Photo Credit: Defense One Live Last week, I learned that the introduction of my book, Fortifying Pakistan (co-authored with Peter Chalk), was part of Osama Bin Laden’s Abbottabad library. While some other members of the Bin Laden book club were amused to be included, I was incensed. Our book is about Pakistan’s unwillingness to avail itself of American assistance in order to be a more effective partner in combatting terrorism. We argue that Pakistan’s recalcitrance is rooted in its commitment to using terrorism as a tool of foreign policy in India and Afghanistan. One has to wonder why Bin Laden would be interested in reading about that. After all, by the time the book came out, he was already in Pakistan. He, of all people, knew full well the practical implications of our research. He was safely ensconced in a Pakistani sanctuary, a leisurely stroll down the road from Pakistan’s premier military academy, at Kakul.
The research project that culminated in the 2006 publication of Fortifying Pakistan began in 2004, when I was a new researcher at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). My boss, Paul Stares, (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) hired me to initiate a South Asia research program. This project was not an easy sell. Most of Washington had long decided that Pakistan was our most allegiant ally in the war on terrorism. That attitude endured until the Obama administration came into office.
Simply put: It was blasphemous to suggest, in 2004, that then-president Musharraf was playing a both sides with Washington. The Bush administration could not countenance such a possibility, or even consider the plausibility of it, given that its attention and resources were focused on Iraq.
Prior to joining USIP, I served as a Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. (Note: I am not, nor have I ever been, an actual political scientist.) During one of my last projects for RAND, I had briefed a senior Department of Defense official in early 2004, after returning from a January fact-finding trip I had made to Peshawar. I learned from numerous persons that the Pakistanis, through elements of the Frontier Corps, were facilitating Taliban operations in Afghanistan and movements into and out of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
This was no surprise to me. After all, Pakistan’s army and intelligence agency (the ISI) had long used the Frontier Corps to train Islamist militants operating in Afghanistan. The official seemed nonchalant at the time of the briefing, which puzzled and discomfited me. He seemed to be playing tic-tac-toe while the Pakistanis were playing three-dimensional chess. (Read more from “If Only US Leaders Read This Book on Pakistan That Was on Bin Laden’s Shelf” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-28 02:15:022016-04-11 11:00:42If Only US Leaders Read This Book on Pakistan That Was on Bin Laden’s Shelf
Baby Jaxton Leo Zanger recently became the 100th grandchild for one Illinois couple. Technically, the little guy entered the world as their 46th great-grandchild. He joins 53 grandchildren and one great-great grandchild . . .
“We just love them all and they’re all so precious,” said Leo Zanger, who calls his newest family member, born April 8, “just another precious little bundle.”
Leo and his wife, Ruth, recently celebrated their 59th anniversary. They have 12 children: The oldest is 58 and the youngest, now 31, was an uncle to 10 kids by the time he was born.
Most of the family still lives in or near Quincy, Illinois, where Leo runs a real estate agency that also employs four sons, one daughter and two daughters-in-law.
The grandchild who lives the farthest away — about a three-hour drive — is also the oldest at 39, said Donna Lane, one of Zanger’s 12 children and the unofficial family historian. (Read more from “Illinois Couple Who Welcomed 100th Grandchild: ‘We Just Love Them All'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-28 02:14:452016-04-11 11:00:42Illinois Couple Who Welcomed 100th Grandchild: ‘We Just Love Them All’
Photo Credit: Fox News By Todd Starnes. A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”
Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk.
She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.
The Christian Marine was given a bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private. (Read more from “Marine Court-Martialed for Refusing to Remove Bible Verse” HERE)
More Background on the Court-Martialed Christian Marine
By Liberty Institute. While stationed at Camp Lejune, LCpl Sterling, a devout Christian of Haitian descent, noticed that other service members had placed various personal items in their work spaces at the military base. So she decided to express herself as well in her workspace by displaying one of her favorite Bible verses.
LCpl Sterling printed out the words of Isaiah 54:17: “No weapon formed against you shall prosper.” But after taping it in three different places in her workspace, LCpl Sterling’s supervisor—who also happened to be her former drill instructor—ordered her to remove the Bible verse, cursing at her in the process. When LCpl Sterling asked why, her supervisor said, “I don’t like the tone.” The service member explained it was her First Amendment right to display the Bible verse and declined to take them down. Moreover, no other person in the unit ever complained about the verse.
The next day, LCpl Sterling discovered that her supervisor tore down the Bible verse and threw it in the trash. Adding injury to insult, the U.S. Government charged LCpl Sterling with the crime of failing to obey a direct order because she did not remove the Bible verse.
“If a service member has a right to display a secular poster, put an atheist bumper sticker on their car, or get a Star of David tattoo,” explains Berry, “then Lance Corporal Sterling has the right to display a small Bible verse on her computer monitor.”
Liberty Institute has defended service members in all four branches of the military—from officers to enlisted service members to chaplains who are black and white, male and female. “Nobody in the military is safe anymore,” adds Berry, “regardless of rank, age, color, gender or branch of service. Whether you are a lowly private, or a commanding general, opponents of religious freedom simply don’t care. Clearly, people of faith are the targets.” (Read more from this story HERE)
In her first interview ahead of the publication of her new book, Adios, America! conservative commentator Ann Coulter stood by her claim that Americans should “fear immigrants” from Mexico “more than ISIS,” the extremist group making gains across Iraq and Syria.
“I have a little tip. If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you,” Coulter said in an interview Tuesday with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos.
After several seconds of silence from a rather stunned audience, she added, “Very easy to not be killed by ISIS. Don’t fly to Syria.”
“Are you really saying . . . we’re talking about 40 million immigrants in this country?” Ramos said. When he pressed Coulter further, she suggested that certain “cultures are obviously deficient.”
“There are a lot of problems with that culture,” she said of Mexico. “Hopefully it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here.” (Read more from “Jorge Ramos Spars With Ann Coulter Over Her Comparison of Immigrants to ISIS” HERE)
Photo Credit: NBC News Washington lawmakers are demanding an accounting of how many airport security badges have been lost or stolen around the country as an NBC News investigation reveals the problem may be bigger than originally thought.
“Clearly there are an awful lot of things falling through the cracks and there’s just no room for error when it comes to this issue. We need answers. They’re not providing them,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who chairs the Transportation Committee . . .
As NBCDFWreported in March, more than 1,400 of the badges — which allow employees to access secure areas like runways and boarding gates — went missing at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport over approximately two years.
Now, the station, in partnership with NBC San Diego, has learned that more than 270 badges went missing at the San Diego International Airport in the last two years. (Read more from “More Airport Security Badges Missing as Washington Demands Answers” HERE)
Photo Credit: The Telegraph By Julian Ryall. China’s armed forces are to extend their operations and its air force will become an offensive as well as defensive force for the first time, in a major shift in policy that will strengthen fears of accidental conflict . . .
The People’s Liberation Army, including its navy and air force, will be allowed to “project power” further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the [defense] white paper [released by the chief administrative body of the Chinese government] stated . . .
The posture risks escalating the tension over disputed islands in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific, where the United States is determined to protect the interests of allies like Taiwan and the Philippines . . .
Global Times, a tabloid newspaper run by the Communist Party, said that China might have to “accept” there would be conflict with the United States.
“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea”, said the paper, which is often seen as a mouth-piece of hardline nationalists in the government in Beijing. (Read more from “US-China War ‘Inevitable’ Unless Washington Drops Demands Over South China Sea” HERE)
_____________________________________________
What Else did China’s Defense White Paper Predict for the Future?
By Kieth Johnson. [I]n the United States . . . the consensus over accommodating China’s rise seems to have given way to a more hawkish stance on the need to contain the rising Asian giant.
China’s new white paper provides plenty of points of continuity with past strategies, especially with Mao Zedong’s doctrine of “active defense,” known in the United States as the Billy Martin school of conflict management (“I never threw the first punch; I threw the second four.”)
At the same time, though, the defense blueprint breaks new ground. It codifies the ongoing transformation of China into a true maritime power, and puts more emphasis on high-seas, offensive naval operations. More broadly, it envisions a much bigger, global role for Chinese armed forces than had previously been the case, and in some places echoes the famously hawkish Chinese views of thinkers such as Liu Mingfu, whose bestselling book “The China Dream” paints a vision of nearly inevitable conflict between the two global titans. . .
For a 5,000-year old civilization that has survived invasions from Mongols, Japanese, and Western Europeans, this is a sobering conclusion: “In the new circumstances, the national security issues facing China encompass far more subjects, extend over a greater range, and cover a longer time span than at any time in the country’s history.” Later, the paper notes: “Due to its complex geostrategic environment, China faces various threats and challenges in all its strategic directions and security domains.”
That’s especially true when it comes to the South China Sea. (Read more from “China’s Military Blueprint: Bigger Navy, Bigger Global Role” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:09:142016-04-11 11:00:43US-China War ‘Inevitable’ Unless Washington Drops Demands Over South China Sea
The Supreme Court is heading into the final month of its annual term.
In a potentially historic ruling, the court will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, culminating a two-decade legal and political fight for [homosexual marriage].
Another much-anticipated decision will be whether the Obama administration may continue to subsidize health insurance for low- and middle-income people who buy coverage in the 36 states that failed to establish an official insurance exchange of their own and instead use a federally run version.
If the court rules against the Obama administration, about 8.6 million people could lose their subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
Between now and late June, the court will hand down more than two dozen decisions on matters such as politics, civil rights, free speech and air pollution. Several of these cases have been pending for months, suggesting the justices have been sharply split. (Read more from “Black Robed Rulers Soon to Rule on 13 Important Cases” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:09:052016-04-11 11:00:43Our Black Robed Rulers (aka the Supreme Court) Soon to Issue Decrees on 13 Important Cases
The Vatican has interested itself in global warming, going so far as to stage an invitation-only exhibition on the matter, and to release through the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences the curious document “Climate Change and The Common Good.” The document’s main author is the Chancellor of the Academies, Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.
His Excellency was criticized by many for the low-quality, error-laden science in this document, but he received the most heat for buddying up to abortion and “population control” enthusiasts like UN boss Ban Ki-moon and economist Jeffrey Sachs.
Evidently, these critiques stung. The Archbishop returned fire, accusing his detractors of acting on the orders of a cabal dedicated to destroying Science — a charge which found sympathetic ears. But he couldn’t quite escape the scandal caused by his purposely associating with, and giving political cover to, abortion and contraception advocates. More explanation was called for, so he gave it.
In an interview with Stefano Gennarini, Sánchez shot back with an odd claim he has made many times, that the “climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.” Elsewhere, he included prostitution and “organ trafficking” as other results of global warming.
By any reckoning, this is an impressive list of evils. Yet what’s missing from his Excellency’s statements is any explanation of how exactly the slight increase in clement winter afternoons has caused abortion, prostitution and other grave human evils to increase.
Did the fraction of a degree uptick in temperature late last century make men more amorous? Perhaps the dearth of hurricanes and tornadoes — the “climate crisis” has pushed these way down — induced men to seek other excitement in their lives. Or again, maybe the minuscule accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has shouldered aside oxygen, depriving our brains and lessening our capacity to reason.
“These are serious matters!” the objection will run. And so they are. But mentioning something serious doesn’t make you a serious person. There must be more than moral dudgeon backing a claim as . . . grandiose as Sánchez’s, namely that global warming causes abortion. There must be evidence. Is there? The answer depends on how reliable global warming theory is.
Many have fallen prey to the unscientific belief that predictions of doom are proof the predictions are right, and that therefore the theory which generated the predictions must be correct. Otherwise intelligent people commit these blunders because of fear, or because they are in the grip of environmentalist ideology, or, in the worst cases, because it is politically convenient.
The predictions of doom have been consistent: temperature is promised to soar ever upwards. The theory is that small boosts in carbon dioxide (compared to the atmosphere as a whole), by way of feedback mechanisms too complicated to explain here, are responsible for the rise. The predictions are consistent, all right. Consistently poor. No, worse than poor. Rotten. For nearly two decades, climate models have predicted rising temperatures, but the reality has been that there is no such increase.
Since the climate is demonstrably not changing in the direction or rate predicted, how could this non-event be increasing the incidence of abortion, organ harvesting and slavery?
Let me pose another question. Which is more likely to lead to more abortions:
(A) Global warming, through a twisting, fanciful chain of causality, which anyway hasn’t even happened yet, or
(B) The bolstering of the rich, influential, abortion- and contraception-friendly United Nations and radical NGOs, who can now claim to enjoy “Vatican support”?
It is, or used to be, a fundamental principle of science that a theory was proved false when predictions made based on the theory were a bust. Even Einstein had to wait for Arthur Eddington to verify relativity’s predictions before scientists wholly backed the theory.
Sánchez was asked about this principle: “What do you answer to so called ‘climate skeptics’ who point to the lack of change in temperatures in the past 18 years and the difficulty in finding any definite correlation between human activity and large scale climate changes?”
His response was revealing: “I hope you are not [a skeptic] because then we would discover the true reason for these false accusations against us!”
Sánchez went on to hurl some false accusations of his own. He said climate change skeptics were all either members of the Tea Party or people with “incomes derived from oil.” Because, well, that would prove that everything they’re saying is false, wouldn’t it? Thank heavens no scientists who assert that man-made climate change is a crisis receive any income for their work, or support from billion-dollar foundations.
Archbishop Sánchez is keen on sustainability, which many take as a code word for population control. On this issue, he said that his Sustainable Development Goals didn’t “even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”
Everybody, even his Excellency, knows what such words are: dull euphemisms for population control and abortion. This is why he tried to deflect the moral implications of including these terms in Church documents by saying, “Some may even interpret [these terms] as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity.” If there is a polite, ecclesiastical way of saying “balderdash,” this is the place for it.
The Archbishop said that we “can rest assured that the two academies of which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend.” Okay, let’s accept that. Yet it is also true that Sánchez’s actions have lent political, cultural, and religious support to organizations which push, and push heavily, population control and the systematic killing of the unborn. They now can claim Vatican support for their agendas.
The Archbishop sought these worldly connections to give weight and prominence to his political programs. He ought to at least consider what is obvious to the rest of us: that his actions will foster the very evils he hopes to eliminate. (See “Vatican Science and Cheap Moralism on the Tiber”, originally posted HERE)
In the days before the “hook-up” culture started teaching all women of every age to act like teenage boys, there was an ugly expression which callous men used: Some girls were “cheap dates.” They were so flattered when men showed interest in them, that they would respond by giving a sexually aggressive guy what he wanted, in the hope that he’d keep calling them, maybe even fall in love. He rarely did.
No doubt many girls who let themselves be treated as “cheap dates” were in fact quite attractive, intelligent, compassionate and kind. They had a lot more to offer a man than a forgettable roll in the hay, if only they had known it.
Well, there’s a political philosophy out there that persistently acts like that lonely teenage girl with low self-esteem. It’s called libertarianism. Maybe you’ve heard of it.
In its most defensible form, the libertarian worldview has a certain stark, even classical beauty — like a Greek statue seen at sunrise. Its fundamental premise is the dignity of the person and his right not to suffer violence or coercion. From this flows the “non-violence” principle: In our interactions with others, we will not use force or fraud but free exchange. All we ask of them in return is exactly the same.
We are each finally responsible for our own lives and our choices, and we should neither be parasitical on other human beings nor permit them to prey on us. We should not blame our problems on a nebulous “society,” nor let envy goad us into finding easy scapegoats, such as “the One Percent,” or “the WASPs” or “the Jews.” Nor should we expect the state to act as our wet nurse, concierge or hired hit man.
The State is there, if at all, to keep all bandits and invaders at bay. We don’t want it to wipe our nose, and we won’t let it steal our handkerchief. Like pioneers on the frontier or settlers on Mars ((libertarians love both Westerns and science fiction) we start off life with a nearly blank slate, and must carve out our way in the wilderness.
It’s incomplete, but there is much truth in this vision. The State has proven dangerous throughout history — especially in the 20th century, when apart from all deaths in wars, some 170 million civilians were murdered by their governments. Even apart from totalitarianism and murderous war, there are much worse mistakes we could make than to prune the invasive, toxic weed of unlimited government, which grows like kudzu in every nook and cranny of our lives, strangling human initiative and transforming capable grown-ups into lazy, resentful drones.
No, I don’t mean inner-city teenage moms, who are mostly victims of the welfare state — which rewards them with subsidies and financial independence for getting pregnant at age 16. I’m referring to the thousands of white, college-educated liberal arts grads using food stamps at Whole Foods, teaching adjunct as a hobby, and blogging all day about “sustainability.” Such people should go work at some place like Hobby Lobby. In a libertarian society, hunger, if nothing else, would compel them to do so.
A libertarian society would also starve the crony capitalists, who cynically exploit programs like farm subsidies to rake in tens of billions in unearned profits on useless goods — enough corn to choke us, overpriced cotton protected by tariffs that harm poor farmers in Africa, even government-subsidized tobacco. Many corporations, with thousands of lobbyists on their payroll, are tapeworms on the taxpayer, using the State to suppress competitors so that they can fleece consumers. And don’t get libertarians started on defense companies, NSA spies or the prisoners of our Drug War.
So for all their lovely principles, and cogent policy insights, why do libertarians let themselves be used again and again by the left? Like a gorgeous National Merit Scholar with an unhealthy taste for “bad boys,” libertarians consistently see their ideas trotted out whenever it suits progressives who wish to bulldoze some bulwark of ordered liberty — then callously discarded, in favor of bigger and badder government. Here are just three examples.
Same-Sex Marriage
Libertarians defend freedom of contract and free association, and the Left made good use of their arguments in attacking natural marriage. By the same principle, “covenant marriages” should also be legal and enforceable — but is anyone arguing for that? Far worse, if the Supreme Court mutilates marriage, Obama’s solicitor general has warned us that the whole panoply of anti-discrimination laws will be used to target churches that won’t worship Caesar. So big government grows, private schools and charities close, Christians lose their liberty, and the left moves on to the next target of opportunity.
Open Borders
Most libertarians argue for the free movement of peoples, and favor open borders. They say that absent a welfare state, people would spontaneously seek out opportunities, then when jobs dried up they would pick up and leave. Maybe this is true. But we will never find out because the welfare state isn’t going anywhere — in part because recent immigrants are heavy users of public benefits, so they almost universally vote for Democrats who will extend them. And impose onerous regulations on employers, nullifying their freedom of contract. And raise taxes. Low-skill immigrants serve the left as captive voters, undermining almost everything libertarians say they stand for. The left uses libertarians as human shears to cut holes in the border fence, then drops them and moves along.
Islam and War
Libertarians are right to be reflexively antiwar, since war really is “the health of the state.” Each major war we have fought, needful or not, greased the massive and irreversible growth of bureaucratic control over American citizens’ lives. Libertarians were wise when they warned that building liberal democracy via cluster bomb in the Muslim world is a wasteful errand. They are even right to worry about the implications of seeding mosques with FBI agents and informants.
But libertarians are dead wrong when they try to whitewash Islam, to pooh-pooh truth-tellers who point to that religion’s core texts, as interpreted by all recognized Islamic scholars. Their message is icy cold and crystal clear: Islam is a religion of power, of social control, which respects no rights but Allah’s. Human beings are “slaves of God,” and non-Muslims or bad Muslims are rebellious slaves who need to be punished. Devout Muslims are called to punish them, via jihad, terror, or honor-killing.
Every country on earth is a target for infiltration and conquest, then the absolute suppression of every worldview except Islam. The Muslim utopia is something like Saudi Arabia or the Islamic state. They will build it here if we let them. But libertarians encourage open immigration, which brings in millions of Muslims, a certain percentage of whom will wage jihad. Acts of terror give spooks and spies in the NSA a pretext to listen to our calls and hack our email accounts. Big government grows again, with the unwitting help of libertarian efforts to shrink it.
Used and then Discarded
If only libertarians had more respect for the integrity of their principles, and would stop letting themselves be used by opportunistic progressives. On any given issue, there are valid small-government, individual-liberties arguments to be made. But liberties come with responsibilities, which is something the left won’t admit.
So the left will gleefully accept libertarian support in removing some traditionalist or conservative restriction on individual freedom. But they won’t agree that people must live with the consequences of their choices. You want a same-sex marriage, fine — but don’t expect the Catholics or Baptists to accept it or perform it — so a libertarian would say. The leftist drops the liberty argument the moment he’s finished with it, and demands that the state enforce acceptance from every citizen.
You want to come work in America? Fine, but if you can’t support yourself you have to leave. Again, the left stops feigning interest in freedom the moment the border is open, and welcomes every immigrant to his crib in the nanny state. The process is drearily predictable.
Too many libertarians are eager to support leftist attacks on order, confident that in its absence, liberty will grow. But time and time again we see what springs up instead: More coercion, of a streamlined, more poisonous modern strain.
I wish libertarians could learn to love their principles more. I wish I could take each one of them aside and say, “You’re fabulous. You’re special! Don’t sell yourself so cheaply. Hold out for that wedding ring, and stay away from those creepy guys with goatees in the Che Guevara t-shirts.” (See “For the Left, Libertarians Are Like a ‘Cheap Date'” HERE)
Listen to an earlier interview with this author on The Joe Miller Show:
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:08:342016-04-11 11:00:43For the Left, Libertarians Are Like a ‘Cheap Date’ [+video]
The United States allows 70,000 people from all over the world to obtain legal permanent residence through our Refugee Program–one of the most generous in the world. We also bring in another 40,000 or so through the Asylum program. Then there is the Special Immigrant Visa for people from Iraq and Afghanistan–about 10,000 in FY 2014–and a Cuban/Haitian Entrant program bringing in another 20,000 annually. That adds up to about 140,000.
Many of these “refugees” come from Islamic countries like Somalia, Iraq and Iran, bringing with them at least the potential for terrorism, in many cases a contempt for our country and the almost universal edict among Muslims to dominate. Islamic supremacist Mega Mosques are being erected all over the country, vigorously supported by the Obama Justice Department, which runs interference for them over the objections of local citizenry.
It’s about to get worse. The Syrian civil war–enabled at least partially by Obama’s insane foreign policy–has created a refugee crisis, with approximately 2.9 million Syrians now living in refugee camps in surrounding countries. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees wants the U.S. to accept 130,000 Syrians by the end of 2016. We have only taken 700 so far, but given the FBI’s warning that it cannot guarantee ISIS or other terrorists are not among the refugees, even that is too many.
Not to be dissuaded from such silly national security concerns, a group of 14 U.S. senators, led by the indefatigable Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, have written a letter to Obama urging him to allow 65,000 Syrians in as refugees. This would require a dramatic expansion of the refugee program, and virtually guarantee that a sizable number of ISIS fighters would slip in among them. Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy has given them the moniker “Jihad Caucus” because practically speaking, Jihad is what this request will bring.
The 14 senators demanding this massive influx of Syrians are:
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Edward Markey (D-MA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
These same 14 sent another letter in April Demanding action on the Syrians. These senators have truly earned the name Jihad Caucus. A few years back, Dick “Turban” Durbin, as he has been called, said U.S. troops guarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners, were Nazis. Sounds like a bit of projection to me. (See “The Jihad Caucus”, originally posted HERE)
Listen to an earlier interview with this author on The Joe Miller Show:
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:08:272016-04-11 11:00:44The Jihad Caucus: How Islamic Immigration to the US is About to Get Much Worse [+video]