The New York Times is fascinated with the ongoing cultural squabble in San Francisco, where two liberal groups have squared off over territory. Hispanics residing in the Mission neighborhood are angry that young tech workers are moving into “their” turf and taking scarce and increasingly expensive housing. (See my VDARE.com article from a year ago Liberal Civil War in San Francisco: Immigrants And Hipsters Attack Tech Workers.)
The paper has been there before, calling it the “Backlash by the bay” in 2013, when it surveyed the mix of prosperity and hostility that tech growth has brought to the city.
Below, the Times featured some of the Mission’s famous mural art that complained about gentrification and rising housing costs.
Despite being a former tenant lawyer, Mayor Ed Lee in 2012 at least visited a tech company every week as a sign of his interest in the ongoing success of the businesses in his town. He wants that tax money to keep flowing into city coffers to keep his big liberal government funded. He is in a politically difficult spot but has made his choice.
Below, another Mission mural, suitable for meditations on diversity or scaring the children.
The piece has quotes from whiney local hispanics about the Mission being the “heart and soul of San Francisco” including similar blather from Supervisor David Campos, who is not identified as being a former illegal alien. It would be better if they didn’t claim cultural superiority for their colorful gang-infested neighborhood and merely said they don’t want to move, which is more understandable.
Toward the end, there is mention that the hated gentrification has brought “a drop in crime.” Wait, don’t liberals lecture us daily that diversity is 100 percent wonderful and a total improvement over our boring white-bread American lives? Apparently we are permitted to imagine that it’s not.
SAN FRANCISCO — Luxury condominiums, organic ice cream stores, cafes that serve soy lattes and chocolate shops that offer samples from Ecuador and Madagascar are rapidly replacing 99-cent stores, bodegas and rent-controlled apartments in the Mission District, this city’s working-class Latino neighborhood.
As San Francisco has become the preferred bedroom community for Silicon Valley, the Mission, with its urban edginess, has become the hottest location. Close to the center of the city, it has historically been home to Mexican and Central American immigrants whose large families live in small apartments in narrow Victorians and older buildings. Taquerias, bakeries, bars and auto mechanic shops line the streets where Spanish is spoken. Like Chinatown, this distinctive neighborhood helps define San Francisco, but the gentrification — fueled by technology workers and the popularity of Airbnb — is faster and more drastic here than elsewhere.
The local color is still here: Splashy murals, many with political themes, provide open-air art on numerous buildings. But the housing prices have risen well beyond the reach of the average artist: Studio apartments in the Mission are listed on Zillow, the real estate site, for $2,700 a month, and one-bedrooms for $3,800. When a family in a rent-controlled apartment leaves or is forced out, the rent is jacked up to market rate, apartments become condominiums or are advertised by the landlord on Airbnb as a good place for short-term visits.
While gentrification has been a longstanding issue in the Mission, it now seems to be accelerating in its pace and scope.
“It’s a war zone here,” said Paula Tejeda, a Mission resident who owns an empanada shop in the neighborhood, describing the clash between older residents and newer ones. “This is not like the Lower East Side” of Manhattan, where she used to live, she said. “This is happening a lot faster.” Continue reading this article
American universities are highly invested in the globalist enterprise and ideology as shown by their policies of welcoming foreign students to the detriment of Americans. Many state schools are broke, and their practice of admitting more foreigners (and out-of-staters) is based upon those students paying full tuition rather than the subsidized in-state tuition rate: the colleges drone on about the benefits of experiencing different cultures, but it’s the dollars.
Today, foreign students are at an all time high on US campuses. Over one million international students take slots at American schools, up nearly 50 percent since 2010.
In 2009, University of California administrators told the San Diego campus to reduce its number of in-state freshmen by 500 to about 3,400 and fill the spots with out-of-state and international students, said Mae Brown, the school’s admissions director. California residents pay $13,234 in annual tuition while nonresidents pay $22,878.
Another fact: the number of nonresident students enrolled at the University of California’s 10 campuses rose from 22,984 to 31,991 between 2009 and 2012, an increase of nearly 33 percent. No wonder parents residing in the highly taxed state are angry when their kids cannot get admitted to the schools they have supported financially for years.
It’s one thing for private universities to choose the sort of students they want, but state schools need to dial back on diversity. The story following notes, “The University of California system recently announced it will cap the percentage of out-of-state and foreign undergraduate students at the Los Angeles and Berkeley campuses at the current level, 22%” but that’s not good enough. California taxpaying residents should demand a far lower percentage, say three to five percent.
American universities are enrolling unprecedented numbers of foreign students, prompted by the rise of an affluent class in China and generous scholarships offered by oil-rich Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia.
Cash-strapped public universities also are driving the trend, aggressively recruiting students from abroad, especially undergraduates who pay a premium compared with in-state students.
There are 1.13 million foreign students in the U.S., the vast majority in college-degree programs, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the Department of Homeland Security. That represents a 14% increase over last year, nearly 50% more than in 2010 and 85% more than in 2005.
Students from China account for the largest share—331,371 of all international students, or 29%. Nearly 81,000 subjects of the Saudi kingdom are studying in the U.S. this school year, up from about 5,000 in 2000-01. Nearly three-quarters of Saudi students are enrolled in bachelor’s programs or English-language programs that precede starting undergraduate studies here.
Of the top five campuses for international students, two are public universities: Purdue, at No. 2, and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, at No. 4. The No. 1 school is the University of Southern California, with 12,480 students, according to the report. Columbia ranks No. 3. and New York University comes in at No. 5.
Amid rising costs, shrinking state support and student resistance to tuition increases, foreign students have become crucial to many public universities. Some hire foreign consultants to recruit students overseas, while others send their own staff on scouting missions. Officials at many state universities say the higher-paying students essentially subsidize in-state students.
But the perception that foreign students, in addition to out-of-state Americans, displace state residents has fueled a backlash in some states.
The University of California system recently announced it will cap the percentage of out-of-state and foreign undergraduate students at the Los Angeles and Berkeley campuses at the current level, 22%. University of Iowa regents last year adopted a plan to tie state funding of public universities to the number of in-state students enrolled.
Brenda Nard of Salem, Ore., said she encountered many out-of-state and foreign students during her daughter’s recent college search. “You wrestle with it because you want your kids to have the most opportunity,” she said. “I understand the state needs the money yet I also wonder if it eliminates opportunities for some Oregonians.” Continue reading this article
A couple years ago, Sweden’s liberal political elites went completely bonkers by offering their nation as a home for unlimited Syrian refugees at a time when two million had been driven out by the Islamic civil war. There’s no way that one-tenth that number of Muslim Middle Easterners could be successfully settled in Sweden (population 9.6 million), which still has a semblance of European culture even though Swedo-elites worship diversity with a scary intensity.
But objections from concerned Swedes about the unraveling of their society have only influenced the stubborn left government to ratchet up diversity such that there is no escape from it: a law is being written that would spread refugees all over the country. No town would be safe from immigrants. No Swede would be permitted to live in a traditional manner, away from Muslim diversity.
Resistance is futile! All will be assimilated into the perfect utopian Diversistan!
UPDATED: Sweden’s integration minister Ylva Johansson is preparing a new law that would force all regions to take in asylum seekers. Meanwhile, opposition leader Anna Kinberg Batra has announced plans to strengthen income requirements for immigrants.
While Sweden has made global headlines for taking in more refugees per capita than any other EU nation, these immigrants are largely clustered on the outskirts of major cities in the south, with some parts of the country currently taking in just a handful of newcomers.
Sweden’s Social Democrat integration minister Ylva Johansson has announced that she is drafting a new law designed to make sure all regions take in asylum seekers and offer help with jobs and housing.
“The distribution is unreasonable. We need to make changes in the law for everyone to take responsibility,” she told Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan on Thursday. Continue reading this article
Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford was shot seven times by Hasan and appeared on Fox News Saturday morning, remarking, “As service members, we put our life on the line so that we can live free in life with the pursuit of happiness, but to be treated the way we were treated in the aftermath, that’s just not right. But we’re trained to be focused, disciplined with the result that we won this battle.”
The change of status for the victims is a small victory against the Obama administration that has insisted that the mass murder was “workplace violence” despite the Allahu Ackbar shrieks of Hasan (a son of Palestinian immigrants) as he shot down the unarmed soldiers.
General George Casey Jr. [pictured], the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”
“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
General Casey, who was appeared on three Sunday news programs, used almost the same language during an interview on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” an indication of the Army’s effort to ward off bias against the more than 3,000 Muslims in its ranks.
“A diverse Army gives us strength,” General Casey, who visited Fort Hood Friday, said on “This Week.”
Along that line, the Pentagon’s own report in 2011 of the mass murder was a shameful whitewash based on the “workplace violence” meme.
Senator Lieberman stated, “…our investigation found that employees of the Department of Defense and the FBI had compelling evidence of Nidal Hasan’s growing embrace of violent Islamist extremism in the years before the attack should have caused them to discharge him from the U.S. military and make him the subject of an aggressive counter-terrorism investigation.”
Has the military learned anything from this terrible jihad attack on the homeland, in one of their own bases? Maybe. But the administration is sticking to its policies of support for Islam despite its 1400 years of mayhem and conquest.
At least the For Hood victims are getting a little justice at a late date, no thanks to the Pentagon. The jihad massacre shows that not only is Muslim immigration a very bad idea, but admitting Muslims to our military as soldiers is even worse.
FORT HOOD — Victims of the 2009 post shooting will finally get Purple Hearts, the Army announced Friday.
“This is a long time coming. It’s a day we’re going to celebrate,” said U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, during a news conference Friday outside Fort Hood’s main gate.
A policy change to the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 19, deems service members who are victims of an attack that was inspired or motivated by a U.S. State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization eligible to receive the Purple Heart Medal.
The provision is retroactively effective as of Sept. 11, 2001.
“We awarded it on 9/11 to the people attacked at the Pentagon. That, in my opinion, set the precedent that you don’t have to be on the battlefield,” Carter said.
Secretary of the Army John McHugh said Friday he approved awarding the Purple Heart and its civilian counterpart, the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom, to victims of the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting at Fort Hood, following the change in the medals’ eligibility criteria mandated by Congress. Thirteen people were killed and more than 30 wounded in the attack by Nidal Hasan, who was convicted in August 2013, of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder. Continue reading this article
Hostile Muslims seem to enjoy poking Americans in the eye, probably because they think they can. Washington has increased Muslim immigration to this country, which may incite even worse behavior among the those who see a friend in the White House. They never miss an opportunity to insult treasured American institutions, like free speech and freedom of religion, the latter which benefits them because Islam is treated as a faith rather than a totalitarian political system.
Now obnoxious Muslims are back, complaining about free speech that’s critical of their backward system. Just a week after many of the staff of Charlie Hebdo were slaughtered by jihadists in Paris, an Islam group rented a hall owned by the public schools in Garland, Texas, to “Stand with the Prophet” against America.
Interestingly, the Free Beacon reported that their journalist and others were prevented from entering the evening forum of Muslim speakers: ‘Free Beacon’ Banned From Stand with the Prophet Event. Some reporters were allowed to stay for only 20 minutes, then were made to leave. Free expression, Muslim style!
GARLAND, Texas — Pamela Geller told a crowd of nearly one thousand protestors that “we’re living in an age where evil is good, and good is evil.” Her remarks came during a free speech rally staged to protest the “Follow the Prophet” assembly underway in a Garland Independent School District convention center.
She cautioned the audience to be careful with the mainstream media covering the event and the protest. “This is theater,” Geller said, “and the media is the director. They’re coming here to film a narrative. They’re coming here to make you look bad.”
Geller encouraged the group to speak their mind but to do so in a way that brought credit to the movement. “Never give them what they’re looking for,” she explained. “They want you to say something wrong. They want you to have a bad sign. Because that becomes the front page.” Continue reading this article
The subject of the picture is a cutesy immigrant child gazing upon little paper hearts strung on a burned out mosque in Sweden. To my suspicious eye, the perfect composition and oddly folded hands of the girl suggest a posed photo rather than an image taken from life:
A little background is needed to understand how Sweden got to a place where mosques are being fire-bombed. In September 2013, the government of Sweden generously (or stupidly) offered to take in any Syrian refugees who could get there — potentially over a million persons. The reality of such a major demographic influx began to become recognized as costing a lot and difficult to organize. Housing and jobs for many thousands cannot be made to appear just by the fervent wishing of liberals.
So the mosque fires have occurred in an atmosphere of growing tension.
However, not everyone accepts the official story of white Swedes attacking diverse immigrants. An article in The Local (Sweden rallies after trio of mosque fire attacks) has comments and the first one suspects Muslims may have bombed themselves for the sympathy, an opinion that got a lot of favorable up-clicks:
May be they see the SD [Sweden Democrats, the anti-mass-immigration party] is rising so they set fire on their own Mosques to frame it?
Despite the fact that no arrests have been made and therefore no perps identified in the Sweden case, the Times stuck with the convenient story of white Europeans attacking diverse immigrants. That may be the case, but the possibility of faked hate crimes is just as likely.
ESKILSTUNA, Sweden — As Khalif Samantar knelt for afternoon prayers at the Eskilstuna Islamic Dawa Center on Christmas Day, he sensed a growing heat and a low, rushing sound coming from a nearby hallway. He focused his mind on the ritual, only to realize seconds later that someone was shouting, “The mosque is on fire!”
Mr. Samantar sprang through an open window and rushed through the snow in his stocking feet for help. Though about 70 people were inside the mosque at the time, no one was injured.
The fire, which gutted the Dawa center, was the worst of three suspected arson attacks on mosques in Sweden over the last 10 days. In the same period, two freighters bearing hundreds of asylum seekers were abandoned by their crews off the coast of Italy, adding to a surge of more than 200,000 migrants to Europe in 2014.
“We left our country as refugees. We were not looking for food or benefits, we were looking for somewhere to feel safe,” said Abdirahman Farah Warsame, the imam at the mosque where the fire occurred on Christmas Day. He is originally from Somalia. “Now that is gone. We have a feeling that society is turning against us.” Continue reading this article
One might think that experiencing some of the best that the west can offer would make hard-hit Indonesia friendlier toward the people who helped, but that has not been the case at all. Rather than appreciating western values of science, efficiency and charity, the world’s biggest Muslim country (population 205 million in 2010) has turned to Islam’s totalitarian sharia law.
Just a few years ago, Islamic apologists would point to Indonesia as a fine example of Muslims behaving moderately. Perhaps they did then, but now the virus of ultra-extremist sharia has been instituted as the law of the important Aceh province, and other areas of Indonesia are moving in that direction. Across the Muslim world, jihad is on the march, and that means less freedom for anyone in the vicinity and violence toward anyone deemed not Islamic enough. The result is physical punishment for drinking alcohol, suspected sex out of marriage and women wearing tight or western clothing. Women are also not allowed to straddle motorbikes (a common form of transport) but are made to sit sidesaddle — a less safe position.
Below, an Indonesian woman is caned in Aceh for a violation of sharia.
Even the politically correct Voice of America reported the difficulties of Indonesian sharia:
Incidentally, fundy Muslims should be careful when they wish for full-tilt sharia, judging by the failure of the Islamic State to provide basic needs. According to the Washington Post (Living conditions crumbling in Islamic State), water and electricity are available for no more than three or four hours a day and garbage goes uncollected in Raqqa Syria, with similar failures around the glorious mini-caliphate.
Naturally, it is unwise to admit persons as immigrants from such a barbaric culture to the west, as Europe has been learning. You don’t add rotten apples to the barrel to increase the diversity.
It is a little past noon on Friday, time for Anshari and his troops to spring into action.
Their first stop is outside the gates of Meulaboh’s central mosque, where fruit and vegetable hawkers display their wares. The megaphone blares that it’s time for midday prayers, and Anshari’s team, part of the sharia, or Islamic law, police, hovers over the street vendors to ensure that they shut down during the minutes of religious observation.
“You should cover that,” snaps one officer, pointing to a cart full of mangoes. The merchant quietly obeys.
Later in the afternoon, Anshari’s uniformed squad will fan out to coastal spots and other areas where unmarried or unrelated couples may be trying to steal a moment alone. And they’ll be on the lookout for women wearing tight clothing, or anyone drinking alcohol or gambling — all offenses under sharia that could result in public caning.
About 8:30 a.m. on Dec. 26, 2004, a massive tsunami welled up from the Indian Ocean and struck Aceh province, where Meulaboh is located. More than 230,000 people in Southeast Asia were killed. In this corner of Indonesia, one result has been a stricter adherence to Islamic law.
Some see it as partly a backlash against the influx of foreign aid workers, who helped build roads and hospitals, but also brought with them Western values. At the same time, some of Aceh’s Muslim leaders regarded the disaster itself as punishment for wayward living, and began calling for a greater focus on virtue and piety.
Aceh province is known as the “terrace of Mecca” because it’s thought to be where Islam first spread to Southeast Asia, carried from the northernmost point on the island of Sumatra. Continue reading this article
How many kicks in the head will it take for western nations to learn that Muslim immigration is worst public policy ever?
Today’s example is the terror attack on a Sydney cafe where a couple dozen people were taken hostage by an Iranian, Man Haron Monis, who was accepted as a refugee in Australia in 1996.
Below, a hostage delivers a message from the terrorist that he was attacking Australia in the name of the Islamic State (ISIS):
The guy has a rap sheet filled with violence including dozens of sexual assaults on women through his spiritual ministrations as a sheikh and arranging the murder of his ex-wife. Why was such a violent man allowed to walk the streets?
Below, Sheik Haron apparently likes media attention.
The spin coming out is that Monis is mentally disturbed, and he may well be from a western psychological viewpoint. But Islam encourages violence against infidels, and for that reason is attractive to the criminally minded.
Australians came out Monday in solidarity with the Muslim community following a siege at a Sydney cafe, as tens of thousands tweeted the hashtag #illridewithyou to counter concern about an anti-Islam backlash.
The hostage-taking at the Lindt chocolate cafe triggered a security lockdown in the heart of Australia’s biggest city, with the government and Muslim leaders condemning the attack and calling for unity.
Amid uncertainty about the hostage-taker’s motives and fears of reprisals after an Islamic flag was raised in the cafe, an Australian woman reportedly started the #illridewithyou hashtag to show solidarity with Muslims who might feel threatened on public transport.
The danger to the public would not exist if the government had not allowed thousands of Muslims to reside inside the gates.
Here’s a local report about the jihadist’s background:
But when Obama wants the citizens to lay down and passively accept his unconstitutional executive amnesty, suddenly the American people have a “good heart” toward invasive foreign lawbreakers. Funny how that works.
Actually, the statement was part of a threat to a future president not to rescind Obama’s temporary free stuff and work permits — the moochers will be miffed! It is indeed politically difficult to remove a major freebie.
President Obama insisted Tuesday that his successor won’t take the political risk that would come with reversing his recent executive action on immigration reform.
Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Nashville, the president said it’s “theoretically” possible that the next administration could undo the amnesty Mr. Obama has granted to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, but he assured a supportive crowd that such a step it is extremely unlikely.
“It’s true a future administration might try to reverse some of our policies. But I’ll be honest with you — the American people basically have a good heart and want to treat people fairly and every survey shows that if, in fact, somebody has come out and subjected themselves to a background check, registered, paid their taxes, the American people support allowing them to stay. So any future administration that tried to punish people for doing the right thing, I think, would not have the support of the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s true, theoretically, a future administration could do something that I think would be very damaging. It’s not likely, politically, that they reverse everything we’ve done.”
Last month, the president unveiled long-awaited executive action on immigration reform. He granted de facto amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, freeing them from the threat of deportation and allowing them to legally compete for jobs.
The move sparked a major backlash on Capitol Hill and in states across the country; at least 18 states are suing the president over his steps on immigration.
Some in the West, like Canadian TV host Michael Coren, have voiced disapproval that Muslims residing in free nations do not protest the behavior of the active beheaders in their faith, particularly when Allah’s loyal acolytes routinely complain loudly about the smallest perceived slight from Europeans or Americans.
Following the recent beheading of French mountaineer Herve Gourdel (pictured), some France-residing Muslims apparently showed up with some #NotInOurName sentiments. The Associated Press interpreted the rallies as exhibiting “heartsick fury among Muslims in France.” Who knew?
PARIS — In tweets, in street gatherings and in open letters, moderate Muslims around the world are insisting that Islamic State extremists don’t speak for their religion. Many are also frustrated that anyone might think they do, and a backlash has already begun.
This week’s videotaped beheading of a French mountaineer by militants linked to the Islamic State group prompted heartsick fury among Muslims in France and elsewhere in Europe, torn between anger at the atrocities committed in the name of Islam and frustration that they have to defend themselves at all.
Herve Gourdel was the fifth Western hostage decapitated in recent weeks by Islamic extremists — this time, the militants said, as revenge for France’s decision to join airstrikes against the Islamic State group. [. . .]
If Europe-residing Muslim immigrants are truly “heartsick” about Islam being misrepresented, they are a little late to the parade. TheReligionOfPeace.com website keeps a running total of Allah-inspired deadly attacks since 9/11 — and counts more than 23,920 as of today.
In addition, Muslims are not required by Islam to tell the truth to infidels, so the statements of Muslims must be accorded proper skepticism. Taqiyya — deception — is a well discussed strategy in Islamic scriptures, particularly its use by Mohammad, considered the perfect man who should be emulated.
Also, Muslims complain about mythical “backlash” against their kind, which usually consists of a few unkind words at worst. There are no mobs of Europeans committing mass murder, as ISIS Muslims do in the Middle East.
The idea that Muslims are sad about infidels being slaughtered in the traditional style is also brought into question by the following somewhat sketchy refutation:
As Muslims demonstrated against the “barbarism” of the Islamic State (IS) group outside the main mosque in Paris on Friday, pressure on the Muslim community to denounce Islamist militancy has been described as Islamophobic “madness”.
Friday afternoon’s demonstration follows this week’s murder of French hiker Hervé Gourdel, kidnapped in Algeria by the militant group calling themselves Jund al-Khalifa, which claims links to the IS group.
Many Muslims in France reacted spontaneously to express their disgust at the brutal killing. Online, the Twitter hashtag #NotInMyName – started by British Muslims to denounce the actions of the IS group – was taken up in France (#PasEnMonNom).
But despite the widespread anguish in France’s large Muslim community – the country’s Muslim population is estimated at upwards of five million, many of them of Algerian descent – expectations in some quarters that they should collectively criticise the extremists have caused a backlash. Continue reading this article
Remember, this is the “Religion of Peace” and if you don’t agree then you’re a filthy racist Islamophobe.
Here’s Robert Spencer explaining the Australian situation, that ISIS is there and intended to act. (Too bad he couldn’t mention how so many Muslims [half a million] got there, namely through the immigration door.)
Another aspect of Muslim hostility, as Spencer notes, were the protests — not against the brutal planned attacks — but against the police raids arresting the terrorists.
Over 200 people in western Sydney attended a protest about the pre-dawn counter-terrorism raids that occurred across the country.
Rally organisers took to Facebook to encourage people to join them at a rally at Lakemba station to oppose the treatment of the Muslim community in what have been touted as the largest ever counter-terrorism raids in Australian history. [. . .]
Below, Sydney Muslims protest against the police for breaking up a terror plot.
And not to forget Backlash… No Australian has burned down a mosque or lynched a Muslim, but unfounded fears of a backlash from citizens are propagandized by Islamics into a kind of intimidation.
DURING prayers at Lakemba Mosque, the tension has been palpable.
There, and in Auburn, in Bankstown, in Liverpool, and in Greenacre, the situation is the same; Sydney’s Muslims are anxious.
They’re shocked by the allegations levelled against one of their own. They’re bracing for a backlash against innocent families. And they’re worried wider Australia will convict all Muslims of guilt by association.
“There is a palpable tension that permeates the environment,” Muslim leader Dr Jamal Rifi said. [. . . ]
Is there a more self-absorbed tribe on earth than Muslims? Their co-religionists were planning to behead an innocent Australian to make a crude statement to advance jihad, but they are concerned only about how the disrupted terrorism will affect them. Muslims residing in Australia want all the benefits of a free society with none of the responsibility.
It’s unfortunate that spying is necessary in a free country, but when the government admits enemies in the name of immigration diversity then snooping is needed to keep the public safe.
And why not chill on counter-terrorism, New York voters may have thought during the election. After all, bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was defeated, according to Obama. It would be safe to have a far-left peacenik mayor, right? What could possibly go wrong?
Jihadis must be amazed at their luck: Obama has opened up America’s southern border so even little kids can break in and Mayor De Blasio has substantially dismantled New York City’s crack counter-terrorism system.
Now Baghdadi has an enthusiastic army of headchoppers armed with American military equipment, plus a bank balance of a couple billion dollars with an oil field income of $2 million per day. He’s got motivation, resources and a target, making ISIS a serious threat to America in general and New York City in particular.
Now former member of the 9/11 Commission John Lehman says de Blasio is “taking his eye off the ball” at the worst time — which is a kind assessment because it assumes the mayor’s eye was once on the ball of protecting the city.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concurred that disbanding the existing effective counter-terrorism program is bad policy, noting “I think we’re all less safe.”
Both Lehman and Mukasey agreed that De Blasio’s subversion of the federal Real ID system (recommended by the 9/11 Commission) to a lower-scrutiny city ID program for illegal aliens was dangerous.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is coming under sharp criticism for making decisions that may have undermined the effectiveness of his police department’s counter-terrorism operations.
Thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan, prominent security experts say de Blasio has made fighting terrorism a lower priority in order to appease the communities that helped elect him.
“A classic case of taking your eye off the ball at the worst possible time is Mayor de Blasio in New York,” said John Lehman, a former member of the 9/11 Commission.
He said de Blasio is failing to take seriously enough the new threat posed to New York and other major American cities by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has reportedly trained dozens of American jihadists.
“At the very time when the threat suddenly emerges in a whole new additional form focused on the U.S., he decides to end some of the most effective programs in the country in the NYPD counterterrorism unit,” Lehman said.
“He has reassigned people and vehicles and special equipment to non-counterterrorist activities,” he added.
The liberal Democratic mayor has come under fire for several controversial decisions since succeeding Michael Bloomberg, who created a massive counterterrorism unit during his three terms as mayor.
In April, de Blasio disbanded a special unit tasked with conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslim groups suspected of radical ties.
Michael Mukasey, who served as U.S. attorney general from 2007 to 2009, said the unit was instrumental in mapping out possible terrorist ties within Muslim communities.
“They weren’t simply conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslims. They were mapping communities, figuring out where someone from Lebanon or Yemen or any of the other hot spots would go if they wanted to come to this country and find refuge,” he said. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.