Month: April 2019

For all the left’s howls about ‘Islamophobia’ and its supposed ‘endangering‘ of Muslims, the real issue is anti-Semitism and the terror attacks now surging from it. Three Islam-motivated massacres on synogogues – in Ohio, Montana, and Georgia - were all thwarted in just the last five months, with very little press coverage about how close the terrorists came.

Frontline’s Daniel Greenfield has a disturbing piece on the incidents, as well news of a surge of crazed Jew-hating rhetoric from Muslim leaders that has risen in assorted mosques around the country, which may be fueling it. He writes:

All three Muslim terrorists were ISIS supporters. They were the same age and scattered around the country, from Montana to Georgia to Ohio. They origins lay in different cultures and parts of the world.

And yet their terror plots all targeted Jews.

What was it that created this cluster of three Islamic terror plots against synagogues?

No specifics are given in the complaints. Even the names of the synagogues remain anonymous. The phenomenon was not noted by any media outlet. The same outlets that eagerly publish statistical compilations of attacks on Muslims, real or imaginary, once again turned a blind eye to this cluster.

He thinks it’s connected to the surge in Jew-hating rhetoric and actual calls for violence against Jews suddenly coming out of mosques throughout the country:

Last year, there was a similar cluster, not of attack plots, but of incitement to violence.

In December 2017, an Imam in New Jersey had been caught preaching of the Jews, “Count them one by one, and kill them down to the very last one. Do not leave a single one on the face of the Earth.”

In February 2018, an Imam in Texas had urged fighting the Jews and a Syrian refugee Imam in North Carolina had recited a hadith calling for the extermination of the Jews, “We will fight those Jews until the rocks and the trees will speak: ‘Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me.’”

The geographic diversity of these calls to violence in mosques from New Jersey to North Carolina to Texas, echoed the diversity of the latest Islamic terror plots in Montana, Georgia and Ohio. There is no particular reason to think that the three terrorists were influenced by imams from other states. What these numbers reveal is the incredible scope and range of Islamic anti-Semitism and violence in America.

Now that even congressional leaders, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) have made anti-Semitism respectable in the Democratic Party as well as impossible to censure, it signals an ugly emerging picture. Sick rhetoric is coming out of the mosques. People who listen to that sick rhetoric and go along with it are rolling into the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership, hailed as the new wave and vanguard. They are not only escaping criticism, they are drawing in a host of useful idiots rushing to their defense.

And the violence keeps getting scarier. Right now, the lawmen have thwarted the problem in three instances, but it doesn’t mean they’ve cut the problem off at the roots. They’ll still have to keep thwarting, getting it right every time, until they don’t. One slips out and large number of innocent people are massacred. After then, the press will report “no known motive” for the attack.

Yet the answer as to why such an attack would go forth would be right there in this evidence.

It’s time to stop letting these people into this country.  

For all the left’s howls about ‘Islamophobia’ and its supposed ‘endangering‘ of Muslims, the real issue is anti-Semitism and the terror attacks now surging from it. Three Islam-motivated massacres on synogogues – in Ohio, Montana, and Georgia - were all thwarted in just the last five months, with very little press coverage about how close the terrorists came.

Frontline’s Daniel Greenfield has a disturbing piece on the incidents, as well news of a surge of crazed Jew-hating rhetoric from Muslim leaders that has risen in assorted mosques around the country, which may be fueling it. He writes:

All three Muslim terrorists were ISIS supporters. They were the same age and scattered around the country, from Montana to Georgia to Ohio. They origins lay in different cultures and parts of the world.

And yet their terror plots all targeted Jews.

What was it that created this cluster of three Islamic terror plots against synagogues?

No specifics are given in the complaints. Even the names of the synagogues remain anonymous. The phenomenon was not noted by any media outlet. The same outlets that eagerly publish statistical compilations of attacks on Muslims, real or imaginary, once again turned a blind eye to this cluster.

He thinks it’s connected to the surge in Jew-hating rhetoric and actual calls for violence against Jews suddenly coming out of mosques throughout the country:

Last year, there was a similar cluster, not of attack plots, but of incitement to violence.

In December 2017, an Imam in New Jersey had been caught preaching of the Jews, “Count them one by one, and kill them down to the very last one. Do not leave a single one on the face of the Earth.”

In February 2018, an Imam in Texas had urged fighting the Jews and a Syrian refugee Imam in North Carolina had recited a hadith calling for the extermination of the Jews, “We will fight those Jews until the rocks and the trees will speak: ‘Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me.’”

The geographic diversity of these calls to violence in mosques from New Jersey to North Carolina to Texas, echoed the diversity of the latest Islamic terror plots in Montana, Georgia and Ohio. There is no particular reason to think that the three terrorists were influenced by imams from other states. What these numbers reveal is the incredible scope and range of Islamic anti-Semitism and violence in America.

Now that even congressional leaders, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) have made anti-Semitism respectable in the Democratic Party as well as impossible to censure, it signals an ugly emerging picture. Sick rhetoric is coming out of the mosques. People who listen to that sick rhetoric and go along with it are rolling into the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership, hailed as the new wave and vanguard. They are not only escaping criticism, they are drawing in a host of useful idiots rushing to their defense.

And the violence keeps getting scarier. Right now, the lawmen have thwarted the problem in three instances, but it doesn’t mean they’ve cut the problem off at the roots. They’ll still have to keep thwarting, getting it right every time, until they don’t. One slips out and large number of innocent people are massacred. After then, the press will report “no known motive” for the attack.

Yet the answer as to why such an attack would go forth would be right there in this evidence.

It’s time to stop letting these people into this country.  

Rep. Ilhan Omar has been caught trivializing 9/11 for the second time in as many days, this time in a bizarre video dug up by Fox News:

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, in a newly resurfaced clip of an old interview, joked about people saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah” in a severe tone — while noting nobody says words like “America” that way.

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. … The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up,” Omar said during an interview from 2013 when she was an activist within the Somali community, chuckling as she imitated the professor saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah.”

Omar went on to contrast the way people say the names of terror groups with how they pronounce the names of western powers:

“But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “… But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.”

We say those words in severe tones, of course, because the groups they represent are repulsive, vile, despicable, terrorists, all of them with long records of murdering innocents and dancing around about it afterward.

But to Omar, see, this represents hypocrisy, a double standard. Shouldn’t we all be using the word ‘America’ with just as much ‘intensity’ as we do ‘al Qaida’ or ‘Hezbollah’? Shouldn’t the word ‘America’ inspire the same sense of revulsion as ‘al Qaida’?

This, from the person who just recently assured that 9/11 was merely ‘some people did something’ instead of enact the largest mass murder from an Islamic terror attack in U.S. history, something that got a powerful smackdown from the New York Post, which by the way, is still criticizing her.

In both instances, she trivializes 9/11 and the authentic threat that Islamic terror represents. She even links it to her own anti-American hatred, so common among fourth-world petty intellectuals described well in the non-fiction works of V.S. Naipaul.

(Who by the way, unexpectedly won the Nobel prize for literature in the wake of 9/11, when even the Scandinavians were still outraged by the attacks.)

Apparently, the 9/11 attacks had no such effect on the mind of Omar. Her response in fact, was to don the hijab, as she told the Washington Post. She hadn’t been wearing it before then. That’s some motivation for putting on a veil.

And it says a lot about where Omar’s true sympathies lie. It certainly explains why she could come to America as a refugee and right away find herself disgusted with the country, as she has told interviewers many times. Authentic refugees who’ve endured actual privation don’t do that.  

It also raises questions about why she thinks she can get away with such views. Obviously, it’s because she knows that the culture of political correctness in the U.S. is a strong one. Fox News’s Judge Jeanine Pirro was recently suspended for asking if Omar’s veil-wearing was an indicator of support for Sharia law.

With the revelations from this new clip, obviously Pirro was understating things. Omar not only supports sharia law (which may or may not be relevant, depending on how it is read), she supports anti-Americanism. Her remarks downplaying al-Qaida in now two instances, as well as her going to political bat for known terrorists, insisting that they take no consequences for their murderous acts and plans, suggests a congressional leader whose constituents are terrorists and useful idiots, and whose own loyalties are in downplaying terrorism as a sword and up-playing political correctness as a shield.

What an appalling picture of her. And of those who elected her.

Image credit: Twitter screen grab

Rep. Ilhan Omar has been caught trivializing 9/11 for the second time in as many days, this time in a bizarre video dug up by Fox News:

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, in a newly resurfaced clip of an old interview, joked about people saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah” in a severe tone — while noting nobody says words like “America” that way.

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. … The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up,” Omar said during an interview from 2013 when she was an activist within the Somali community, chuckling as she imitated the professor saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah.”

Omar went on to contrast the way people say the names of terror groups with how they pronounce the names of western powers:

“But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “… But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.”

We say those words in severe tones, of course, because the groups they represent are repulsive, vile, despicable, terrorists, all of them with long records of murdering innocents and dancing around about it afterward.

But to Omar, see, this represents hypocrisy, a double standard. Shouldn’t we all be using the word ‘America’ with just as much ‘intensity’ as we do ‘al Qaida’ or ‘Hezbollah’? Shouldn’t the word ‘America’ inspire the same sense of revulsion as ‘al Qaida’?

This, from the person who just recently assured that 9/11 was merely ‘some people did something’ instead of enact the largest mass murder from an Islamic terror attack in U.S. history, something that got a powerful smackdown from the New York Post, which by the way, is still criticizing her.

In both instances, she trivializes 9/11 and the authentic threat that Islamic terror represents. She even links it to her own anti-American hatred, so common among fourth-world petty intellectuals described well in the non-fiction works of V.S. Naipaul.

(Who by the way, unexpectedly won the Nobel prize for literature in the wake of 9/11, when even the Scandinavians were still outraged by the attacks.)

Apparently, the 9/11 attacks had no such effect on the mind of Omar. Her response in fact, was to don the hijab, as she told the Washington Post. She hadn’t been wearing it before then. That’s some motivation for putting on a veil.

And it says a lot about where Omar’s true sympathies lie. It certainly explains why she could come to America as a refugee and right away find herself disgusted with the country, as she has told interviewers many times. Authentic refugees who’ve endured actual privation don’t do that.  

It also raises questions about why she thinks she can get away with such views. Obviously, it’s because she knows that the culture of political correctness in the U.S. is a strong one. Fox News’s Judge Jeanine Pirro was recently suspended for asking if Omar’s veil-wearing was an indicator of support for Sharia law.

With the revelations from this new clip, obviously Pirro was understating things. Omar not only supports sharia law (which may or may not be relevant, depending on how it is read), she supports anti-Americanism. Her remarks downplaying al-Qaida in now two instances, as well as her going to political bat for known terrorists, insisting that they take no consequences for their murderous acts and plans, suggests a congressional leader whose constituents are terrorists and useful idiots, and whose own loyalties are in downplaying terrorism as a sword and up-playing political correctness as a shield.

What an appalling picture of her. And of those who elected her.

Image credit: Twitter screen grab

President Trump’s trial balloon of sending migrants surging across our border to sanctuary cities has been derided by Democrats as ‘cynicism and cruelty‘ as well as ’a new low‘ by Trump, but it has a precedent: President Obama.

Back in 2014, when the migrant surge of that year brought tens of thousands of “unaccompanied children” and “moms and kids,” into the Rio Grande Valley, overwhelming the Texas processing facilities, President Obama inexplicably targeted small- and mid-sized cities (same as the Trump officials’ emails) as their next destination of choice. And instead of talking about it, they really did try to bus the unvetted migrants into small cities such as Murietta, California, Yuma, Arizona, and a conservative area of New Mexico, bringing crime, disease, and a high need for social services. without consulting those communities.

The residents protested, and the Obama administration declared them ‘racist’ in a bid to scare them into line.

I was on the ground at Murietta during those protests when I was an editorial writer at Investor’s Business Daily, and spoke to the citizens of that city, who were not only far from racist, they were actually multiracial themselves. They told me this:

Asked why the rebellion was centered in Murrieta and not elsewhere, the residents all had one answer: they were Reagan Country, and it was on their soil that the Reagan revolution was lit in 1978.

Breitbart’s reporters went to the scene, too, as I did, and quite unlike the mainstream media, also asked and listened to the residents as what they thought was going on:

Henry, and many of the protesters joining him, believe their town was unfairly targeted as a destination for the migrants. Some believe the busloads are being sent to small, largely conservative towns, like Murrieta to send a political message.

“The administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town america, they can force us into immigration reform,” Henry said. “These immigrants should not be here. The only reason that they are coming here is for political reasons.”

There are no known FOIA documents to prove it, (though it’s a fine area for inquiry these days), that I have been able to find, but circumstantially, it appears to be a correct reading of the situation. The several hundred illegals being dumped off in Murietta were going to a small city with just five holding cells, given that it’s a nearly crime-free city of homeowners. That’s inexplicable, unless the idea was to unleash them onto the conservatives unvetted for other purposes.

 

 

It’s pretty obvious the whole thing was a political gambit to not only impose high costs from illegal migration on specially targeted conservative cities, its second aim was to force America’s conservatives into submission out of fear of being called racists.

 

They rebelled instead, in what was an early bellwether of the rise of President Trump. Now Trump is giving back what Obama pioneered – the use of illegal migrants as a political football – and this time putting Democrats on their backfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image credit: Screen shot from KCAL 9 / CBS News, via shareable YouTube

President Trump’s trial balloon of sending migrants surging across our border to sanctuary cities has been derided by Democrats as ‘cynicism and cruelty‘ as well as ’a new low‘ by Trump, but it has a precedent: President Obama.

Back in 2014, when the migrant surge of that year brought tens of thousands of “unaccompanied children” and “moms and kids,” into the Rio Grande Valley, overwhelming the Texas processing facilities, President Obama inexplicably targeted small- and mid-sized cities (same as the Trump officials’ emails) as their next destination of choice. And instead of talking about it, they really did try to bus the unvetted migrants into small cities such as Murietta, California, Yuma, Arizona, and a conservative area of New Mexico, bringing crime, disease, and a high need for social services. without consulting those communities.

The residents protested, and the Obama administration declared them ‘racist’ in a bid to scare them into line.

I was on the ground at Murietta during those protests when I was an editorial writer at Investor’s Business Daily, and spoke to the citizens of that city, who were not only far from racist, they were actually multiracial themselves. They told me this:

Asked why the rebellion was centered in Murrieta and not elsewhere, the residents all had one answer: they were Reagan Country, and it was on their soil that the Reagan revolution was lit in 1978.

Breitbart’s reporters went to the scene, too, as I did, and quite unlike the mainstream media, also asked and listened to the residents as what they thought was going on:

Henry, and many of the protesters joining him, believe their town was unfairly targeted as a destination for the migrants. Some believe the busloads are being sent to small, largely conservative towns, like Murrieta to send a political message.

“The administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town america, they can force us into immigration reform,” Henry said. “These immigrants should not be here. The only reason that they are coming here is for political reasons.”

There are no known FOIA documents to prove it, (though it’s a fine area for inquiry these days), that I have been able to find, but circumstantially, it appears to be a correct reading of the situation. The several hundred illegals being dumped off in Murietta were going to a small city with just five holding cells, given that it’s a nearly crime-free city of homeowners. That’s inexplicable, unless the idea was to unleash them onto the conservatives unvetted for other purposes.

 

 

It’s pretty obvious the whole thing was a political gambit to not only impose high costs from illegal migration on specially targeted conservative cities, its second aim was to force America’s conservatives into submission out of fear of being called racists.

 

They rebelled instead, in what was an early bellwether of the rise of President Trump. Now Trump is giving back what Obama pioneered – the use of illegal migrants as a political football – and this time putting Democrats on their backfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image credit: Screen shot from KCAL 9 / CBS News, via shareable YouTube