this country, oh Allah to prove them non-guilty.”

Additionally, Mohammed publicly defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian following a 2003 indictment which alleged he was a North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Appearing on MSNBC, Mohammed criticized the fact that it took years of investigation before the indictment was issued. “It all points out to the distrust that the Muslim community have, which is this is nothing but a witch-hunt,” he said. “This is nothing but a politically motivated indictment, and all you are waiting for is the right opportunity to indict the person, the climate is right.”

Al-Arian, a longtime professor at the University of South Florida, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ. In sentencing him, a federal judge said the evidence made it clear he was “a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control the actions of an organization, even the PIJ; and you were an active leader.”

In addition to defending accused terrorists, Mohammed is defensive about acknowledging their motivations. He was critical of a case brought by Christie’s office when the governor was U.S. Attorney. The Fort Dix defendants were accused, and later convicted, of plotting a mass casualty attack on the New Jersey military base as an act of jihad. Dix. Mohammed objected to the use of the phrase “Islamic militants” in the government’s case.

“Don’t equate actions with religion,” he said.

Then there’s this exchange with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about two months after 9/11. Mohammed bristled at Matthews’ reference to the “Islamic terrorists” behind the attacks:

MATTHEWS: What else do they have in common, the people who blew up the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon? What else do they have in common?

MOHAMMED: All male.

MATTHEWS: Keep going.

If you’re a policeman, you have got to use your brain here. What else do they have in common? They all come from Middle Eastern countries. They’re all Islamic zealots.

MOHAMMED: Well, you cannot call them — and anybody who professes or who says that he believes in a religion, a peaceful religion, cannot take the banner and crash a plane, and you blame every single person who follows this faith.

Even while fighting to stay in the country, Mohammed’s former client, Qatanani, has participated in radical rallies and programs. During a rally in New York last March, demonstrators repeated a chant that subtly calls for Israel’s destruction. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

It’s a familiar chant at pro-Palestinian rallies. A Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would cover all of what is now the state of Israel. In his remarks, which came after the chant, Qatanani expressed his agreement.

“Palestine will be free one day,” he told the rally. “And we will see it very soon by your actions, by your standing for justice, justice, freedom, the liberation of the land will be very soon.”

Just before the 2008 ruling in Qatanani’s favor was issued, and while he was still the U.S. attorney, Christie praised the imam at a Ramadan breakfast held at Qatanani’s mosque. “My view is he’s always had a very good relationship with us, and he’s a man of great goodwill,” Christie said, reportedly embracing him.

The U.S. Attorney’s office was not a party to the case, Christie said, and his praise for Qatanani was not meant to be “a commentary on the dispute between the imam and DHS” but after 9/11, he found the imam “to be a constructive force in attempting to strengthen our relations with that community.”

During the original immigration trial, one of Christie’s assistant U.S. attorneys, Charles B. McKenna, testified as a character witness for Qatanani. In his ruling, Immigration Court Judge Alberto Riefkohl said he was particularly impressed by “law enforcement officers that took time from their respective duties to appear before the Court” on Qatanani’s behalf. Other supportive testimony came from the sheriffs of Bergen and Passaic counties and U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-Paterson.

Qatanani’s visa application was prepared by Mohammed’s law firm and Mohammed sat with his client during an interview with DHS and FBI agents in 2005, immigration court records show. “QATANANI advised that he trusted his attorney, Sohail Mohammed, so he signed the I-485 form.”

During the interview, Qatanani admitted having spent three months in an Israeli prison but he did not disclose that on his application for permanent residency. He also admitted being in the Muslim Brotherhood, but said he left the group in 1991 when working and going to school while raising a family left him with no time.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a global religious and political movement that seeks to spread Islamic law. In a 1991 document, a member of the American branch explained that the group’s goal was ” a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

An immigration judge ruled in Qatanani’s favor in September 2008, saying the Israeli government documents and the testimony of U.S. law enforcement officials were not credible. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back to the original judge in October 2009, finding that Judge Riefkohl committed a series of errors in downplaying the Israeli evidence and the agents’ testimonies. The appellate panel found that the Israeli evidence was “properly authenticated and that there was no adequate basis for the Immigration Judge to give them ‘very low evidentiary weight.”

The judge’s assessment of the law enforcement agents’ testimony was “clearly erroneous,” the board’s decision said.

In his original immigration trial, government attorneys presented Israeli court records showing Qatanani was convicted by an Israeli court in 1993 of being a Hamas member and of providing support to the terrorist group.

When he applied for a new visa, Qatanani marked “no” to questions about whether he had ever been “arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance” in other countries.

“An alien who has provided material support to a terrorist organization is inadmissible to the United States,” government attorneys wrote. “Therefore, by answering the questions in the negative, the respondent cut-off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility for adjustment of status.”

Immigration officials have successfully used similar misrepresentations to deport people tied to terrorist groups.

Christie’s support for Islamists such as Qatanani and Mohammed betrays either naivete or calculation. Either is troubling. (For more from the author of “Chris Christie’s Bizarre Love Affair With Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bangladesh Attack Shows Depth of Country’s Extremist Problems

As Bangladesh comes to grip with the horrific terrorist attack July 1 at a café in an upscale neighborhood in Dhaka, the Sheikh Hasina government must focus on shutting down local Islamist militant groups and cooperating closely with U.S. authorities to determine whether the terrorists had operational links to global groups.

The attack, which involved a 12-hour hostage siege, left at least 20 hostages and two Bangladeshi security personnel dead. The victims included nine Italian, seven Japanese, one Indian, two Bangladeshi, and one U.S. citizen of Bangladeshi origin. Three of the victims were students at U.S. colleges.

According to media reports, the six attackers were all Bangladeshi, and five of them were individuals the local police had tried to arrest previously. The attackers had asked the hostages to recite verses from the Koran, and those who could not were brutally tortured and killed, according to survivors of the ordeal.

In the last three years, religious extremists in Bangladesh have stepped up their attacks, systematically murdering liberal bloggers, writers, professors, and activists, as well as members of the minority Hindu community.

The attacks appear aimed at silencing free speech and Islamizing Bangladeshi society.

There also appears to be competition between terrorists claiming allegiance to al-Qaeda and those associating with the Islamic State (ISIS). The Bangladeshi authorities arrested several members of a local terrorist group, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, in 2015 for making or attempting to make contact with ISIS.

In another sign of its growing interest in Bangladesh, ISIS recently published a five-page article titled, “The Revival of Jihad in Bengal,” in its flagship magazine “Dabiq,” which warned of further attacks against Westerners in Bangladesh.

Al-Qaeda has also turned more of its attention to Bangladesh in recent years. In September 2014, when al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri launched its South Asia wing (al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent), Zawahiri released a video that assured Muslims in India, Bangladesh, and Burma that the organization would help “rescue” them from injustice and persecution.

In January 2014, Zawahiri released an audio message calling on Bangladeshis to rise up against the state.

The Hasina government has blamed previous extremist attacks on the political opposition. But given the demonstrated ISIS and al-Qaeda interest in Bangladesh, it does not make sense for the Bangladeshi government to dismiss out of hand any connections of the attacks to global terrorist movements.

The July 1 attack was a planned and coordinated event that was at least inspired by ISIS ideology, although ISIS operatives may or may not have directed the attack. Either way, it is clear that Bangladesh has a serious Islamist extremist problem on its hands, and simply blaming the political opposition is not an acceptable response.

Moving forward, the U.S. must insist on fully transparent and joint investigations of this and previous attacks to determine any potential global linkages and how the terrorist networks can be crushed.

Hasina deserves credit for emphasizing the secular principles of the country’s founding. However, her government must now focus on putting into place the security measures necessary to protect those who want to uphold these principles. (For more from the author of “Bangladesh Attack Shows Depth of Country’s Extremist Problems” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.