Posts

Should Trump Add Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to His New ‘Extreme Vetting’ EO?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A massive terrorist attack this week may cause President Trump and his advisers to rethink the scope of the second edition of his coming executive order on “extreme vetting.”

Pakistan suffered a massive blow at the hands of the Islamic State terror group Thursday when a suicide bomber self-detonated at a Sufi shrine, killing at least 88 and wounding hundreds more. Pakistani security forces have responded, killing more than 100 militants in the day after, according to the Hindustan Times. As chaos continues to unfold inside the country, President Trump has to evaluate whether to accept visa applicants from Pakistan.

Pakistan is dealing with a current wave of terror that its security forces have thus far been unable to quash. Several terrorist groups operate inside the country, including the Islamic State, Taliban, the Haqqani network, al-Qaeda, and countless others. There are also troubling issues concerning Pakistan’s harboring of terrorist leaders and Islamic militants.

Notably, neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia – the two most popular countries of origin concerning foreign terrorist attacks in the United States – were on the list of countries included in President Trump’s temporary travel ban executive order (affecting Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia). It is unclear which countries will be affected by the president’s next “extreme vetting” order.

Since 1975, the U.S. has seen 14 Pakistani nationals charged with terrorist-related activites inside the country. The most recent case of a Pakistani committing terrorism in the United States involved Tashfeen Malik, one of the perpetrators of the 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino that killed 14 people and injured 22 others.

Pakistan was also the home base for Osama bin Laden as he plotted international terror operations against America. The deceased al-Qaeda leader’s compound in the city of Abbottabad was located a mile away from a military academy, leading experts and officials to speculate whether Pakistani intelligence knew about his whereabouts.

The country of origin of the most foreign-born terrorists in America is Saudi Arabia, which was also not on Trump’s original list. Most infamously, 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is one of the top bankrollers of international terror and allows for radical Islamist entities to grow within its borders.

President Trump has promised to roll out his latest national security/immigration executive order next week. Will he add Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to his new moratorium? (For more from the author of “Should Trump Add Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to His New ‘Extreme Vetting’ EO?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shut Down America’s Refugee Programs Before They Turn Us Into Germany

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On the first day of the new year, Islamic terrorists claimed another 39 victims, including Americans, in an attack at a popular nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey. The Christmas truck attack in Berlin recalls the similar July attack in Nice, France. The suspect, Tunisian asylum seeker Anis Amri, was killed in a shootout with Italian police on December 23.

Amri had been denied asylum in Germany due to his terror risk, but was not deported because Tunisia would not accept him since he lacked a passport. Amri carried six different aliases from three nations and had been monitored by German authorities. He was not a “lone jihadist” but part of an ISIS cell, and traveled covertly, like some of the Paris killers, with the refugee flow from the Mediterranean.

On the same day as the Berlin attack, there was a knife attack at a Virginia Metro station by an African Muslim, Ali Ahmed Mohamound. A similar knife attack occurred in New York City the day before, with the suspect still at large.

All this followed on the heels of November’s Ohio State knife attack by Somali Muslim refugee Abdul Artan. These attacks typify the kinds recommended in ISIS literature, and ISIS claims credit for most of them. With Berlin, Brussels, Orlando, and so many other horrific attacks this year, San Bernardino and Paris almost seem like old news.

Although we view these events with horror and growing alarm, the outgoing Obama administration is literally importing terrorists through our nation’s refugee programs. Because private contractors are paid by the head to resettle refugees and other needy populations, the resettlement program has built-in incentives for uncontrolled growth. This harmonizes with the Left’s open borders agenda, which seeks to swell the rolls of new Democrat voters while weakening the influence of traditional (read conservative) America.

Big business shares this agenda in seeking cheap, subsidized labor. The resulting bipartisan alliance has long subsidized a resettlement industry that is expensive, secretive, duplicitous, and unconcerned about the Americans who pay for it with hard-earned tax dollars. The refugee resettlement program must be abolished in its current form before it puts us on the path toward today’s turbulent France and Germany.

The Real Risk of Increasing Terrorism

The most important risk the current refugee program creates is terrorism. Since 9/11 there have been 580 convictions for terrorism in the United States. At least 40 of these were refugees. Just this year, in addition to the knife attacks by Abdul Artan and Ali Mohamound, four other refugees have committed or attempted to commit acts of terrorism.

Since March 2014 there have been 111 ISIS-related arrests and 60 convictions. There have been nine indictments and six convictions of ISIS supporters in the metropolitan DC area alone. ISIS openly encourages “lone jihadi” attacks, and the State Department now admits ISIS is trying to penetrate the U.S. refugee flow. Some 250 U.S. Muslims from 19 states have either joined or attempted to join ISIS overseas. Many have since returned with little or no oversight.

Let’s be clear: these are not Mennonite terrorists. They are not Episcopalian suicide bombers. Virtually all 580 convictions since 9/11 were Muslim immigrants or American Muslim converts, and the Somali community consistently supplies such malefactors. Yet the Department of Homeland Security has provided tours of airport facilities to groups of Somalis, including explanations of airport inner workings, security protocols, and databases. DHS redacted some of this information as too sensitive to share with the public.

The Refugee Program Is Home to Major Fraud

Virginia knife attacker Ali Mohamound was carrying multiple identities when arrested. The Ohio State terrorist and his family lived in Pakistan for seven years before being resettled to the United States. Why were they not simply resettled in Pakistan? Afghani refugee Ahmad Rahami, the terrorist bomber of New York and New Jersey, originally entered the United States through the asylum program, but then traveled back to Afghanistan, where he apparently became radicalized. How can someone who is supposedly fleeing his home country for his life go back for a visit?

Virtually all U.S. Somalis originally arrived as refugees or asylum seekers or are their children. Many now take months-long trips back to Somalia, contradicting their purported reason for seeking asylum: fleeing Somalia for their lives. Minneapolis actually grants rent relief because Somalis complained about the cost of overdue rent upon their return. The home country visits so many “refugees” make undercut the program’s integrity.

The entire refugee resettlement program has systematic fraud, creating both national security risks and undue fiscal burdens. Refugee advocates claim the vetting process for Syrians is airtight, but U.S. security officials say exactly the opposite. An internal Immigrations, Customs, and Enforcement memo states, “[The] refugee program is particularly vulnerable to fraud due to loose evidentiary requirements where at times the testimony of an applicant alone is sufficient for approval.” The memo goes on to say that “the immigration system is a constant target for exploitation” by terrorists. An Immigration and Naturalization Services assistant commissioner said 95 percent of refugee and asylee applications are fraudulent.

The Obama administration has knowingly and routinely allowed illegal aliens falsely claiming asylum to remain in the United States. A September 2016 DHS Inspector General report found that 1,982 aliens from countries known for immigration fraud or terror-links who were scheduled for deportation were instead granted citizenship using false identities because fingerprint records were missing.

The United Nations selects almost all refugees, and the United States takes more refugees than all other resettlement nations combined. Yet many of the tens of thousands of unvettable Syrians who are accepted don’t meet the refugee definition.

Syrian Christians are facing genocide, and certainly do meet the definition, but represent less than 1 percent of those Syrians resettled so far. Syrian Muslims are more than 98 percent of the total. In the interest of diplomacy we are also resettling populations other countries refuse to take. Most recently, the Obama administration offered to accept 2,465 asylum seekers now being detained by Australia which that country refuses to accept because of their possible ties to terrorism. In response to congressional inquiries, the administration has declared information about this agreement classified.

Heavy Costs for Taxpayers Besides Terrorism Risks

Refugee resettlement is administered by three agencies: the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), the Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). It has grown and metastasized over the years.

In fiscal year 2016, the program cost $2.4 billion, an increase of 205.4 percent since FY 2009. At the last minute Obama boosted ORR’s request to $3.9 billion for FY 2017 to handle the unprecedented flow of minors now being apprehended at the Southwest border. That’s 14,128 in the past two months alone and a 106 percent increase for the year.

Congress provided a pro-rata share of $500 million of this request in the short-term continuing resolution passed on December 9. It cannot be expended until the new Health and Human Services secretary has been installed. He can withhold some or all of those funds, if he chooses.

Since FY 2009, approximately 1 million migrants have arrived through these programs. Program costs average about $10,000 per head in the first year, and refugee welfare use is off the charts, even after five years (see table below). In fact, refugees resettled in the 1980s still receive welfare at rates well in excess of Americans and other immigrants.

The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated the annual cost of resettling Muslim refugees during the first five years at $12,874 per head. Muslim refugees use welfare at higher rates than average. I have estimated a somewhat lower average of $11,574 per head for the entire group. Cumulatively for the years 2009 through 2015, this cohort alone has cost U.S. taxpayers a staggering $48 billion. Since 1980, 3 million have been resettled.

Migrants Create a Heavy Toll on Communities

State and local costs are significant. When the Refugee Act was first passed, the federal government promised to cover 36 months of states’ share of food stamps, Medicaid, Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA), and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) for refugees—a huge subsidy. Today it covers no state costs. Refugees rely heavily on local assistance, and school budgets, costs for translation, and other services have exploded. Following is a sampling of problems in many U.S. communities:

Amarillo, TX: 911 calls taken in 36 languages

Amarillo, TX: English tutoring $1,300/student/month, while feds provide $100/student/year

Buffalo, NY: 42 languages spoken in high school

Lynn, MA: 49 languages spoken, some in unknown dialects

Lynn, MA: 200 percent increase in vaccinations, straining public health budgets; foreign student K-12 admissions doubled

Manchester, NH: 82 languages spoken in high school, among lowest school ratings in NH

Minneapolis, MN: Somalis are a heavy ISIS recruitment target

Minnesota: more than one-half of the Somali population is in poverty

Rochester, NY: refugees and inner-city minorities clash

Nationwide: 20 to 49 percent of refugees test positive for latent tuberculosis (TB)

Nebraska: 82 percent of active TB cases are among foreign-born

Major Conflicts of Interest Among Refugee Resettlers

Nine private contractors, called “Voluntary Agencies” or VOLAGs, resettle refugees with the assistance of 320 “affiliates.” VOLAGs are supposed to consult communities before resettling refugees, but almost never do. They secretly resettle refugees and leave communities to deal with the resulting problems. They regularly withhold information from community leaders and concerned citizens and ignore local complaints.

Refugee resettlement has big effects for small communities throughout the United States, which is a major reason for growing resistance to the program. In one example, a federal agent contacted me in November to describe numerous problems in northern Michigan. He said citizens and public officials from Traverse City and elsewhere expressed concerns over the indiscriminate “dumping” of refugees and illegal aliens in small towns, including the Upper Peninsula, under cover of darkness, without any prior coordination with appropriate public officials (i.e. mayors, town councils, etc.).

Refugees are often employed in the resettlement industry, giving refugees a stake its growth. Many VOLAG leaders who receive federal resettlement grants are former directors of the agencies that administer those grants, and vice versa. Like a revolving door, they cycle in and out of government. For example, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Assistant Secretary Ann Richard is a former vice president for one of the nine VOLAGs. She helped found the International Crisis Group, a leftist organization funded by George Soros.

VOLAGs receive a total of about $1 billion per year from taxpayers and are paid by the head, receiving anywhere from $2,025 to more than $5,000 per refugee. The Government Accountability Office has noted that this creates a strong incentive for VOLAGs to constantly resettle more refugees, regardless of whether it is in the interest of the refugee or the target community.

David M. Robinson, who would later lead PRM, said of the refugee industry: “The solution its members offer to every refugee crisis is simplistic and the same: increase the number of admissions to the United States without regard to budgets or competing foreign policy considerations. On the other hand, it is politically well connected, includes major party donors at the local and national levels, and owns the moral high ground on an extremely emotional issue.”

VOLAGs have not faced any kind of meaningful oversight since the program was established in 1980. None have ever faced a public financial audit despite many calls to do so. The program is biased toward continual growth, and security concerns must be addressed.

Prioritizing Refugees Above American Citizens

The Refugee Act of 1980 dictates benefits that refugees must receive. They go to the front of the line for welfare and public housing, jumping ahead of all Americans, including veterans and the disabled. VOLAGs provide:

Housing

Essential furnishings

Food, food allowance

Seasonal clothing

Pocket money

Assistance in applying for public benefits, Social Security cards, language translation, employment services, non-employment services, Medicaid

Assistance with health screenings and medical care

Assistance with registering children in school

Transportation to job interviews and job training

Home visits

Additionally, ORR and other agencies provide numerous special grants available only to refugees. This is supposedly to enable refugees to rapidly become economically self-sufficient. However, ORR’s definition of “economic self-sufficiency” allows refugees to continue to receive every kind of welfare except cash assistance from food stamps or RCA. Refugees thus have a strong incentive to seek U.S. resettlement to obtain benefits.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage told me that elderly autistic residents of Portland, Maine are swelling the rolls of the homeless as their primary caretakers, usually their parents, die, or become unable to care for them, because public housing is taken by refugees.

What Americans and Our Leaders Should Do

The resettlement program is dangerous, expensive, and unfair to Americans. Its structure encourages endless growth, systemic corruption, cronyism, secrecy, and duplicity. The refugee program must be put on hold. Members of Congress have called for a moratorium, and such legislation is circulating. H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, has 86 co-sponsors.

But legislation isn’t needed. On his first day in office, Trump can pause the entire program by simply resetting the annual refugee targets to whatever number has already been reached this fiscal year. The 1980 Refugee Act gives him authority to do this, and subsequent court decisions have declared Congress’s refugee resettlement oversight authority as advisory only.

Trump has stated his desire to halt resettlement from nations of terrorism concern. It would be wiser to pause the entire program.

It costs 12 times as much to resettle refugees as to assist them in place. Almost all refugeeswould prefer to return home than be resettled to a third country. President-Elect Trump’s idea to create “safe zones” in or near countries of conflict is a much more compassionate and cost-effective method of dealing with the refugee crisis. Trump’s State Department should encourage the Gulf States to participate in resettlement, since they currently offer little help.

The VOLAG system needs to be abolished. Asylum and other alternative forms of resettlement should operate case-by-case. Resettlement should be returned to the private act of charity it was before 1980. That structure would be naturally self-limiting, and those financing resettlement would have a much stronger incentive to see that their charitable dollars were not wasted on frauds or potential terrorists. Refugees should be required to become truly economically self-sufficient.

With such restrictions, other nations would have to confront and resolve conflicts they now offload onto America. The U.S. government role should be limited to security: helping create safe zones, identifying other countries that might help more, designating those populations suitable for resettlement, setting numerical limits, and vetting all refugees, asylum seekers, and others seeking U.S. entry. With new leadership, policies and management, Trump’s administration can reinvent the resettlement program to serve America’s interests again. (For more from the author of “Shut Down America’s Refugee Programs Before They Turn Us Into Germany” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yes, It’s Terrorism. Ditch the Bizarre Verbal Contortions and Say It.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yes, it’s terrorism.

Say it.

Why is this so difficult for political leaders? They engage in verbal contortions to avoid stating the obvious after a terrorist attack.

While it’s perfectly appropriate to gather the evidence and available information on the Chelsea explosion before drawing a definitive conclusion as to the motive, it’s bizarre the lengths to which some left-leaning politicians will go to avoid using the word “terrorism.”

Speaking to Americans as if they’re children and intentionally, consistently avoiding the word “terrorism” — while simultaneously telling people that an explosive device was intentionally placed in a crowded downtown area of Manhattan on a Saturday night — is the pinnacle of leadership failure. Avoiding calling a threat what it is speaks to a persistent weakness among our political leadership and sends a dangerous signal to the people around the world who wish to do us catastrophic harm.

There are two clear consequences to this hesitancy to call the terror threat what it is.

First, it sends a signal to the American people that this isn’t the severe threat we all instinctively know it is. This isn’t a law enforcement matter to be treated as some nuisance crime, it’s an attack on liberty and our way of life and its severity demands a commensurate response.

Second, it sends a dangerous signal to our terrorist enemies that politics matters more to elected leaders than public safety. They have already leveraged political correctness, the culture wars, and the American legal system against us all, just to make sure we focus on grotesquely exaggerated and politically motivated charges of “bigotry”before we focus on the threat to our public safety.

American politicians need a wake up call. American citizens don’t.

We will never remedy a problem which our failed political class can’t recognize. (For more from the author of “Yes, It’s Terrorism. Ditch the Bizarre Verbal Contortions and Say It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A California University’s Troubling Ties to Terrorism

/0 Comments/in , /by

San Francisco State University (SFSU), which has a well-deserved reputation as a breeding ground for anti-Israel radicalism, became national news in April. That’s when campus police stood by as a hate-Israel group, the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), shouted down and disrupted a lecture by Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, prompting much criticism of SFSU’s president, Leslie Wong.

But there’s worse. As revealed by an investigation into SFSU by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, SFSU has partnered with a Palestinian university that’s a hotbed of radicalization.

What our investigation turned up:

SFSU signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with An-Najah University of Hebron in 2014 at the behest of Rabab Abdulhadi, director of SFSU’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative (AMED) and founding member of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

Najah states on its website that the MOU was signed on September 10, 2014 and Abdulhadi sang its praises at an April 2015 reception:

“The memorandum of understanding that President Wong signed with An-Najah National University in Palestine … is the first time that we have any agreement with any university in the Arab or Muslim world and we are very excited about that.”

Wong also trumpeted the MOU at the 2015 reception, boasting of his role in helping bring it to fruition:

“When I returned from Palestine two years ago, I said I want to be one of the first major universities to sign an agreement with An-Najah or any of the other Palestinian universities, or any of the universities in the Arab world.”

Given this public preening, it is disturbing to learn that SFSU’s administration officially only corroborates the MOU indirectly on its website. Worse, in an arrogant disregard for the public’s right to know, Wong has refused to respond to repeated inquiries from Campus Watch about the agreement’s specific contents. What are the terms? The duration? The financial arrangements? And so forth.

This reticence may be due to Najah U being lauded by Hamas itself as a “greenhouse for martyrs.”

Matthew Levitt, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says it’s known for “terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and radicalization of students,” while the Anti-Defamation League reports that its student council “glorifies suicide bombings and propagandizes for jihad against Israel.”

For example, Najah student Maram Hassoneh was killed attempting her second knife attack on IDF soldiers in 2015. At the June 2014 graduation ceremony, students held up three fingers to represent Hamas’s kidnapping of three Israeli teens. On another occasion, Najah students constructed a gruesome replica of the 2001 suicide bombing in a Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem.

Despite Najah’s notoriety as a repository for terrorism, Abdulhadi singled it out as a desirable partner for SFSU. Little wonder that, after pledging to set up a student exchange program with Najah in November 2015, she added this disclaimer:

“We do not want to … teach students how to grow up and build bombs and destroy other people.”

President Wong’s silence following repeated inquiries is unacceptable. Californian taxpayers fund SFSU and they have a right to know the details of and the implications of its MOU with Najah. To that end, Campus Watch has prepared a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to SFSU to make public the MOU.

Campus Watch also calls on the chancellor of the California State University, Timothy P. White, to investigate SFSU’s memorandum of understanding with Najah; and on the education committees of the California state legislature and U.S. Congress to hold hearings into this matter.

In a time of global jihad, the public deserves to know the full truth about one of its universities aligning itself with the enemy. (For more from the author of “A California University’s Troubling Ties to Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Nusra Front Is Dead and Stronger Than Ever Before

/0 Comments/in , /by

The jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra announced on July 28 that it had severed all ties to al Qaeda and established a new movement in Syria: Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, or “the Front for the Conquest of the Levant.” The unprecedented move was formally sanctioned by al Qaeda’s senior leadership and comes as the group has also revealed its leader’s identity for the first time.

In a video statement televised simultaneously on pro-opposition Orient News and on Al Jazeera, Jabhat al-Nusra leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani — whose real name was separately revealed to be Ahmed Hussein al-Shara — presented the split as one driven by a desire “to form a unified body” of Islamist forces and to bring together the disparate factions of Syria’s revolution to best ensure the credible defense of Islam from attack. Continuing a long-held theme, Jolani introduced Jabhat Fateh al-Sham as a movement that would exist to “protect” and to “serve,” rather than to rule or oppress. He also said that the international community’s increasing attention to the group, due to its al Qaeda links, was a reason for “the complete cancellation of all operations under the name of Jabhat al-Nusra.”

Nobody should be confused by this maneuver: Jabhat al-Nusra, which is also known as the Nusra Front, remains as potentially dangerous, and as radical, as ever. In severing its ties to al Qaeda, the organization is more clearly than ever demonstrating its long-game approach to Syria, in which it seeks to embed within revolutionary dynamics and encourage Islamist unity to outsmart its enemies, both near and far. In this sense, the Nusra Front (and now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) differ markedly from the Islamic State, which has consistently acted alone and in outright competition with other Islamist armed factions. Instead of unity, the Islamic State explicitly seeks division.

Ultimately, while this may be a change in name and formal affiliation, Jolani’s group will remain largely the same. Therefore, this is by no means a loss to al Qaeda. In fact, it is merely the latest reflection of a new and far more potentially effective method of jihad focused on collective, gradualist, and flexible action. Its goal is to achieve recurring tactical gains that one day will amount to a substantial strategic victory: the establishment of an Islamic emirate with sufficient popular acceptance or support. (Read more from “The Nusra Front Is Dead and Stronger Than Ever Before” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You’ll Never Guess Who Reuters Blames for the Nice Terror Attacks

/0 Comments/in , /by

After the Nice, France terror attack—where approximately 84 people were killed and hundreds injured—Western “mainstream media” is again in full damage control trying to rescue “the narrative,” namely, that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Take one Reuters report by Tom Heneghan, titled “Foreign and domestic policies make France ‘most threatened country.’” Its very first opening sentence cites terrorist propaganda:

After two militant attacks in Paris killed 17 people in January last year, Islamic State’s French-language magazine Dar al-Islam appeared with the Eiffel Tower on the cover and the headline “May Allah curse France”….

Why Muslims would call on Allah’s wrath against France is the theme of the entire report, and here Heneghan leaves no stone unturned—even managing to invoke the Crusades—in his attempt to portray France as “aggrieving” Muslims:

The reasons that make France a prime target for radical Islamist groups range from its present-day military operations all the way to – at least in Islamic State’s propaganda – the Crusades from the 11th to 15th centuries when Christians battled Muslims in the Middle East.

(Read more from “You’ll Never Guess Who Reuters Blames for the Nice Terror Attacks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Security Ordered Tightened as Death Toll in Baghdad Hits 157

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the death toll from the weekend truck bombing in Baghdad climbed to 157, Iraq’s embattled prime minister ordered new security measures, including abandoning the use of bomb-detection wands that U.S. experts pronounced worthless years ago.

But security forces were still using the devices Monday evening, as a string of smaller bombings in the capital killed 16 people and wounded dozens more.

Sunday’s suicide attack by the Islamic State group was the single deadliest bombing to hit Baghdad in more than a decade of war and insurgency.

Also Monday, five convicted terrorists were executed in Baghdad, the Ministry of Justice said in an announcement that appeared aimed at restoring faith in Iraq’s security forces in the wake of the devastating attack.

Firefighters and medical teams were still uncovering bodies from the city’s Karada neighborhood Monday morning. Officials said a dozen people were missing and at least 60 of the dead were women and children. At least 190 people were wounded. (Read more from “Security Ordered Tightened as Death Toll in Baghdad Hits 157” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bangladesh Attack Shows Depth of Country’s Extremist Problems

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

Get out of the Bunker, Conservatives! 8 Ways to Go on Offense Post-Orlando

/0 Comments/in , /by

How is it that Democrats have succeeded, following a series of terror attacks here and in Europe, in focusing the discussion on the inanimate objects used by the Islamic terrorists instead of the Islamic terrorists themselves? How could they get away with such absurdity, especially given the fact that Europe has an even worse terrorist problem, despite having even stricter gun laws than what Democrats are promoting?

The answer, of course, is the same as with every policy and media narrative: Republicans not only let them get away with it, they help validate, legitimize, and consummate their narratives and premises. This week Republicans in the Senate plan to focus solely on gun policy, thereby solidifying the veracity of the Democratic narrative that the problem and solution of terrorism revolves around gun policy. Meanwhile, Republicans are squandering the opportunity to go on offense and cut to the source of our security problems. They have agreed to conduct votes today on two Democratic gun control measures and will respond with two gun amendments of their own. With the federal government preventing law enforcement from identifying Islamic terrorists in our communities, are Republicans not capable of ensuring that the legislative agenda reflects a truthful narrative?

Here are the top eight initiatives Republicans can push that either speak directly to the specific terror attacks that have occurred in recent years or address the long-term systemic security concerns:

1. Defund CVE: The responsibility for not catching the Orlando terrorist, as well as several of the most recent high profile Islamic terrorists, is rooted in the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Agenda. Just before the terror attack, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), which is run by Muslim Brotherhood officials, posted a CVE memo directing agents to overlook any terrorist ties to Islam. It went so far as to direct law enforcement to “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.” Preventing Islamic terror attacks begins with identifying the enemy. That cannot be done as long as there is a fifth column within our own government committed to erasing all connections to the trail of terror. It is this agenda that is ensuring that local law enforcement is not only kept in the dark concerning homegrown Islamic terror threats, they are strong-armed into ignoring those threats with their own resources.

2. Ban the Muslim Brotherhood: Following up on number one, banning the Muslim Brotherhood would change the entire discussion and redirect the national focus from the weapons to the actual terrorists. By designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, Congress would be able to audit every member of these counterterrorism councils at DHS, DOJ, and State and root out anyone with ties to their umbrella organizations. In addition to parsing out the firefighters from the arsonists within our government, banishing the Muslim Brotherhood would help stem the tide of Islamic violent extremism in our communities. ISIS has only been around for three years, yet thousands of Muslims have been radicalized in our communities for several decades. The Muslim Brotherhood is the source for much of that radicalization. They control the mosques, write the textbooks for Muslim schools, and serve as chaplains in the prisons. A complete ban of this group would go a long way towards empowering those Muslims who want to assimilate without fear of intimidation.

3. Pause Refugee Resettlement: With Obama stepping on the gas pedal of refugee resettlement, Republicans could easily change the narrative from gun control to protecting our sovereignty and security. Americans do not want more Islamic refugees from the most volatile parts of the world when there is no way to engage in short-term or long-term vetting of these families. In addition, with record numbers of migrants from the Middle East, the only way to properly assimilate those already here into patriotic assimilation is to pause, or at least reduce, immigration from those countries for at least several years.

4. Allow States to Block Refugees: As we’ve noted, Obama has not followed the legal requirement to consult with states before resettling refugees within their respective jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the broken court system has allowed Obama to get away with this violation of federal law. Imagine if Republicans would submit an amendment empowering states to veto refugee resettlement within their borders? A number of Democrats would be placed on defense, as the people always like to decide questions that pertain to the character of their localities on a local level.

5. Strip ISIS Fighters of Citizenship: Isn’t it amazing how Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), decry due process for Americans when it comes to gun rights, yet every one of them have opposed Ted Cruz’s effort to strip citizenship from ISIS fighters AFTER being convicted through full due process? There are roughly 250 known Americans who have attempted to join up with foreign terror groups. The fact that they have not been tried for treason is unconscionable. Why Mitch McConnell won’t bring Cruz’s bill (S. 247) to the floor is beyond comprehension.

6. Build the Border Fence: The southern border is not only open to Central Americans seeking jobs and welfare, it is potentially open to those fleeing the Middle East and obtaining asylum. As I’ve noted before, the asylum loophole is perhaps a bigger problem than our refugee policy. There are signs of Middle Easterners making the trip to South America for the purpose of declaring asylum at our southern border. Just last week, Judicial Watch reported that one such asylum-seeker was caught at the border carrying documents detailing the region’s gas pipelines. Isn’t it time we finally complete the 800-mile double-layered fence? Democrats would be hard pressed to oppose such an amendment at a time like this.

7. Enact Visa-Tracking: Even Democrats say they support the implementation of an Exit-Entry visa tracking system at our ports, yet they have dragged their feet on implementation since 1996. In 2015 alone, 527,000 foreign nationals overstayed their visas. A number of them are from Middle Eastern countries. We know this because in 2014, ABC News reported that DHS lost track of 58,000 foreign students (just one of the many visa categories) who have overstayed their visas, of which 6,000 presented a “heightened concern.” America admits a tremendous amount of foreign students from the Middle East. This has remained one of the most glaring holes in our security apparatus. Why won’t Republicans make Democrats go back on their word and oppose a consensus amendment to implement the first half of a visa tracking system by October?

8. Concealed Carry: Finally, if Republicans are committed to playing follow-the-leader with Democrats and focusing on guns, why not go on offense and propose concealed carry reciprocity? As witnessed by surging gun sales, Americans are embracing guns now more than ever. We need to show the American people that we are not going to disarm them in the face of global jihad. We are going to protect and promote their right to defend themselves by passing legislation that will allow them to carry their legally-owned firearms not just in their states of residence, but in whatever state or territory they may travel to. And while they are debating gun policy, what better way to embarrass Democrats than by blocking Obama’s continuous release of gun felons from prison?

It is unfathomable for Republicans to allow Democrats to bring in record numbers of dangerous terrorists, ignore their activity domestically, allow their leaders to craft our counter-terrorism policies… and then focus on the weapons used by those individuals? They should be conducting vote after vote on this week’s spending bill highlighting the pro-terrorist agenda of this administration.

For goodness sakes, this is the Justice Department spending bill we are dealing with this week. Republicans should have one hundred amendments prepared dealing with the malfeasances of Obama’s [In]Justice Department, over and beyond terrorism related amendments. They should be shutting down Obama’s war on cops, his assault on North Carolina, the rationally motivated law suits, and much more. But all they want to focus on is playing defense on gun control?

Republicans will also have an epic opportunity to provide Americans with a bold contrast during this week’s House markup of the annual funding bill for Homeland Security. Republicans can shut down Obama’s amnesty agenda, implement requisite security reforms, and ban CVE and the Muslim Brotherhood from the department. But will they?

Bunkers are the final redoubt of the defeated. They stink like fear, death, and cowardice. Real men leave the relative security of fortified walls, march through the gates and engage the enemy on the plains in decisive battle. Unfortunately, the Senate GOP is led by cowards. (For more from the author of “Get out of the Bunker, Conservatives! 8 Ways to Go on Offense Post-Orlando” please click HERE)

Listen to a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WATCH: FBI Director Warns Democrat Gun Control Measures Could ‘Blow’ Terror Investigations

/0 Comments/in , /by

FBI Director James Comey has warned Democrats that their plans to ban individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms threatens to damage FBI terror investigations.

Congressional Quarterly (Paywall) reports that a spokeswoman for the FBI said that “Comey does not take a position on the proposed gun amendment but … has told lawmakers he is focused on the operational side and the FBI does not endorse legislation.”

During a 2015 Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Director Comey said that stopping the sales of firearms could “blow our investigation”

“Well, senator, what we do now is if someone on the watch list purchases or attempts to purchase a firearm, an immediate alert is sent to the agents who are the source of the suspicion about that individual, so they can incorporate that information into their investigation,” Comey said.

“It’s a little bit challenging for us because known or suspected means it hasn’t been adjudicated in every case that somebody is a terrorist,” Comey said. “It’s somebody we’re investigating, so we don’t want to, obviously, blow our investigation. Sorry.”

Here’s video of the testimony:

(For more from the author of “WATCH: FBI Director Warns Democrat Gun Control Measures Could ‘Blow’ Terror Investigations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.