Warning: Constant WPCF7_VALIDATE_CONFIGURATION already defined in /home2/ltg37jq5/public_html/wp-config.php on line 92 Search Results tsarnaev « Limits to Growth
CBS reported on the increased security measures for Sunday’s New York City Marathon, a top running event for elite athletes that features a memorable route through all five boroughs. The city will add more blocking vehicles, more snipers and additional police officers to guard the runners from New York’s famous diversity — although it must be noted that the Uzbek killer lived across the river in New Jersey.
But back to the cost of protecting citizens from diversity, remember that the more muslims, the more expensive public safety becomes. The 2012 London Olympics cost $2 billion for security, a stunning amount even though the events lasted two weeks and were spread around various venues. In 2016, former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis remarked that security costs for his city’s famous marathon quadrupled since the murderous jihad attack in 2013, but he didn’t give a dollar amount.
Before muslim immigration, Americans didn’t face time-consuming screening for airline flights and didn’t have to pay the bill for anti-terrorist security for a footrace. It’s not like the United States needs any immigrants given the automated future; we certainly should stop admitting an enemy tribe that is murdering our fellow citizens.
A little-examined sub-genre of the immigrant Sob Story is the Fear Story where diverse foreigners claim to be anxious about violence against them based on Americans’ alleged racism or Islamophobia etc. But no violence has occurred.
Is it actually News when nothing happens but there is a ginned-up fear that it might? The liberal media apparently believes so.
The Washington Post promoted the idea of immigrant fear of Americans on its Dec. 27 front page where Muslims residing in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, say they “hold their breath” about attacks from crazed Americans following President Trump’s inauguration.
Funny how the lefty scribblers never recognize the worst hate violence — the anti-infidel mass murders by muslims in Orlando, San Bernardino and elsewhere. And if those attacks were to cease, then perhaps Americans would not be so concerned about possible jihadists being dumped in their communities.
Below, the 2013 Boston Marathon was bombed by the two jihadist Tsarnaev brothers and resulted in three deaths and many maimed persons. This attack and many others have created American suspicion of Islam, but the media will not allowed it to be spoken.
Or maybe Americans are just so darn mean that we don’t deserve angelic muslims living among us. The government in that case should end muslim immigration to protect the peaceful followers of allah. Right, that’s the ticket.
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. — It was here, in this midsize college town in the dead center of Tennessee, that a right-wing effort to ban Islamic law found one of its first sponsors. Here, too, a congressman co-sponsored a plan to “defund Muslim ‘refugees’ ” and local residents sued to block construction of the only mosque, a fight that ended at the Supreme Court.
The town’s Muslims carried on through all of that, raising their children, saying their prayers, teaching at college, filling people’s prescriptions and filling their tanks, contributing to the civic life in a city of 126,000. They felt the familiar grief and fear of reprisal last year when a Muslim man killed four Marines in Chattanooga, 90 minutes away.
Now Donald Trump — a man who has repeatedly cast doubt on the patriotism of Muslims — is the president-elect, and he has selected a national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has called Islam a “cancer.” And a deep unease has again seeped into the daily life of many here in this Muslim community of about 1,500.
There has been a smattering of post-election harassment and insults — at schools, in parking lots, on the road — but nothing to take to the police or put Murfreesboro back in the national headlines.
“Right now, we’re hoping that it’s going to be calm,” said Saleh Sbenaty, an engineering professor at Middle Tennessee State University and one of the founders of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. “But we don’t know if it’s the calm before the storm or the calm after the storm.” Continue reading this article
See also the special 2010 issue of The Social Contract featuring articles which illuminate the true nature of the predatory SPLC organization.
Now the faux-hate-peddling money-grubbers at the SPLC are back, this time bashing scholars and activists who have warned America of the national security threat posed by violent jihadist Muslims. The SPLC follows Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, particularly his principle to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The cheap-shot smears against individuals are straight from the Alinsky playbook.
Earlier this week, the SPLC published a new screed, Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Its list of 15 subjects was rather distinguished, and Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch characterized her inclusion as A Great Honor!
Another chosen one, Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, was less thrilled, writing on his Facebook page, “The non-Muslim led Southern Poverty Law Center placing a jihadi target on my head by listing me (a reforming liberal Muslim) as an ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ on their hit list published today.”
Good work, SPLC, you may get a real scalp from the latest targeting! Sensitive jihadists are easily offended and may murder to protect the strict interpretation of Islam.
The other 13 are: Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, John Guandolo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, Ryan Mauro, Robert Muise, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat, and Robert Spencer. These are heroic people who are trying to save America from a determined enemy of 1400 years who want to establish a world Islamic caliphate ruled by totalitarian misogynous sharia. But the SPLC wants to shut them up and thereby endanger America for the organization’s selfish purposes.
The last on the list, Robert Spencer, wrote a response to the SPLC calumny:
The objective of this libelous new report from the hard-Left money-making and incitement machine the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is made plain within it: “Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists— and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.”
They wish to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.
The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes,” who can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about.
In constructing this illusory edifice, the SPLC labels me and fourteen others “anti-Muslim extremists.” We are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German, but note the word “extremists.” That’s the mainstream media and Obama administration’s term of choice for jihad terrorists. In what way are we “extremists”? Has anyone on the SPLC’s hit list (and given the SPLC’s track record of inciting violence against its targets, that is exactly what it is) ever blown anything or anyone up? Beheaded anyone? Boasted of our imminent conquest of any territory and the massacre of or enslavement of its people? No, all we have done is speak critically about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The SPLC is trying to further the libel that we are the other side of the coin, the non-Muslim bin Ladens and Awlakis. Until we commit any terror attacks or conspire with others to do so, however, the SPLC’s libel is only that: a libel. Continue reading this article
This year’s Oktoberfest is the 183rd Munich beer festival, and Germany’s new Muslim diversity requires more security precautions than earlier occasions. Sadly, Munich reports fewer reservations and some locals say they won’t go. Hostile Islam and German beer drinkers pose a rather large culture clash.
Who can blame them? The threat of jihad attacks can really take the fun out of big events that are supposed to be celebrations of freedom. France has cancelled a number of public gatherings because of the fear of muslims mass murdering, so the Germans are at least going forward, although with far more police attention.
Earlier Oktoberfests were celebrations of beer and freedom.
Now, not so much.
DW covered the increased security including the financial costs. The estimated 3.6 million euros for security guards works out to $4,016,880, plus there are other costs as well.
Not giving in to terror, but taking it into account is what the organizers of Munich’s Oktoberfest are trying to accomplish by implementing more security checks, fences and a ban on backpacks.
Despite their reassurances that the festivities will not be affected, the Oktoberfest will be very different this year. Hotels say bookings have declined, Oktoberfest table reservations are being cancelled, clubs are pulling out of taking part in the Oktoberfest procession and invited celebrities are backing off: the fear of terror attacks has taken hold of Munich’s Oktoberfest.
More security checks for festival visitors
Because of security concerns, large bags and backpacks will be banned for the fist time. A mobile fence will close off an area of the festival grounds, which until this year had been open and there will be security checks at all entrances.
Organizers are reacting with these measures to a series of attacks during July in Bavaria: a teenager killed nine people in a shooting rampage in Munich and two attacks were claimed by the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) terrorist group – a bungled suicide bombing in Ansbach which injured 15 people and an axe attack on a train in Würzburg, in which five people were injured.
“Security is our highest priority,” said Josef Schmid, Munich’s deputy mayor and managing director of the Oktoberfest. He added that Munich would not allow anything to “put a dampener on their festival”. Continue reading this article
In his usual polite and scholarly way, Senator Sessions has laid out the case to condemn the President’s reckless (at best!) importation of unscreenable foreigners from the millennial enemy of western freedom — Islam. As the Senator notes, “Good public policy puts the safety and security of this country first,” and welcoming unknowable Syrian Muslims into our neighborhoods fundamentally violates that principal.
What could possibly go wrong with Obama’s scheme?
Preventable terror, suffering and death, for starters — as is happening now in Europe’s summer of terror, following Chancellor Merkel’s insane flinging open the continent’s borders and subsequent jihad invasion.
We should learn from Europe’s terrible immigration catastrophe, not ignore it.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest, issued the following statement today about the Obama Administration’s refugee policies, its temporary amnesty for Syrians in the United States, and dangers posed by admitting large numbers of refugees to the United States:
“Despite a clear nexus between immigration and terrorism, and warnings from top officials in his own Administration about their inability to properly vet refugees, President Obama remains in denial about the dangers that his policies pose to the United States. Instead of taking a sober assessment of the dangers that we face, and analyzing the immigration histories of recent terrorists so that we can more effectively safeguard our immigration system from being infiltrated, the Obama Administration leads the United States down a dangerous path – admitting as many refugees as possible from areas of the world where terrorists roam freely, and granting a temporary amnesty to Syrians living in the United States illegally. And contrary to the assertions made by many, the potential for future terror activity is real.
Our primary effort, and that of our allies, should be to provide support to those who are displaced as close to their homes as possible, and work to return them home as soon as possible. Of course, our foreign policy should always seek to avoid situations where such violence and chaos occur. But instead of pursuing these policies, the Obama Administration continues with its radical plans.
The 10,000 Syrian refugees his Administration will admit this Fiscal Year represent a nearly 500 percent increase over the roughly 1,600 Syrian refugees who were admitted last year. This radical increase places the safety and security of the American people at risk, there will surely be consequences.
Since September 11, 2001, we know that at least 40 individuals who were admitted to the United States as refugees have been convicted for, or implicated in, terrorism or terrorism-related offenses – and the total is likely much higher. Some were admitted as adults, others as children, but these cases refute the false assertion that those admitted to the United States as refugees never engage in terrorism. But because these facts do not fit within his worldview, President Obama rejects them. And in so doing, he rejects his sacred oath for what he perceives as political gain.
Plainly, there is no way to properly vet these refugees. Our intelligence databases are only as good as the information that goes into them – meaning that the absence of derogatory information in our systems about an individual does not mean that admitting that individual carries no risk. Nor do we have an effective method to screen refugees for the possibility of potential post-entry radicalization.
Good public policy puts the safety and security of this country first. There is no doubt that this continuous, dramatic increase in refugees from areas of the world where terrorists roam freely will endanger this nation. We must change course.”
On Monday morning, former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis committed a gaffe (i.e. the Kinsley definition meaning a politician telling the truth).
Asked by Maria Bartiromo about the Boston Marathon, Davis responded, “There’s been a significant increase in spending on security here; the costs have quadrupled over what it was in 2013.”
But he didn’t mention the dollar amount, and the host of the financial news show didn’t ask. So the remark was, strictly speaking, only a semi-gaffe.
Clearly the cost is known for the marathon, as the commissioner let slip, but authorities don’t want the little citizens to know how steep the price tag really is for diverse immigration.
April 15 is the third anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, and the area is getting ready for this year’s run, which takes place on Monday (Patriots’ Day, the third Monday in April). Given the terrible attacks of 2013, anti-jihad precautions are now a big part of the world’s oldest annual marathon.
One precaution being taken for this year’s Boston race has been low-flying helicopter sweeps to detect any unusual levels of radiation which could indicate a dirty bomb. Interestingly, the same sort of chopper checks were flown for the Super Bowl last winter also.
BOSTON — As the city prepares for its third Boston Marathon since two homemade bombs exploded at the 2013 race, security is being stepped up on the ground and in the air.
The federal government’s radiation-detecting helicopter flew over the Boston Marathon route on Wednesday, CBS Boston station WBZ reported.
“Just as a precautionary measure, it doesn’t mean that anybody expects that something will happen,” Mark Parsons of the National Nuclear Security Administration told WBZ. Continue reading this article
Sunday’s New York Times had a cautionary tale, but perhaps not the one it intended. Silicon Valley executive Sal Shafi worried that his 22-year-old son Adam (pictured) had turned to jihad and contacted the FBI with his concerns. The young man was arrested and in December he was indicted by a federal grand jury, accused of providing material support to the al-Nusrah Front in Syria.
The Times piece focuses on the father’s anguish about ratting out his kid and landing him in jail. Shafi wished for a middle ground between doing nothing and putting the kid in the slammer, and sought to develop an intervention approach that could be used. That didn’t work out, and Shafi ended up feeling wronged by the government, warning parents with a similar problem, “Don’t even think about going to the government.”
In fact, Sal Shafi seems like an outstanding father, taking all the steps for his son that a born-here American would do. And there’s the rub: among Muslim immigrant children, the normal separation process from the parents can sometimes take the form of jihad. The immigrant parents are busy getting settled among strangers in a new culture, while born-here kids or immigrants who arrived young have different issues.
The kids may feel not quite American, depending on the home life, and tend to hang out with other young people of the same demographic, hence the common formation of gangs among second-generation youth.
The problem of young Muslims turning jihad is common: thousands have left Europe to fight in the Middle East, rejecting the freedoms that westerners treasure. The Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, had plenty of opportunities handed to them, but preferred to kill for allah. Dozens of young Somalis have left Minnesota for their ancestral home for jihad.
Mass-murdering jihad cannot be screened out by careful investigation of new immigrants — such as the Syrian refugees Obama is rushing to admit — because it can reappear in later generations. Muslim immigration is a bad idea, period.
FREMONT, Calif. — The banging on the door jolted Sal Shafi awake.F.B.I. agents were looking for his son. “Where’s Adam?” they yelled. “Where’s Adam?”
Terrified, Mr. Shafi led the agents, guns drawn, up the stairs toward his son’s bedroom. He watched as they led his 22-year-old son away in handcuffs, backed by evidence of Adam Shafi’s terrorist ambitions.
He had come to the attention of officials not by a well-placed informant or a sting operation. His father, concerned and looking for help, had simply picked up the phone and led the government right to his son. For months, over the objections of his lawyer, Mr. Shafi had been talking to the F.B.I., believing he was doing the right thing.
“My God,” he thought, soon after the arrest in July. “I just destroyed Adam.”
Had things been different, Mr. Shafi, 62, a Silicon Valley executive, might have become a much-needed spokesman for the Obama administration’s counterradicalization campaign. Who better to talk to other parents about the seductive pull of terror organizations? Trust the government, he would tell them. They do not want to take away your children. Continue reading this article
Major sporting events are a huge magnet for jihad terror attacks, as demonstrated by the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon by the refugee Tsarnaev brothers that killed three and injured hundreds. It has become very expensive to continue diverse immigration policies in a time of Islamic mass murder: for example, Britain spent $2 billion on security and turned London into an armed camp to stage the 2012 Olympics safely.
Part of the multi-prong jihad attacks on Paris last November included an attempted bombing at a soccer game attended by President Hollande. Had the suicide bomber not been stopped from entering the stadium by a thorough security guard patting him down, the death toll would likely have been even higher than 130.
So authorities know that jihadists are still interested in big sports as targets for mass murdering infidels.
A noticeably increased police presence has been seen in San Francisco and Santa Clara.
For Sunday’s big game, the city of San Francisco is spending around $5 million for various security items around the temporary football amusement park and events — the actual game is being played 45 miles away in Santa Clara. But the city costs are likely dwarfed by the federal presence of dozens of agencies. The FBI opened a command center near the stadium with about 20 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. It’s nice to know that the danger is taken seriously, although we probably will never learn the total dollar cost, which would be very high and make citizens wonder about how we got here.
Nobody in the media mentions that none of this policing and expense were necessary before the government invited historic enemies inside the gates via stupid immigration policies.
While players, coaches and fans of the Denver Broncos and the Carolina Panthers didn’t know for sure until just last week that they’d be in Santa Clara, California, for Sunday’s Super Bowl, thousands of other people have known they’d be there for three years — the security personnel who’ll be blanketing not just Levi’s Stadium but also the entire San Francisco Bay Area.
For more than a decade, the Super Bowl has been classified as a Level 1 national security event — meaning it’s considered a credible target for terrorists. That’s why the National Football League says it’s hired more than 4,000 private security professionals to bolster the thousands of federal, state and local officers already swarming the area.
A Joint Special Event Threat Assessment this week from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security said there was no information to indicate a specific threat to Super Bowl 50 or its surrounding events.
But San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr told NBC News that “the events that happened in San Bernardino and in Paris” illustrate how quickly threats have been escalating “in an uncertain world.” Continue reading this article
Last week the Senate Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on temporary visas for vacations and such being abused when users never go home. It’s a great scheme for lawbreakers, since the administration makes no effort to deport them. Senator Sessions has published a summary of the hearing’s findings, posted below.
Isn’t an airplane ticket to Dallas less expensive than hiring a criminal coyote who might leave clients to die in the border desert? Are the stories of visa overstays not reported in Mexico to protect the incomes of people smugglers? It’s odd that millions more don’t invade this way.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, released the following summary of Subcommittee findings from last week’s hearing on the visa overstay crisis and the Administration’s open-borders policy of not deporting temporary visitors and workers who illegally remain in the country:
The overstay report issued last week – which only addressed temporary nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure for one fiscal year – revealed that 527,127 of these individuals overstayed their visas or periods of unauthorized stay in FY 2015. At the end of the fiscal year, 482,781 of these individuals were still in the United States, including 219 individuals from Afghanistan, 564 from Iran, 681 from Iraq, 56 from Libya, 1,435 from Pakistan, 440 from Syria, and 219 from Yemen. And the report contained similar numbers from FY 2014.
Below, Pakistani immigrant Tashfeen Malik (circled) reached her Jihad Dream of mass murdering Americans by marrying a born-here Muslim man.
I read a couple of articles about the fiancee visa since that was the immigration route taken by Malik to reach the jackpot of infidel targets — America. But none of the MSM news reports were as informative as the discussion with former INS senior special agent Mike Cutler.
Apparently arranged marriages, where the couple has never met, are totally acceptable to the US government and don’t suggest fraud or slavery, which are frequent motivations for the practice. What could possibly go wrong with so little screening? It invites abuse and worse, as we have recently seen.
Islam has been at war with everyone else for 1400 years, and this country should wake up and smell the gunpowder. Admitting historic enemies inside the gates is insanely dangerous. America didn’t have Nazi visas during WWII.
TUCKER CARLSON: Details are emerging this morning about the female shooter the San Bernardino massacre that killed 14 people. Tashfeen Malik had been living in Pakistan and visiting family in Saudi Arabia where she grew up, but she passed several background checks and entered the United States on July of 2014 on a K-1 visa, a so-called fiancee visa, that visa allowed her to travel here and get married within 90 days of arriving. So how could she have made it into the country with hardly any vetting? Here to weigh in is retired senior specialist from INS Michael Cutler. Thanks for joining us.
MICHAEL CUTLER: Thank you so much for having me.
CARLSON: It turns out we knew very little about this woman before letting her in. Did we try to learn more?
CUTLER: Well, we try but you know we keep hearing about the vetting process for refugees. In most cases, many of our visa programs have no vetting process. If you look at the K-1 program it has the highest approval rate or one of the highest approval rates because how do you screen this? This isn’t like marriage fraud. I did marriage fraud investigations and we’ve seen what terrorists have used marriage fraud and visa fraud — the 9/11 Commission talked about that by the way. But here you are talking about somebody going to immigration saying, I’m about to marry this person, I’ve never met them. Now they’re supposed to have met them within two years but if going to their countries so far away would impose a hardship or if their religious beliefs don’t require a face-to-face meeting you could bring someone in literally sight unseen. How do you make certain that this is legitimate? Continue reading this article
From the top row left: Robert Adams, Isaac Amanios, Bennetta Betbadal, Harry Bowman and Sierra Clayborn. Second row from left: Juan Espinoza, Aurora Godoy, Shannon Johnson, Larry Daniel Kaufman and Damian Meins. Bottom row from left: Tin Nguyen, Nicholas Thalasinos, Yvette Velasco and Michael Wetzel.
Fox News’ early morning show invited Senator Ted Cruz to discuss the San Bernardino jihad attack, and Cruz piped up with common sense conservative responses.
However…
Note how Cruz was listing Obama failures to prevent earlier attacks in Boston and Fort Hood — true enough! — but Tucker Carlson moved the conversation to where it should be, namely keeping out the bad guys in the first place through immigration enforcement. It’s unreasonable to expect local and federal agencies to keep track of an ever-growing population of Muslims that includes many hostiles. Real terror prevention consists of blocking immigration for the political tribe that worships jihad (the murder of non-Muslims): don’t invite the enemy inside the gates. How hard is that?
By comparison, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt didn’t protect enemies during WWII; as Commander in Chief, he killed them. He ordered the production of the atomic bomb, although he didn’t live to order dropping it. When German saboteurs slipped into America, FDR ordered a military tribunal to try them quickly and get to the execution. He didn’t worry about German feelings being hurt. There were no Nazi visas. The biggest knock against Roosevelt’s war leadership was his interning the Japanese — supposedly going too far in the protection of Americans.
President Obama shames the memories of patriotic Democrat war leaders Roosevelt and Truman. Even Democrats find the current administration perfidious. In early November, Pat Caddell, President Carter’s pollster, said Obama is “pro Muslim Brotherhood.” You can watch the Fox News video Political Insiders: Part 3, What are we doing in Syria?, where at around 2:00, Caddell says, “The president first of all will still screw Israel over before he leaves the UN. He hates, he really is anti Israel and pro Muslim Brotherhood.”
Such is the government we now have in Washington.
TUCKER CARLSON: Fears about terror in this country are now the primary concern of voters in this presidential election after the San Bernardino shooting was classified as terrorism by the FBI. So how would a Ted Cruz presidency be different from the one were living under now? On this question, let’s ask him. Joining us live from Iowa is 2016 presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Senator, great to see you this morning. So what do you make of the president and the New York Times and other organs that share that ideology pushing for gun control without explaining specifically how gun control would have prevented an attack like the one we just saw? What’s the real agenda? 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.
Sunday’s New York Times had a cautionary tale, but perhaps not the one it intended. Silicon Valley executive Sal Shafi worried that his 22-year-old son Adam (pictured) had turned to jihad and contacted the FBI with his concerns. The young man was arrested and in December he was 
