Ever wondered why Hellery Clinton refuses to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" to describe the things ISIS does, such as the San Bernardino massacre? Donald Trump challenged her to do so during the second debate, but she didn't (and will not) get any closer than "radical jihadists". Why? Because to name the enemy is not politically correct. Might offend those... you know... moderate Muslims (like the Khan family) to whom the Clinton campaign is pandering.
We have a little more insight into their strategy today thanks to Wikileaks. Their latest drop -- you'll find a summary of the highlights from previous releases here -- reveals that some of La Clinton's top aides were highly upset that a Muslim man had been named as one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino massacre, in which 14 innocent people were killed and 22 injured.
According to e-mails from John Podesta's account, the Clinton campaign chairman suggested it would have been "better if a guy named (Syed Farook) was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter." Mr Podesta was responding to an email chain that began with campaign liaison Matt Ortega sharing a tweet from MSNBC host Chris Hayes reporting the shooter's name as Syed Farook. Campaign spokesperson Karen Kinney responded with, "Damn!"
Mrs Bill Clinton steadfastly refuses to utter the word "Islamic", let alone the phrase "Islamic terrorism". Fox News reports that in a 154-page debate prep book developed two months after the attack (also released by WikiLeaks), her handlers advised Shrillery to call these types of attacks "radical jihadists". As The Donald says, how can you fight an enemy you refuse to recognize.
Showing posts with label San Bernardino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Bernardino. Show all posts
Monday, October 17, 2016
Thursday, August 18, 2016
More Muslim refugees than Christians admitted to USA
In this final year of the too-long reign of Hussein Obama, more Muslim "refugees" than Christians are being allowed to come into the US of A. So says the non-partisan Pew Research Center, in a report made public today.
Of the 63,000 refugees -- real and bogus -- admitted during the current fiscal year (which began last October), 29,000 are Muslims. Walt will do the math for you. It works out to 46%! 44% of the refugees declared themselves to be Christians. The remaining 10% were "unknown, unaffiliated or 'other'".
The largest numbers of Muslim refugee claimants came from Syria, Somalia, and Iraq. The Democrats have made a big fuss over the handful of Christian Syrians being allowed in, as proof that they're not discriminating in favour of President 0's co-religionists (?), but the fact is that of the roughly 9000 Syrian refugees who entered this year, fewer than one percent (1%) were Christians.
But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more! The total number of Muslim refugees -- nearly 29,000 -- was also the highest number recorded since the statistics became available. This is also the fourth year in a row that over 25,000 Muslims have gained entry into the USA as refugees.
Here's a final thought. The statistics collected and reported by the INS do not distinguish between "moderate Muslims" [an oxymoron, shurely! Ed.] and Islamic extremists. Should we be alarmed? Surely they can't all be jihadis! OK, let's suppose only 1% of them are. Let's see. 1% of 29,000 would be... errr... 290. How many Islamic terrorists did it take to kill dozens of people in San Bernardino? 2. How many did it take to kill dozens of people in Orlando? Errr... just one (1).
Of the 63,000 refugees -- real and bogus -- admitted during the current fiscal year (which began last October), 29,000 are Muslims. Walt will do the math for you. It works out to 46%! 44% of the refugees declared themselves to be Christians. The remaining 10% were "unknown, unaffiliated or 'other'".
The largest numbers of Muslim refugee claimants came from Syria, Somalia, and Iraq. The Democrats have made a big fuss over the handful of Christian Syrians being allowed in, as proof that they're not discriminating in favour of President 0's co-religionists (?), but the fact is that of the roughly 9000 Syrian refugees who entered this year, fewer than one percent (1%) were Christians.
But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more! The total number of Muslim refugees -- nearly 29,000 -- was also the highest number recorded since the statistics became available. This is also the fourth year in a row that over 25,000 Muslims have gained entry into the USA as refugees.
Here's a final thought. The statistics collected and reported by the INS do not distinguish between "moderate Muslims" [an oxymoron, shurely! Ed.] and Islamic extremists. Should we be alarmed? Surely they can't all be jihadis! OK, let's suppose only 1% of them are. Let's see. 1% of 29,000 would be... errr... 290. How many Islamic terrorists did it take to kill dozens of people in San Bernardino? 2. How many did it take to kill dozens of people in Orlando? Errr... just one (1).
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
VIDEO: Guess who agrees with Donald Trump about banning Muslims?
Before you click on the "play video" button to get the answer to Walt's headline question, consider this suggestion from Catherine Crier, a former Dallas District Attorney and judge. In the aftermath of 9/11 she wrote:
Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.
Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.
But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.
The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.
But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.
Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.
Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."
That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.
"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"
That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."
Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?
Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.
Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.
But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.
The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.
But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.
Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.
Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."
That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.
"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"
That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."
Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Mark Twain's War Prayer
Now that the FBI (etc) is "investigating" the San Bernardino massacre as "an act of [adjective deleted] terrorism", Walt guesses some folks in San Berdoo (and Washington, Arlington and surrounds) are thinking about what degree of revenge would be sufficient to appease the Americans who think the Prez has been soft on Muslim fanatics.
It's all a bit like South Park: The Movie, isn't it? Let's see... Who should we attack? The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- were Pakistanis. OK, he was born here -- a Paki-American -- and she was in the USA on a K1 (fiancée) visa. So should we bomb Pakistan?
And how many should we kill? It is a time-honoured principle that 1 American life is worth at least 100 foreigners' lives, and usually more like 1000 or even 10,000, as in the First Iraq War. The Muslim fanatics killed 14 Americans, so...
While we wait for details of the coming retribution, let us all bow our heads and repeat the following War Prayer, composed by Mark Twain.
O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writing in pain; help us to lay waste to their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst. Amen.
Source: Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race, ed. Janet Smith (Hill & Wang 1994)
It's all a bit like South Park: The Movie, isn't it? Let's see... Who should we attack? The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- were Pakistanis. OK, he was born here -- a Paki-American -- and she was in the USA on a K1 (fiancée) visa. So should we bomb Pakistan?
And how many should we kill? It is a time-honoured principle that 1 American life is worth at least 100 foreigners' lives, and usually more like 1000 or even 10,000, as in the First Iraq War. The Muslim fanatics killed 14 Americans, so...
While we wait for details of the coming retribution, let us all bow our heads and repeat the following War Prayer, composed by Mark Twain.
O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writing in pain; help us to lay waste to their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst. Amen.
Source: Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race, ed. Janet Smith (Hill & Wang 1994)
Friday, December 4, 2015
UPDATED: Obama's speech impediment to be tested tonight!
Seriously. That's what the Prez said. I guess that makes me a better candidate for POTUS then, because I was sure as early as Wednesday afternoon. See "Don't tell us the San Bernardino massacre isn't the work of terrorists!"
As I was pondering the significance of Mr. Obama's refusal to identify as Muslims the couple who slaughtered 14 innocent civilians and wounded 21 (the latest count), Ed. handed me a brown envelope which had been slipped under the door of our cabin in the pines that morning. It contains a confidential report from a n'anga (= "traditional healer" = witch doctor) the Prez consulted on the QT during his July visit to the land of his ancestors, Kenya.
According to the good doctor, Mr. Obama's paternal grandmother was scared by a drawing of the Prophet, like the one shown here. The mental trauma affected the child in her womb, the father of Barack Hussein Obama, and his son, congenitally incapable of saying the words "Muslim" or "Islam", or any variation thereof, in the same sentence as the word "terrorism" or "terrorist(s)".
So now you know why the Prez just can't say who's responsible for what was clearly (not "maybe") an act of terrorism. You're welcome.
UPDATED SUNDAY MORNING: Walt will be watching and listening carefully to POTUS's fireside address to a worried nation, to be televised coast-to-coast tonight. The advertised topic is the terrorist threat. Can he overcome his speech impediment? Will he utter the word "Muslim" even once? Don't miss it!!!
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Don't tell us the San Bernardino massacre isn't the work of terrorists!
I started writing this about 1 PM yesterday, watching (on CBS-TV) the live coverage of the "incident" in San Bernardino CA. 14 innocent civilians killed, 17 wounded. By whom? By one crazy "lone wolf" with some kind of hatred for "developmentally disabled" people or civil servants? Or???
One eyewitness said that from her office window she saw three (3) attackers, dressed from head to toe in black, carrying "long guns" (the police chief's description) and extra ammunition. She wasn't sure, but had the impression the shooters were white, athletically built, and though that, while two were men, one might have been a man or a woman -- hard to tell, in the heat of the moment.
In the first presser, shortly after 2 PM, the San Berdoo police chief carefully avoided the use of words like "terrorists" or "terrorism" or "Muslims", In response to questions, he would only say that the authorities had no idea of what the motive might have been, and "weren't ruling out" terrorism.
Before we lift the veil from the identity of the two "suspects" (out of three) who have now been killed, let's consider the attacks on innocent civilians perpetrated in Paris not so long ago.
On 7 January 2015, two men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles and other weapons, forced their way into the Paris office of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo They killed 11 people and injured 11 others in the building, then killed a French police officer outside the building as they fled, shouting "Allahu akbar!" Another 5 people were killed and 11 wounded in related attacks in the Île-de-France region around Paris. The gunmen, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, identified themselves as belonging to Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.
On the 13th of last month, masked men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles, IEDs and other weapons, staged a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and its northern suburbs. Three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis. Cries of "Allahu akbar!" were heard again, as this attack was followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and the Bataclan music hall in Paris proper.
The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. There were 368 injuries, almost 100 of them serious. Seven of the jihadists also died. The ringleader is still at large, believed to be with ISIS in Syria.
ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying it was in retaliation for the French airstrikes on IS targets in Syria and Iraq. French President François Hollande said the attacks were an act of war, and called for swift and terrible retaliation. See "War begets terrorism begets war begets terrorism... etc" (WWW 3/12/15)
Now, let's examine again the mass shooting perpetrated in San Bernardino yesterday. Three attackers, dressed in black, carrying "long guns" (= assault rifles), burst into a crowded conference hall where the San Bernardino County Public Health Department was holding its annual Christmas party. According to witnesses, they didn't say or yell anything, just opened fire on all and sundry, killing 14, wounding 17.
Who could or would do such a thing? Would it be
(a) crazy people
(b) a disgruntled civil servant who "went postal"
(c) Muslims
(d) terrorists
(e) some of the above
(e) all of the above
While Ed. is tabulating your response, Walt will tell you what we now know.
Around 4 PM yesterday, two bodies were pulled out of a black SUV which had been riddled with gunfire in a scene reminiscent of the finale to Bonnie and Clyde. They were clothed in black, and were wearing body armor. They were Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The late Mr. Farook was born in Illinois, of parents who had immigrated from Pakistan.
According to Canadian Press, Mr. Farook went to Saudi Arabia for about a month this past spring. About a month after he returned to the USA, he was joined by Ms Malik, whom he described as a pharmacist and introduced as his wife.
Why did Mr. Farook and his wife do it? We can't ask them because the police, in time-honoured American fashion, decided to exterminate them first and ask questions... well, not at all. All we know is that Mr. Farook joined his colleagues -- he worked for the County Public Health Dept. -- at the party, but, after staying only a short while, stormed out following some kind of dispute. He returned with his wife, both dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles. You know the rest of the story.
The level of preparation -- they brought extra ammunition and also had pipe bombs in the SUB -- is one of the factors investigators are weighing as they examine a motive for the attack. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told an evening news conference that the attack did not seem to be "a spur-of-the-moment thing". Great police work there, chief!
Also unanswered is the question of what happened to the third shooter... if there was a third shooter. If the police (and the sheriff, TSA, FBI, CIA, and dogcatcher) can identify and locate him (or her), will they kill him (or her) too? Why would they do that? Surely it wouldn't be to keep us from knowing that the attack had something to do with the jihad being waged against us. As the Prez sez, there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism... is there?
Footnote: The correct answer to our quiz is (e).
One eyewitness said that from her office window she saw three (3) attackers, dressed from head to toe in black, carrying "long guns" (the police chief's description) and extra ammunition. She wasn't sure, but had the impression the shooters were white, athletically built, and though that, while two were men, one might have been a man or a woman -- hard to tell, in the heat of the moment.
In the first presser, shortly after 2 PM, the San Berdoo police chief carefully avoided the use of words like "terrorists" or "terrorism" or "Muslims", In response to questions, he would only say that the authorities had no idea of what the motive might have been, and "weren't ruling out" terrorism.
Before we lift the veil from the identity of the two "suspects" (out of three) who have now been killed, let's consider the attacks on innocent civilians perpetrated in Paris not so long ago.
On 7 January 2015, two men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles and other weapons, forced their way into the Paris office of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo They killed 11 people and injured 11 others in the building, then killed a French police officer outside the building as they fled, shouting "Allahu akbar!" Another 5 people were killed and 11 wounded in related attacks in the Île-de-France region around Paris. The gunmen, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, identified themselves as belonging to Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.
On the 13th of last month, masked men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles, IEDs and other weapons, staged a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and its northern suburbs. Three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis. Cries of "Allahu akbar!" were heard again, as this attack was followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and the Bataclan music hall in Paris proper.
The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. There were 368 injuries, almost 100 of them serious. Seven of the jihadists also died. The ringleader is still at large, believed to be with ISIS in Syria.
ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying it was in retaliation for the French airstrikes on IS targets in Syria and Iraq. French President François Hollande said the attacks were an act of war, and called for swift and terrible retaliation. See "War begets terrorism begets war begets terrorism... etc" (WWW 3/12/15)
Now, let's examine again the mass shooting perpetrated in San Bernardino yesterday. Three attackers, dressed in black, carrying "long guns" (= assault rifles), burst into a crowded conference hall where the San Bernardino County Public Health Department was holding its annual Christmas party. According to witnesses, they didn't say or yell anything, just opened fire on all and sundry, killing 14, wounding 17.
Who could or would do such a thing? Would it be
(a) crazy people
(b) a disgruntled civil servant who "went postal"
(c) Muslims
(d) terrorists
(e) some of the above
(e) all of the above
While Ed. is tabulating your response, Walt will tell you what we now know.
Around 4 PM yesterday, two bodies were pulled out of a black SUV which had been riddled with gunfire in a scene reminiscent of the finale to Bonnie and Clyde. They were clothed in black, and were wearing body armor. They were Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The late Mr. Farook was born in Illinois, of parents who had immigrated from Pakistan.
According to Canadian Press, Mr. Farook went to Saudi Arabia for about a month this past spring. About a month after he returned to the USA, he was joined by Ms Malik, whom he described as a pharmacist and introduced as his wife.
Why did Mr. Farook and his wife do it? We can't ask them because the police, in time-honoured American fashion, decided to exterminate them first and ask questions... well, not at all. All we know is that Mr. Farook joined his colleagues -- he worked for the County Public Health Dept. -- at the party, but, after staying only a short while, stormed out following some kind of dispute. He returned with his wife, both dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles. You know the rest of the story.
The level of preparation -- they brought extra ammunition and also had pipe bombs in the SUB -- is one of the factors investigators are weighing as they examine a motive for the attack. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told an evening news conference that the attack did not seem to be "a spur-of-the-moment thing". Great police work there, chief!
Also unanswered is the question of what happened to the third shooter... if there was a third shooter. If the police (and the sheriff, TSA, FBI, CIA, and dogcatcher) can identify and locate him (or her), will they kill him (or her) too? Why would they do that? Surely it wouldn't be to keep us from knowing that the attack had something to do with the jihad being waged against us. As the Prez sez, there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism... is there?
Footnote: The correct answer to our quiz is (e).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)