December 13, 2015

"U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media."

The NYT reports.
Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.
But does the NYT expect us to believe that U.S. immigration officials can perform the kind of fine-grained analysis that is a necessary premise for hating Donald Trump's crude proposal to exclude all Muslims?
The discovery of the old social media posts has exposed a significant — and perhaps inevitable — shortcoming in how foreigners are screened when they enter the United States, particularly as people everywhere disclose more about themselves online. Tens of millions of people are cleared each year to come to this country to work, visit or live. It is impossible to conduct an exhaustive investigation and scour the social media accounts of each of them, law enforcement officials say.
Inevitable... impossible... so they say, as they excuse their lapses.
Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings.... Ms. Malik also had two in-person interviews.... All those reviews came back clear, and the F.B.I. has said it had no incriminating information about Ms. Malik or Mr. Farook in its databases. The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security have said they followed all policies and procedures....

Meanwhile, a debate is underway at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services...  over whether officers conducting interviews should be allowed to routinely use material gathered from social media....

[T]he vetting for refugees is a separate, longer and more rigorous process than the checks for K-1 and most other immigrant visas. And there is an extra layer of scrutiny for Syrians, who are referred to a national security and fraud office at the Department of Homeland Security for a final look. In that last step, officers can include a social media search, federal officials said.
Can.... But do they? So, there's "an extra layer of scrutiny" for the Syrian refugees, but
Social media comments, by themselves, however, are not always definitive evidence. In Pakistan — as in the United States — there is no shortage of crass and inflammatory language. And it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States....
Interesting last sentence. Is the NYT suggesting that we should discriminate against the true "Islamists" but not those who are "driven by political hostility toward the United States"? Does that mean that those who hate the United States should be kept out only if their hatred is premised on religion? How is the NYT using the word "Islamist" these days? Does it — standing alone and unmodified — include a terrorist agenda? Elsewhere, I see the word given definitions as mild as someone with "the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life." Searching the term in the NYT archive, I'm seeing a recent convention of duly appending a modifier — "radical Islamist," "Islamist extremist," "Islamist militants" — to avoid generally impugning Muslims whose religion pervades their social and political beliefs.

ADDED: I'm trying to understand where the NYT is right now. It think it's moving.

79 comments:

alan markus said...

I suppose we should take comfort that "all procedures and policies" were followed.

Hagar said...

Tashfeen Malik bouncing back and forth between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have been viewed with suspicion in both of those places and she would have been known.

Tank said...

Transformation.

Invasion.

Failure to disqualify is a feature, not a bug.

The Zero is winning.

jr565 said...

They can't find this. And yet they think we can vet two hundred thousand syrians. What drugs are they smoking?

The Drill SGT said...

Colonists not immigrants...

Being allowed into this country is not protected by the Constitution. The SCOTUS has made clear that both Congress and the POTUS can take actions on immigration that are not subject to SCOTUS second guessing.

IMHO, any and all sources are relevant and should be used.

When the security investigators do my reviews they sure don't ignore facts based on the source.

jr565 said...

"But does the NYT expect us to believe that U.S. immigration officials can perform the kind of fine-grained analysis that is a necessary premise for hating Donald Trump's crude proposal to exclude all Muslims?"

Yes, good point. If you wanted to spot this you had to have govt monitoring chats, Facebook and emails. What has the left and many libertarians been saying about the NSA program for example?
This will naturally fall through the cracks, because the monitoring required to find it wouldn't be done. And if you don't do the monitoring it leads to even more extreme calls to deny access to muslims, because people demand to know why we aren't doing anything. and denying muslims complete access would address the issue.
It's not a solution, but it is a way to address the problem that sounds like we are doing something.

Otherwise, lets just accept that we'll have terrorism and if its your family, just bear the costs with your life. And don't complain about it. At least the govt didn't monitor your emails.

Paco Wové said...

"...it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States..."

And we should make that distinction because....?

n said...

Change "it" to "I" in final sentence?

John Henry said...

Trump's position on keeping Muslims out may be just an opening bargaining position. After everyone has had their rant against it they start thinking "hmmm... Maybe not such a bad idea after all." Larry Kudlow and Piers Morgan seem to be coming around to Trump's idea.

But we don't need to ban Muslims. How about we ban anyone who doesn't support our Constitution and way of life? We can ask questions like:

Do you support absolute, American style, freedom of speech?

Do you support Absolute, American style freedom of/from religion?

Do you support religious based law? (Like Sharia but no need to use the word)

Do you support women's rights?

And so on. If they do not answer in a way that is compatible with American norms, or if we don't believe their answers, sorry, you can't come in.

We would not even need any new laws, I don't think. The McCarren-Walker Act of 1950 is still in effect and requires just these types of questions to keep anyone not in harmony with the American way out.

All we need is enforcement. No law, not even an executive order.

John Henry

Laslo Spatula said...

"Amir, my Jihadi Social network has been discovered!"

"Damn the American Government!"

"It actually was not the American Government, Farook: they are clueless, as usual. It was the Delivery Guy from Domino's."

"How did this happen?"

"He stumbled across one of our LOL ISIS Cat photos, followed the trail through "Jihadi Babes Nude", and then ended up at my "Die Americans Die" website."

"Surely we cannot order from Domino's again!"

"And for this to happen now, after Domino's has added delicious Sandwiches and Chicken Wings to their menu..."

"Do you think the Pizza Hut is still safe?"

"Farook, I do not think we are safe to trust ANY Pizza Delivery Guy from this point."

"How could this be? We must now fear the Pizza Delivery Guys more than the American Government?"

"I think we need to stick to the Shawarma Delivery Guy."

"Yes, he is all right: he Friended us on Jihadi Facebook...

I am Laslo.

John Henry said...

Re McCarrren I didn't know much about him except that his anti-communism made McCarthy and HUAC look pretty tame by comparison, that he was a Dem and that the McCarren Act was a terrible, terrible thing.

Also that Harry Reid has publicly suggested that McCarren Airport in Las Vegas be renamed.

I started reading Matthew Ybarra's bio of him the other day. I am up to about 1938. He has just won his second term. He is just starting his "Communist witch hunt" and there are plenty of legit targets.

So far a great book. Buy it through Ann's portal.

"Washington Gone Crazy: Senator Pat McCarran and the Great American Communist Hunt"

John Henry

Sebastian said...

"I'm trying to understand where the NYT is right now. It think it's moving."

Well, nice of you and nice of them. In the meantime, actual immigration policy is no more than absurdist theater. You can't keep out anti-Americans when anti-Americans are in charge. And of course at the actual border there is no "policy" -- unaccompanied minors walk right in, then"have to" be fed and settled and . . . And of course O wants to suspend deportation altogether. Because Dreamers.

MAJMike said...

The "robust vetting process" is conducted by low-level bureaucrats who graduated from LibCong universities infected with the corrupt Ivy League groupthink. Their over-developed sympathies for "Third World victims" of U.S. imperialism cause them to approve applications with a wink and a nod. Within the Department of State, career advancement would not go to those who reject the politically correct protected species of the LibCong's favorite religion.

Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

traditionalguy said...

Understanding the nature of the beast is FORBIDDEN!

The Beast is that the spirit in Muslim worship is a proclamation of a total dominance over all other disbelieving humans. That is followed at opportune times with orders to kill them and steal their land for the honor of the Mohammedan band at the mosque's self image as the guaranteed winners.

The Christian USA's crime in their eyes is being the winners. And there you have the essence of why Obama is Muslim.

Michael K said...

The Immigration Service cannot even keep track of visa abusers, such as those who overstay and disappear. Here is an excerpt from the Wiki bio of the LAX shooter in 2002.

In Egypt he was arrested for being a member of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an Islamist group. He denied the accusation to U.S. immigration authorities. He said that he was a member of Assad Eben Furat Mosque Association, a group that aimed to "understand truly and apply Islamic law in the 20th century under any circumstances." Despite these Islamist commitments, he was given permission to live in the U.S. while his asylum application was pending. His asylum request was denied in 1995 but a letter notifying him was returned by the Post Office as undeliverable and no further efforts appear to have been made to locate and deport him.

Hadayet had a green card which allowed him to work as a limousine driver.
He was married, and had at least one child. At the time of the shooting, Hadayet was living in Irvine, California.


He became a "sudden jihad" case like the San Berdoo couple. Nothing has changed in 13 years.

damikesc said...

Are they on the side of unfettered immigration?

Darrell said...

Ins’Allah.

Drago said...

Just recently the lefties posited that disbelief in our govts ability to fully investigate refugees was simply another symptom of racism.

Now, undoubtedly, the unwillingness to happily accept that there will be inevitable govt failure in the investigation of refugees while still accepting obambis policy will also be labeled racism.

Unexpectedly.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I'm trying to understand where (the NYT is right) now

Nowhere.

But parsing the sentence the other way, I would guess they are wherever they think they need to be to hurt Republicans the most. In other words, the same place they always are.

William said...

Nothing to see here. Move along ...

Expat(ish) said...

Amusingly there are automated marketing tools for unsophisticated users that are designed *exactly* to tell you the answer to the questions that need to be asked.

Does "Fred Smith" talk about dogs on his facebook page? If so, send him dog ads.

Are the sentiments positive? If so, puppy ads. If not, then HEPA filter ads.

I'm sure that if Obama could get the gun grabbing powers he'd like then those would be turned on us immediately to discover who is likely to cause trouble.

In fact, there is a decacorn startup, Palantir, that just raised +$500M on a $20B pre that does exactly this sort of data mining for the government (among others).

-XC

madAsHell said...

I'm 90% certain that I lost a job offer, when the HR person viewed a photo my daughter had posted. The photo showed me at the rifle range firing an "assault rifle".....chambered in .22LR.

It's an invasion, and the government has blown the doors open.

Anonymous said...

....passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

Understandable. Probably easy to overlook when you're focused on higher-priority red flags, like lack of enthusiasm for gay marriage.

Ms. Malik also had two in-person interviews.... All those reviews came back clear...

Same there.

[T]he vetting for refugees is a separate, longer and more rigorous process than the checks for K-1 and most other immigrant visas. And there is an extra layer of scrutiny for Syrians, who are referred to a national security and fraud office at the Department of Homeland Security for a final look.

Anybody buying that any of the above filtering is consistently "rigorous"?

Quaestor said...

And it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States....

Only someone with a sophomoric grasp of Islam could write such a sentence.

Mike Sylwester said...

Maybe she expressed her zealotry on MySpace.

John Henry said...

In fact, there is a decacorn startup, Palantir, that just raised +$500M on a $20B pre that does exactly this sort of data mining for the government (among others).

Hardly a startup. Been around since 2004. Rumored to be funded by the CIA.

John Henry

mccullough said...

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are both Sharia law countries.

Let's just block all non diplomatic travel from those countries

Mick said...

And the TSA also misses 95% of dangerous items in tests of airport screening. Yet we are supposedly being "protected". The government does not do anything right or efficiently, and have created the boogyman ISIS (and AQ) for the sole purpose of imposing the police state. They can leave my 4th Amendment rights alone.

Pettifogger said...

"Is the NYT suggesting that we should discriminate against the true 'Islamists' but not those who are 'driven by political hostility toward the United States'?"

Of course they are because that describes NYT writers themselves.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Is the NYT suggesting that we should discriminate against the true "Islamists" but not those who are "driven by political hostility toward the United States"?

Hopefully not. At least, not if this guy wasn't able to do it.

Michael said...

I would wager that most of this "work" is undertaken by the exact kind of person who toils so effectively in the DMV. Maybe someone slightly upgraded from TSA

Sal said...

Does "Fred Smith" talk about dogs on his facebook page? If so, send him dog ads.

The federal government's version will cost 10x as much, take 10x longer to develop, and work 1/10th as well. Then the program will be canceled.

Lyle Smith said...

It's only 14 years after 9/11; the New York Times is slowly, but surely learning. All Islamists are Muslim. Not all Muslims are Islamists. The three leading middle eastern countries are Islamist controlled countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey. There are variations of jackassery (violence and thuggery) among Islamists. We could say there are varying shades, from an autocratic thug like Erdogan, to the Muslim Brotherhood, and then on to the Islamic State folks. I like to think of Islamists as we think of white supremacists. Some are non-violent and merely political, others are much worse.




Sam L. said...

I say, if the NYT is moving, it's hunkering down.

Alex said...

I wonder if Ann will still be obsessing about Trump's "crudeness" when America is absorbing Paris-style attacks on a monthly basis. Or as long as it doesn't happen to her, she's like "fuck everyone else".

Anonymous said...

Using social media to check visa applicants has the same problem as the no-fly list: how do you know the Abdullah Mohammed who's put in for a visa is the same Abdullah Mohammed who's been tweeting all that jihadi crap?

David Begley said...

The NYT will move real fast when a radical Islamist shoots up Times Square.

Why is the NYT so obtuse to the threat? The first two attacks were in New York and on buildings just blocks from its HQ.

MaxedOutMama said...

Why would we be giving visas to people who are on record as expressing intense hostility toward the US???

It's a very bizarre blind spot!!

Big Mike said...

Let me see if I have this right. The Times says it's okay to let a person immigrate to the US after writing "death to all Americans" as long as they assure us it was just ordinary anti-Americanism and not "Islamist" anti-Americanism? Good to know.

How about if they post "death to Times newspaper reporters"? Is that okay? Just askin'

Jupiter said...

You left out the best line;

"Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country."

Either that, or offered her counseling, I suppose. Or a grant.

William said...

There are lots of people who wish to move to America. I would say give bonus points to those immigrants who come from those countries whose governments are supportive of the United States and extra hurdles to citizens of those countries who are actively hostile to us. The future of Islam should not belong to those who chant Death to America........Given the choice between featuring a story about a deserving Muslim who was denied entry to America because of a bureaucratic snaffle and another story about a Muslim who was denied entry because of past radical connections, which story do you think the nightly news will feature?

Anonymous said...

It's not practical & it would be nearly impossible for our govt to screen a person's social media accounts. Therefore, it is impossible to screen these people adequately weeding out the terrorists & freaks. Which is the main reason we shouldn't be letting mozlom refugees into the US. There are other reasons which are substantial. I don't think the NYT or the Left in general are going to agree with the commonsense prudence required to keep the country safer. Immigration really needs to be put on hold, in general, until proper screening & protocols can be put in place.

clint said...

"I'm trying to understand where the NYT is right now. It think it's moving."

It might be a mistake to assume that the NYT has a set of beliefs reflected in these articles.

An alternate theory is that the NYT has a set of agendas these articles might advance.

robinintn said...

The State Department's "Resident Expert" (State's term) on visa programs thinks the K-1 visa is called the K-Y visa.

chickelit said...

Immigration officials are directed by the White House. The American public is rightly putting the blame where it belongs.

Hagar said...

Asking the applicant questions is as useful as the questions on your application to buy a gun. They only serve to add an additional charge or two if you are arrested for a crime involving that gun.
If you want to know about an applicant, ask his/her friends and neighbors.

Hagar said...

Would not be perfect, but would immediately screen out those who had no trouble naming several people thought to be good as references.
Then the "hard" screening for a lot fewer people.

n.n said...

Allegiance and principles matter because they are credible predictors of future orientations and behaviors, or proxies for past orientations and behaviors. The question is if these factors represent circumstantial or direct evidence about an individual's disposition.

Sammy Finkelman said...

It is not that everybpdy's social media comments should be looked at.

But everybody who made these kinds of comments (the New York Times is not being specific what they were, except supporting violent jihad) should already have been in a possibly terrroist supporting database, especially f some linsks could be shown to johadist groups. And actually they should be rated and ranked according to how close they are.

It is interesting that she tried contacting some groups while she was here, but was suspected by these groups of being a double agent.

The U.S. seems to have a policy of not looking at social media. And discounting anything that is merely anti-American. Igbnoring anything anti-semitic it goes without saying.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Tashfeen Malik bouncing back and forth between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have been viewed with suspicion in both of those places and she would have been known.



Both countries, you know, claimed she had bene in the other country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/world/middleeast/discrepancies-emerge-over-where-tashfeen-malik-grew-up.html?_r=0

I think the fix was in. People from Pakistan sometimes have a hard time and lonbg wait being cleared. This is a well known fact. Of course that's probably done to cover up some otgehr cases.

Sammy Finkelman said...

jr565 said...

They can't find this. And yet they think we can vet two hundred thousand syrians.

The Syrians go through much longer, tougher screening and they don't fir the profile of a terrorist at all.

I don't think there's been a single native Syrian invoved in international terrorism yet. =In any case someone sitting ina refugee camp for a year and half is not likely to be a terrorist,. And of course they can vet them - they have to connect to real people outside of syria and get their story of what they were doing in syria vouched for - wither by being able to describe events that happened or backed up by otehr people.

Sammy Finkelman said...

William said...12/13/15, 12:00 PM

There are lots of people who wish to move to America. I would say give bonus points to those immigrants who come from those countries whose governments are supportive of the United States and extra hurdles to citizens of those countries who are actively hostile to us.

Don't you think it matters if they support the government or they don't? Most Iranians for instance, do not. Theer are very few Iranian terrorists, and those few are usually high ranking in the terrorist infrastructure and have official positions with the government. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia officially are friendly, but that's where you have a lot of Islamicists.

The stories that get published are of former Iraqi interpreters for the United States who can't seem to get successfully vetted.

Sammy Finkelman said...

how do you know the Abdullah Mohammed who's put in for a visa is the same Abdullah Mohammed who's been tweeting all that jihadi crap?

Usually social media accounts contain other identifying information.

narciso said...

yes, there is an error in transliteration, but as the DHS expert Haney, points out they want to avoid scrutiny of the whole Deobandi network that stretches from Pakistan to South Florida and California,

Sammy Finkelman said...

Mike Sylwester said... 12/13/15, 9:44 AM

Maybe she expressed her zealotry on MySpace.

It might have been on the dating/marriage websites. Where else would it be public?




cliff claven said...

"Good enough for government work."

mccullough said...

The TIDE database, the largest of the databases listing suspected terrorists, over 1 million names. More than 95% of them are foreign nationals.

How expensive would it be to compile a database of all foreign nationals who have made comments sympathetic to violent jihad and anti-American.

I'm guessing that database would have 500 million names.

Anonymous said...

The people debating which refugees are coming here just miss the point, over and over again.

"But they're against their current Govt!"

So? Who cares? That's not the issue.

The word nobody wants to say is culture. How many hundreds or thousands of years do you have to go back before Middle Eastern and American culture seperated into separate groups?

Do we even have that before recorded history? It's been that long, people.

Our CULTURES are incompatible. This isn't something you can just fix, wave a wand. These people are different from us. It's that simple.

Importing them will create Balkanization. At best.

So why do it? Why?

narciso said...

Except almost all the suicide bombers and their support crew, had been to Syria and back, despite the flags on their files,

Anonymous said...

People in this country have become way too idealistic, enabled by our relative life of ease.

Idealism isn't real. The ideas in your head that tell you importing people fundamentally alien to us is a great idea mean nothing if the result is terrible.

History has forgotten more noble losers than we can count.

Birkel said...

"Sammy Finkleman" is sure of a great number of things, apparently. The expertise one can find in the internet, what with the perfect information of "Sammy Finkleman" and his ilk, we could probably avoid Type I and Type II errors in immigration.

"In any case someone sitting ina (sic) refugee camp for a year and half is not likely to be a terrorist,. (sic)" -- Finkleman above

Yes, Islamists would never be patient in their war. They would never visit strip clubs and live in the United States for some while before hijacking planes and flying them into tall buildings.

Birkel said...

mccullough,
Are you counting the millions of Leftists in the United States?

Luke Lea said...

Economist readers speak out on the issue: http://goo.gl/NTdC2n

The Drill SGT said...

I have a suggestion. The initial Visa screen is done in the host country by very junior State Staff on their first assignments. These new Foreign service types tend to be Ivy League and Liberal "world view" types.

Instead, put in place an "affirmative action program" to recruit Vets with experience in our recent wars. You need not change the scores on the Foreign Service Exam, but drop the Ivy League preferences. The State Dept could use more employees with a positive view of the military and a more skeptical view of immigrants from high risk countries. After all, doing checkpoint duty in Falluja is not much different from doing visa screens in Islamabad.

Balfegor said...

I'm a little leery of allowing immigration officers significant discretion to exclude people based on their social media statements. I, ah, I can see a situation where that rapidly gets out of hand, what with the whole IRS targeting scandal and all.

Jupiter said...

The various suggestions being made here for "improvements" to the vetting process simply serve to show that "vetting" is not possible.

It's amazing that the people who are most adamant that the only way to prevent shootings is to take everyone's guns away, somehow believe that it is a simple matter to tell which of the millions of Muslims who swear allegiance to a political ideology sworn to our destruction are really serious about it.

"Are you a Muslim?"
"You betcha, Infidel dog!"
"Do you agree with the words of Mohammad, that --"
"Do not dare to suggest that Mohammed could be wrong about anything, pig of a Crusader!"
"Well, never mind, then. Are you willing to swear allegiance to the American Constitution, despite the fact that it is not based on shariah?"
"Of course not. Your Constitution is an abomination, as is any system of law other than shariah. What's wrong with you? I told you I am a Muslim. Can't you read? The Koran, which is the only possible guide to righteous behavior, commands me to kill you and enslave your children. To do otherwise is contrary to the wishes of Allah. I would rather die than violate the dictates of Islam."
"You seem like a devoutly religious individual. Welcome to the United States."
"Thank you. How do I apply for welfare for my wives, and where can I buy an assault weapon?"

Sorry, I am not Laszlo.

Anonymous said...

The slant on this story seems to me to be missing the point. It's not that they didn't check her social media history when they let her in. It's that they should be monitoring all Islamist "zealotry" on all social media, all the time, and compiling a list of names based on that. Then we could use that list for all sorts of things, not just checking applicants for K-1 visas.

Jupiter said...

“I spend much of my free time in the masjid,” Farook, 28, wrote on his profile for the dating site, BestMuslim.com. He also enjoyed “memorizing the quran and learning more about the religion,” he added.

I guess he felt he had finally learned enough about "the religion" to start putting his knowledge into effect. BestMuslim indeed.

averagejoe said...

Apparently the Obama administration and the federal government under his direction is too busy combing through their Facebook metadata for Tea Party Crazies and Right-Wing Hate Groups to notice the Islamic jihadists proclaiming their intent to attack Americans.

gadfly said...

". . . excuse their lapses." We would not have to worry about security lapses if we shut down immigration of any kind into this country during this Muslim-inspired migrative madness designed to force countries to open borders to jihadists. If the Syrians have a problem as the constant battleground between opposing Muslim sects, let the Muslim Brotherhood and all other Sunnis join the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and Iran can house the Shi'ites and their ISIS offshoot.

As Billy Joel reminds us:

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Douglas said...

Islamism is the political ideology that seeks to extend the Islamic faith to the entire world. In its benign form, it's like evangelical Christianity, which seeks to bring a revealed truth to the entire world. However, there is also a strain of Islamism that seeks to spread Islam by force and terror. It's not that hard to distinguish between violent Islamists and the rest. I don't know why the Democrats are so unwilling to make that obvious distinction.

Hagar said...

I am quite aware that Christianity also has a violent history - St. Olav was not a peaceful man - but for the last several centuries at least, Christianity has sought to convert by sending out missionaries who establish schools, orphanages, hospitals, etc., as well as churches, and at least preach a religion of peace.

Islam seems to be still sticking by the "convert or die, infidel dog!" bits of the "post-Medina" Koran.

Michael K said...

"Apparently the Obama administration and the federal government under his direction is too busy combing through their Facebook metadata for Tea Party Crazies and Right-Wing Hate Groups "

Oh yes and they know who their enemies are. Certainly they are not the Islamists who plan to "radically transform" this country.

We have never had a president like this. The closest I can think of is Buchanan before the Civil War when he was putting supplies into southern federal armories where they would be easy for the Confederacy to seize.

jr565 said...

The dems have problems if cops ask hispanics for ID. Because they might be illegal and deported. but they would be ok with cops asking Muslims for ID?

All these muslims getting trough and becoming jihadis is par for the course when you have sanctuary cities and make following and enforcing existing immigration law RACISM.
The cap fits, and now wear it.

Obama will never change policy, even if a jihadi dumped a dirty bomb on a NY street. He'd find a way to blame the NRA rather than saying, ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

Trashhauler said...

"[T]he vetting for refugees is a separate, longer and more rigorous process than the checks for K-1 and most other immigrant visas. And there is an extra layer of scrutiny for Syrians, who are referred to a national security and fraud office at the Department of Homeland Security for a final look."

Vetted how, exactly? Do our immigration officials have some hotline to the Syrian intelligence office? Or does this mean that the refugee has to answer the same sorry set of questions yet another time? Is it not logical that any serious would-be terrorist will avoid formal trouble with law enforcement?

It reminds me of the background investigation for the seventh or eighth renewal of my top secret security clearance. Was the investigator interested in my then recent decision that I was an alcoholic and quit drinking? Nah. But he sure was interested in my Mom's second husband (she remarried at age 70) who, though he had become a US citizen in 1955, had been born in what later became East Germany. It took two interviews and three phone calls to convince the investigator that I had only met him once and didn't know who he might contact in East Germany. A country that hadn't existed in over a dozen years. Go figure.

Rick said...

One day the NYT is mocking you for crazy beliefs. The next they're admitting you were right but somehow still concluding you're crazy and they're reasonable.

It's a bizarre world.

Nichevo said...

"In any case someone sitting ina (sic) refugee camp for a year and half is not likely to be a terrorist,. (sic)" -- Finkleman above

Yes, Islamists would never be patient in their war. They would never visit strip clubs and live in the United States for some while before hijacking planes and flying them into tall buildings.
12/13/15, 2:42 PM


Muslims LOVE deep cover ops. Part of their Assassin mythos. Just thinking of that general (in WSB) who had a gardener for twenty-five years...one day, on command, the gardener up and killed him with a scythe. No doubt in my mind this is possible now. Anything is worthwhile for them to gain your trust so that one day they can really screw you.

Jason said...



Sammy Fiinkelman idiotically said: I don't think there's been a single native Syrian invoved in international terrorism yet.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35083819

From the article:

Two people of Syrian origin have been arrested in Geneva on suspicion of making, concealing and transporting explosives, the Swiss attorney general says.
The two are also suspected of violating a law prohibiting groups such as al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State (IS), the statement added.

Geneva's prosecutor said traces of explosive had been found in their car.


But hey, two days is a long time ago, right?

mikee said...

If you are trying to determine where the NYT is, or is moving toward, just remember that we have always been at war with Oceania.