News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The pace of Trump’s no-huddle offense makes good on his promises, is necessary and long overdue to eliminate gridlock of the governing class. He's determined to keep America safe, and no apology-Washington Times Editorial Board, 1/31/17

"Mr. Trump makes good on his promises. The pace of the game may be dizzying and even disorienting, but it’s necessary and long overdue to eliminate the gridlock that paralyzes the governing class....His buckling down as the workman who gets things done, as he said he would, is a novelty and perhaps a precedent for Washington....The new president now takes on the challenge that has sapped the resolve of presidents since Ronald Reagan, cutting down the regulatory leviathan."

1/31/17, "Trump’s no-huddle offense," Washington Times Editorial Board

"The opening whistle has hardly faded to an echo, and President Trump has spread his receivers and hitting his targets. Good to his word, he is executing a White House game plan with a no-huddle offense. It’s driven his adversaries to angry frustration. He’s winning, and they’re not. 

He’s determined to keep America safe, and no apology. His generals won swift Senate confirmation to lead the departments of Defense and Homeland Security. The president signed an executive order temporarily restricting immigration from terrorist preserves, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, a list of bad places drawn up earlier by Barack Obama and his administration.

Predictably, the temporary ban on travelers from those nations set off protests at airports in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and elsewhere. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, rushed to the microphones to display manufactured tears and to declare, “This executive order was mean-spirited and un-American.” The drama outside the airport terminals outweighed the effects of the temporary bans inside, where 109 of the 325,000 foreign arriving travelers suffered brief inconvenience.

The gamers of radical change, angered by Trump energy and determination, are trying to amp up rage. While legions of demonstrators take to the streets, lawyers hurry to the courtroom to counter the president’s initiatives. A lawsuit filed on a Saturday morning attempted to block the immigration order, and lawyers speculate that the demonstrations are largely the handiwork of organizations funded by radical billionaire George Soros, who seems eager to burn through his considerable booty to torch the Trump agenda.

Above street level, Mr. Trump is at work getting acquainted with his peers. The new president’s conversations with British Prime Minister Theresa May, restoring the “special relationship” to its previous place of honor in the nation’s diplomacy, inevitably evoked the rapport between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher of a generation ago. He retrieved a bust of Winston Churchill, the British leader during World War II, from a closet where Barack Obama had exiled it. The restoration to a place of honor in the Oval Office underscores the importance of “the special relationship.”

The president’s conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed in answer to media and academic suspicion that Moscow tried to throw the November election to Mr. Trump. They talked of goals they might achieve mutually, such as defeating the Islamic State and radical Islamic terrorism, Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and the pact in the West that preserves Iran’s nuclear program. He spoke to Germany’s Angela Merkel, President Francois Hollande of France and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. Not a bad day’s work.

Americans are familiar with the Donald’s needling of his adversaries, having watched him dispatch his Republican challengers, one by one, and then Hillary Clinton. His buckling down as the workman who gets things done, as he said he would, is a novelty and perhaps a precedent for Washington.

The new president now takes on the challenge that has sapped the resolve of presidents since Ronald Reagan, cutting down the regulatory leviathan. His “one in, two out” order demands that agencies trying to impose new regulations on Americans must first terminate two existing rules. The net financial burden, he said, should be zero. The benefit for small businesses will be “the biggest such act that our country has ever seen,” Mr. Trump says.

This is fundamental transformation. While his liberal opponents sob and simmer, Mr. Trump makes good on his promises. The pace of the game may be dizzying and even disorienting, but it’s necessary and long overdue to eliminate the gridlock that paralyzes the governing class."


President Trump envisions manufacturing jobs to make up about a fifth of the American workforce-Peter Navarro on CNBC

1/25/17, "Trump's point man on trade: 'We envision a more Germany-style economy'," CNBC, Matthew J. Belvedere

"The administration of President Donald Trump wants manufacturing jobs to make up about a fifth of the American workforce, said Peter Navarro, tapped by Trump to lead the newly created National Trade Council.

Navarro told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday that part of his job at the National Trade Council is matching the needs of industry with the skills of U.S. workers. 

"We envision a more Germany-style economy, where 20 percent of our workforce is in manufacturing," he said. "And we're not talking about banging tin in the back room." 

"We're talking about high technology across the board, whether it's computer chips or cars or anything in between," said Navarro, a Trump campaign policy advisor and formerly a business professor at the University of California, Irvine.

President Trump's executive order this week to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his stated intent to renegotiate NAFTA are moves away from many-nation free trade agreements, said Navarro. 

"Multilaterals, you get hundreds of people and thousands of lobbyists and lawyers. It takes years and years and years," he contended. 

Earlier Wednesday on "Squawk Box," Bill Daley, former Commerce secretary under Bill Clinton, said an exit from the TPP without engaging Asian trading partners would leave the door open for China.

Navarro rejected that notion, saying Trump wants to pursue what he considers more nimble bilateral trade agreements. "I strongly agree that bilaterals can occur much more quickly, because basically, it's just a few people in a room talking about what needs to be done."

"As we're negotiating with one country here, we're going to be negotiating with one country here, and another country here," Navarro said."


US immigration is exemplified not by the Statue of Liberty but by nearby Ellis Island in NY Harbor. From 1892 to 1954 all foreigners hoping to move to the US were required to stop first at Ellis Island. Persons found to have contagious diseases were kept separate at Ellis Island hospital. 3000 pieces of laundry were washed and sanitized daily. The Immigration Museum is on Ellis Island

"It is estimated that 40% of all current U.S citizens can trace at least one ancestor to Ellis Island....The ‘Passage of Immigrant Quota Act’ of 1921 ended the era of mass immigration to New York."..."From 1892 to 1954, over 12 million immigrants entered USA through the portal of Ellis Island in New York Harbor"


Ellis Island, right

"Guided 90-minute tours will take you to select areas of the 750-bed Ellis Island Hospital. Visit the Laundry Building, with much of its original equipment still in place, where over 3000 pieces of laundry were washed and sanitized daily, infectious and contagious disease wards, kitchen, staff housing, autopsy room and more."....

"Ellis Island Immigration Museum is part of the Statue of Liberty National Monument and is under the care of the National Park Service. For many, Ellis Island is one of the most meaningful historic sites in New York. Visitors can easily spend hours here learning about America’s immigration history and the varied roles the island has played since the nation’s early years. The Immigration Museum tells the stories of why so many people chose to come to America and what became of them after they arrived. When visiting the monument, be sure to stop at the Information desk in the Immigration Museum to visit with the Save Ellis Island volunteer staff." Two images above from Save Ellis Island

"It is estimated that 40% of all current U.S citizens can trace at least one ancestor to Ellis Island....The ‘Passage of Immigrant Quota Act’ of 1921 ended the era of mass immigration to New York....During the peak period of Ellis Islands operations between 1900 and 1914, 5,000 to 10,000 passed through the immigration station each day."...


"Visiting Ellis Island"

"Today the Ellis Island Immigration Museum is part of the Statue of Liberty National Monument and is under the care of the National Park Service."

"Ellis Island Facts"

"Did you know?"

"Some say that Ellis Island was the ‘gateway to the American dream’ but what we do know for a fact is that it was the gateway to America for 60 years. With a rich history, read on for some interesting and surprising Ellis Island facts…

An Island with Purpose

Ellis Island was opened in 1892 as a Federal Immigration station, a purpose it served for 60 years. Millions of immigrants passed through the station many from eastern and southern Europe and many were escaping poverty and conflict.

A Journey Before the Journey

Typically starting on horseback or train from cities and towns across Europe, many travelers had a long journey just to get to the seaport. They then boarded ships that were crowded, filled with a diverse group of up to 3,000 passengers all from different cultures and religions. and trekked across the Atlantic for 2 weeks

Conditions Onboard the Steamships

Passengers were dispersed between first class, second class and steerage, according to wealth of each passenger. The contrast between first and second classes meant that those with greater wealth enjoyed staterooms and cabin whilst steerage was just an open space at the bottom of the boat.

Tracing Ancestry
It is estimated that 40% of all current U.S citizens can trace at least one ancestor to Ellis Island....

Humble Beginnings of a Future NYC Mayor

Working as an interpreter for the Immigration Service at Ellis Island from 1907 to 1910, Fiorello La Guardia later became the Mayor of New York City. A New York native, La Guardia’s parents were immigrants of Italian and Jewish heritage. 

Eating at Ellis Island


Free meals were served on the island and a typical meal could include beef stew, potatoes, bread, herrings, baked beans and stewed prunes. There were also independent concessions that sold packaged food to be bought as people waited or to take with them when they left the island....

Peak Time of Arrivals

During the peak period of Ellis Islands operations between 1900 and 1914, 5,000 to 10,000 passed through the immigration station each day. The ‘Passage of Immigrant Quota Act’ of 1921 ended the era of mass immigration to New York."


Monday, January 30, 2017

Fact check for Republican Deep State parasites: You've been thoroughly rejected: "It's Donald Trump's Party Now"-NY Times Editorial Board, May 4, 2016. Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them"

Above, headline of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board was honest enough to admit that the 2016 Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."...Consent of the governed is required if you want to be in charge.  
May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board: 

"Republican leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates promised help for middle-class people who lost their homes, jobs and savings to recession, who lost limbs and well-being to war, and then did next to nothing.

That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them."... 


1/3/17, "Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016."...CNBC, Jake Novak

6/27/2016, "The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists." 6/27/2016 

"He managed to prevail—to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes....He won the GOP’s untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American.

He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation."...6/27/16, "Why Trump Wins," "He knows border wars have replaced culture wars." The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell

Sept. 2015 article:

"The Republican party has essentially exhausted the two ideological themes it has ridden on since about 1980-- free markets and social conservatism -- and needs new ones to survive."

9/30/2015, "Donald Trump Is Trying to Save the Republican Party From Itself," Ian Fletcher, Huffington Post
"I'm neither endorsing nor condemning Mr. Trump, but I do think he's trying to save the Republican party from itself in a very rational way. The last thing he is is a clown or dilettante. (OK, maybe a clown.)
Why? Because the Republican party has essentially exhausted the two ideological themes it has ridden on since about 1980-- free markets and social conservatism -- and needs new ones to survive.
Any ideologues out there, I'm sorry: American history makes quite clear that partisan ideological themes don't last forever, in either party. They're good for a few decades, then they evolve or get dumped....
First, consider the exhaustion of free-market ideology. This doesn't mean that free markets per se, which obviously have enormous validity, are dead as an idea. But it does mean that pushing even further in the direction of free markets is dead as an idea.
Why? Most obviously, the 2008 financial crisis, whose effects we're still dealing with, was an effect of markets allowed to run amok, not of markets being insufficiently free. (Yes, I know you can blame it all on the government, but that's a tendentious "reality is the opposite of what you see" argument.) 
There's a happy medium between too much and too little regulation, and we've basically reached the limit of our ability to improve our economy by deregulating further. 
In public perception, this wasn't always the case. It certainly wasn't in 1980, when Ronald Reagan rode this theme to victory. And argue the timing if you like, but surely the reader recalls the romanticism about markets of the late 1990s? Remember California deregulating its electricity market in 1996? (Which handed control over to Enron, by the way, and led to blackouts in Silicon Valley.)
So "Even freer markets!" has lost its credibility as an ideological theme. If you disagree, then what industries would you now propose to deregulate, and how do you think that would improve things?
The increased public interest in economic equality is also playing a role here. There are conservative policies that reduce inequality, but they're old-school paternalist conservative policies, not free-market conservative policies. (Some people will tell you that "conservative" simply equals "free market," but this is simply ignorant of history, though I don't have the space to elaborate here.)
Social conservatism is a more complicated topic, but in a country where both public opinion and the Supreme Court support, to take the obvious example, gay marriage, it doesn't look like a net electoral winner from now on....
So what's the Republican party to do? Luckily, there are other right-wing themes out there to be had, though not an infinite number of truly big ones, substantial enough and popular enough to float a national political party on.
Enter nationalism. Specifically, economic nationalism, because the economy is what voters care about most. Mr. Trump's protectionism is a form of economic nationalism. So is his stance against immigration. (Again, I take no position on the merits, but anti-immigrationism is definitely a form of economic nationalism.) 
Trump is not the first person to come up with this strategy: as I noted in an article during the 2012 election, Mitt Romney was going in this direction already, albeit much less aggressively than Trump.

Romney pledged to crack down on China's currency manipulation. He threatened the use of countervailing duties if necessary, a serious and previously ideologically taboo attempt to blunt America's trade deficit. He said illegal immigrants should "self deport."

Why was Romney less aggressive? For one thing, that was several years ago, and the causative trends hadn't yet gone so far. Two, he wasn't a billionaire, only a humble multi-millionaire, so he had to cater to the Republican donor class. Which, while not sincerely socially conservative, very much adores free-market ideology as the perfect rationalization for their crony-capitalist reality. (Their interpretation of "free" markets is "government won't interfere with private distortions of markets in my favor.")
Come to think of it, even Patrick Buchanan got there first, in the sense of taking economic-nationalist positions (anti-free-trade, anti-immigration) as a Republican primary candidate in 1992. 
But Buchanan, of course, never attracted more than a fringe following. It's no mystery why. One, he wasn't a billionaire who could finance an entire campaign while defying the donor class and cowing the Republican establishment with the tacit threat of a third-party run tipping the election to the Democrats. Two, the credibility of "even freer markets are always the solution" economics hadn't exhausted itself in 1992. (As noted above, it didn't even peak until the late 1990s.) Three, there was not yet a collapse of social conservatism forcing a search for new ideological themes.
Even poor old H. Ross Perot fits perfectly into this picture. He was a trade hawk, anti-immigration, and relatively socially liberal. But he tried to do it without the legitimacy and infrastructure of an established party, and his political inexperience led to him getting spooked out of the race by, among other things, Republican dirty tricks. Still, astonishingly popular with the voters for a while.
So economic nationalism is a rich theme that's been waiting to be exploited for a long time. Like, say, civil rights in the early 1960s. Mr. Trump's comically blustering persona, which seems to confuse a lot of commentators, fits perfectly into this picture. Why? Because it enables him to seem much more right-wing than he really is, which is essential to retreating from obsolete rightist positions without incurring the wrath of primary voters. (Trump's the most experienced show-biz politician since Reagan; of course he figured this out.) Every time some liberal yaps about his being a dangerous crypto-fascist menace, it re-glues this mask, though one of his biggest vulnerabilities is that it will fall off.
The bigger joke is that the Republican establishment is fighting so hard against being saved. They may be the last to figure this all out."



Foreigners are enraged that a US president would finally dare to defend Americans and allow us to take a break from participating in our own genocide. Foreigners unconcerned about protecting their own citizens are very concerned that Americans remain their global slaves. We needed President Trump more than we knew: 'This American Carnage stops right here and stops right now'

1/30/17, "Trump Protects U.S., World Gets Enraged," Robert Spencer, PJ Media 

"President Trump’s executive orders to build a Mexican border wall and to place a temporary ban on immigration from seven hotbeds of jihad terror have the national and international Left -- and its jihadi allies -- in an uproar.

How dare he move to protect American citizens?

Welcoming refugees who are fleeing war is part of our duty…his decision can only cause us concern.
A “duty”? According to whom? Wasn’t protecting Ayrault's own citizens from jihad terrorists known to be entering France among the “refugees” his duty? All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.

France apparently found jihad less distasteful than vetting refugees; France now has the option it chose.

Mayor Michael Müller of Berlin pontificated:
We Berliners know better than most the pain caused when a whole continent is split by barbed wire and walls.…I call on the president of the USA not to go down that road to isolation and ostracism.
Müller’s statement has been widely circulated and greeted with joy -- among the clueless Left, which is acting as if it opposed the Berlin Wall when it was up. They did not....

For the young leftist millennials, apparently there wasn’t time in high school to learn about East Germany. They were instead learning the U.S. was founded by white male slave-owners and has a history of oppression, racism, and imperialism. Today's self-righteous Left largely doesn’t know or care that the Berlin Wall was constructed by a totalitarian Leftist government to keep people in, not out.

The mayor of Berlin -- he, of all people, should know better -- is putting globalist Leftism above the safety of his own people.

Let’s help neighboring cultures, not build walls between nations. Let’s not forget what happened to the #BerlinWall.
Unlike the Berlin Wall, Trump’s wall is simply a national security initiative. Perhaps Rouhani, whose regime has ordered its citizens to chant “Death to America” every week in their mosques, shouldn't have helped create a security threat. With his tweet, note that Rouhani has an obvious vested interest in opposing any step the U.S. takes to defend its citizens.

According to CNN, Iran says it now will:
ban all U.S. citizens from entering the country in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Who else already had a Spring Break flight booked to Tehran? Guess I’ll hit my second choice, Mogadishu.

While Iran has a great history, as I explain in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran is so repressive and authoritarian -- and so hostile to the United States -- that American citizens would be foolish to go there.

People who have family in Iran will be hit by Iran's ban, and that is unfortunate. But there is a grown-up choice to make here -- we're choosing between death and inconvenience. We can inevitably admit terrorists to the United States, or we can inconvenience good people for a temporary period. France chose the former.

Others to be hard-hit by Iran's new ban are the likes of Carl Ernst, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill pseudo-academic. His work on Islam is so whitewashed, so fawningly apologetic, so complete in its denial of the jihad doctrine and Sharia oppression, that he was given an award in 2008 by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the genocidal anti-Semite who was at that time president of Iran.

Ernst happily flew to Tehran to accept. The incident was emblematic of how much American academia has degenerated.

The Iranian government’s statement said Trump’s ban was “an obvious insult to the Islamic world and in particular to the great nation of Iran.” Why is it an “obvious insult to the Islamic world” when the U.S. takes steps to defend itself from jihad terrorism? Because any defensive move taken by a non-Muslim entity is always seized upon by Islamic supremacists and jihadis as food for propaganda, which they produce when calling the defensive move an “unprovoked” act of aggression.

This is a tried-and-true response from Islamic entities going back all the way to the Crusades. Which are still taught in many places as unprovoked Christian aggression.

Leftist political elites worldwide are joining the likes of Rouhani in excoriating Trump for daring to defend his people. Will nothing but national and civilizational suicide satisfy them?"


Added: US takes in one million immigrants every year:

"The Forgotten Man," Jon McNaughton painting

Jon McNaughton on Feb. 3, 2012 about this painting:

"Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, "What have you done?" Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama. The Forgotten Man. Go to"

1/20/17, "Trump's Inaugural Address Was Like No Other in History," Gary

"I don't know which phrase will get quoted in the future. But I'll tell you one that grabbed my attention: "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now." American carnage. He has it, exactly. 

But this is more likely to stick: "From this moment on, it's going to be America First." 

He is not the polished speaker that John Kennedy was. He does not have the hearts of the people in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the midst of the Great Depression. He is not the rhetorical master that Abraham Lincoln was. But more than any President I have ever heard or read at an inaugural, he laid out his agenda, showed how that agenda is a fundamental break from the political past, and promised his supporters that he would not betray them. The implication is obvious: previous Presidents have all betrayed them. And they have. Four of them were standing behind him when he said it. This was a breach of etiquette. I loved it.

No matter what happens in terms of the details of his administration, and no matter what happens to the economy as a result of central bank profligacy, Donald Trump delivered an inaugural address that is going to go down in history. His enemies will try to bury him in his own words. But that plays into his hands. They will have to use his own words to bury him. It's Catch-22 for the establishment. Let the battle begin!"



tcth, sundance…






San Bernardino Islamic mass murderer, K-1 visa recipient, openly advocated violent jihad in social media postings. But US immigration officials don't routinely view social media as part of background checks, say not 'appropriate' to do so. Priority is to keep US borders open for business and travel, screenings, safety are trade-offs. Tens of millions of foreigners are cleared to enter US each year to work, visit, or live, officials say impossible to check social media for of all-NY Times, Feb. 2, 2015

12/12/2015, "U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media," NY Times,

2014, Chicago

She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it....Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so. 

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."...

[Ed. note: "Inevitable?" The US became "who we are," ie, desired, by making its first priority the health and safety of its citizens. Until 1954, foreign visitors to the US stopped first at Ellis Island.]

(continuing): "In the aftermath of terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, this screening process has been singled out as a major vulnerability in the nation’s defense against terrorism. Lawmakers from both parties have endorsed making it harder for people to enter the United States if they have recently been in Iraq or Syria. Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, has said there should be a temporary ban on Muslims’ entering the country.

While President Obama has cautioned against “a betrayal of our values” in the way the United States responds to threats, he has ordered a review of the K-1 visa program, which allows foreigners like Ms. Malik to move to the United States to marry Americans, putting them on a pathway to permanent residence and, ultimately, citizenship.

The Obama administration is trying to determine whether those background checks can be expanded without causing major delays in the popular program.

In an attempt to ensure they did not miss threats from men and women who entered the country the same way Ms. Malik did, immigration officials are also reviewing all of about 90,000 K-1 visas issued in the past two years and are considering a moratorium on new ones while they determine whether changes should be made. 

“Somebody entered the United States through the K-1 visa program and proceeded to carry out an act of terrorism on American soil,” the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said on Thursday. “That program is at a minimum worth a very close look.” 

In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel....

Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks. 

Ms. Malik also had two in-person interviews, federal officials said, the first by a consular officer in Pakistan, and the second by an immigration officer in the United States when she applied for her green card. 

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. The departments declined to provide any documentation or specifics about the process, saying they cannot discuss the case because of the continuing investigation. 

Meanwhile, a debate is underway at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that approves visas and green cards, over whether officers conducting interviews should be allowed to routinely use material gathered from social media for interviews where they assess whether foreigners are credible or pose any security risk. With that issue unresolved, the agency has not regularly been using social media references, federal officials said."...

Image caption: "The San Bernardino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago in 2014. Credit U.S. Customs and Border Protection" 


US has live Islamic terror cell in Minneapolis said Judge Michael Davis in sentencing 9 young Somali-Minnesotans on terror charges. Struggling US taxpayers have been forced to pay for a decade of federal Somali terror investigations in Minnesota-Nov. 16, 2016, Star-Tribune

"Sentencings do not put ISIL (ISIS) case to rest, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis says." 

Judge Michael Davis, Star-Tribune
"“Everyone talks about Brussels or Paris having cells,” U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said one day, then, raising his voice: “We have a cell here in Minneapolis.”" 

"In sentencing nine young Somali-Minnesotans on terror conspiracy charges this week, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis closed a chapter in the federal government’s long, extraordinary investigation of ISIL recruitment in Minnesota. But the full story is far from over. 

In nine hearings over three days before a courtroom packed with the families of the young men who sought to give their lives to ISIL, Davis repeatedly underlined a clear message: There is a terrorist cell in Minneapolis and it is still alive today. 

Each day, Davis sought to extract acknowledgment from the young men that they were “terrorists,” and left no doubt as to his thoughts on whether they were simply misguided youths. 

“Everyone talks about Brussels or Paris having cells,” Davis said one day, then, raising his voice: “We have a cell here in Minneapolis.” 

Saying the Minnesota public had “danced around” the issue, Davis described the cell’s size as being between nine to 20, including those sentenced last week and others killed abroad.

Later in the week, he raised eyebrows in the courtroom by telling one defendant that he noted “six to 10” supporters who attended previous hearings and insisted that “some defendants gave them signals.” 

“I know they’re out there,” Davis said. “The community knows they’re out there.” 

Federal prosecutors seemed to share Davis’ conviction. In an unusual development on Wednesday, they asked that two defendants, Mohamed Farah and Abdirahman Daud, be returned to the courtroom after their hearings were finished. Prosecutors said both men flashed index fingers pointed upward as they faced the gallery on their way out, an apparent symbol of “tawhid” that symbolizes an Islamic concept of “oneness of God” but is also a popular symbol used by ISIL supporters.

Minneapolis has been home to the nation’s largest ongoing FBI investigation into terrorism recruitment for most of a decade, centered on the city’s Somali-American population. The probe began with the departures of roughly two dozen men and women who returned to Somalia to join the terror group Al-Shabab.

It expanded when a group of young Somali-American co-conspirators trained their sights on Syria to join the cause of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) beginning in early 2014. 

Davis has presided over every trial the investigation produced, and his judgments are being closely watched by an international audience. 

His sentencing decisions this week — ranging from time served for one defendant to up to 35 years in prison for another — signal that courts are beginning to figure out how to address terror cases with more nuance....

But Davis’ sentencing decisions also sent the message that any attempts at rehabilitating would-be foreign fighters are in their infancy at best....

“Everyone was doing this for free,” said Mary McKinley, whose nonprofit Heartland Democracy worked on a court-approved counseling and mentoring program with defendant Abdullahi Yusuf since shortly after his late 2014 arrest.

Before sentencing Yusuf, 21, to time already served and sending him to a halfway house, Davis stopped short of endorsing Heartland Democracy as a suitable terrorism disengagement program.... 

Davis had created the nation’s first terrorism disengagement and deradicalization program earlier this year, contracting a German terrorism scholar to evaluate defendants before sentencing, assess their risk of recidivism and recommend any release programs that could provide an “off ramp” from radical thought or action. 

But at Yusuf’s Monday sentencing, Kevin Lowry, Minnesota’s chief probation officer, told Davis that his office found no treatment providers contracted by the U.S. probation office that provide suitable treatment. Nor does the federal prison system offer specialized treatment for terrorism defendants....

Other defendants proposed various release programs, but Davis made clear that there was nothing suitable to impose as an official release program, let alone as an alternative to prison. 

“You’re talking to the person that started things,” Davis told one attorney. “I know there’s nothing there. We don’t have anything in the U.S., we don’t have anything in the district of Minnesota and it’s questionable whether any programs around the world are working. That’s where we are at.”

Davis’ courtroom exchanges with defendants continued to detail how Minneapolis’ ISIL (ISIS) conspiracy stood out among the nation’s terror cases. One lesson, revealed because the Twin Cities group of defendants was so large, is that peer-to-peer recruiting can play a powerful role in the radicalization of young people. Defendant Zacharia Abdurahman referred to one of their colleagues who actually left for Syria and is presumed dead.

“When Abdi Nur left, that’s what changed the tides,” Abdurahman said. “I went from just being interested … to this is what I’ve got to do now.”

During Farah’s sentencing hearing, the judge made clear how much he thinks the community learned from the case. 

“It’s on the record. There’s no denying of it,” Davis said. “Your own voice is on those tapes. Your voice here today is admitting to me what you have done. The litany of things that you did, the lies that you told should be published so there is no doubt about what is happening here today.” 

The judge later explained his forcefulness — so direct that it surprised some attorneys — before sending Daud to prison: “We have to incapacitate this cell.”"


Sunday, January 29, 2017

Hateful US took in more than 1 million immigrants every year from 2000-2015. For two decades, 1990-2010, the largest population transfer on earth remained Mexico to the United States: 500,000 every year 1990-2000, 240,000 every year 2000-2010. Evil US took in 'only' 23 million migrants 1990-2015-UN report, Sept. 2016

UN chart, page 22, pdf

(p. 21-23, pdf): "Mexico to USA was the largest bilateral migration corridor in the world, with an annual average of nearly 500,000 migrants born in Mexico being added to the population of the United States of America from 1990 to 2000. Fig. I6" [5 million over ten years]

Above chart, "Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). Note: Russia refers to the Russian Federation, UAE refers to United Arab Emirates, UK refers to the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and USA refers to the United States of America."

p. 29, pdf: US has added more than one million immigrants every year from 2000-2015:

"Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, DVD Edition."

Below, p. 21, pdf, fig. I5: Top 10 host countries, 2015 and 1990-2015 in millions:

"The United States of America experienced the largest increase of the migrant stock between 1990 and 2015, adding a total of 23 million migrants." 

p. 21, pdf: "In 2015, Latin America and the Caribbean had the lowest proportion of international migrants in the total population (1.5 per cent), followed by Asia and Africa (1.7 per cent each). Both Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean experienced a decline in the share of international migrants in the total population between 1990 and 2015."

Above chart, "Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). Note: Russia refers to the Russian Federation, UAE refers to United Arab Emirates, UK refers to the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and USA refers to the United States of America."

page 21, pdf: "In Northern America, the proportion of international migrants reached 15.2 per cent of the total population in 2015, up from 9.8 per cent in 1990."


p. 23, pdf: 2000-2010, US added 2.4 million more Mexicans, adding to the 5 million they accepted from 1990-2000 for a total of 7.4 million 1990-2010:

p. 23, pdf: 2000-2010, US added 240,000 Mexicans/yr. avg., down from the 500,000 per year they added 1990-2000.


For twenty years, 1990-2010, the US encouraged Mexico to remain the most corrupt and failed government on earth. By absorbing populations other countries don't want, the US has been "the safety valve for tyrannical and incompetent governments the world over." Everyone knows unwanted populations can always be shipped to the US because of one word: racist. If American taxpayers dared notice what was clearly an invasion if not genocide on the part of both Mexico and the US, they were called "racist" (xenophobic, hateful, etc.) by their own political class and media. This gave permission to the rest of the world to do the same. 

p. 23, pdf: For two decades, 1990-2010, the largest population transfer on earth remained Mexico to the United States:

page 23, pdf: "During the period from 2000 to 2010...Mexico-USA continued to be the corridor with the largest gain--on average, around 240,000 additional migrants per year."


Sept. 2016, "International Migration Report 2015," by the United Nations, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs


Feb. 8, 2005, "Vicente Fox, Labor Pimp," Human Events, Mac Johnson



Definition of genocide: Rather than immediate destruction, genocide is more often a coordinated plan of different actions to weaken a group's culture, language, national feelings, security, and health, per Raphael Lemkin, 1943 inventor of term genocide: 

"What is Genocide?", Gregory H. Stanton, Pres. Genocide Watch

"Raphael Lemkin in his masterpiece"Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" (1943) invented the term "genocide" by combining "genos" (race, people) and "cide" (to kill). Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

 "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. 

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the

political and social institutions, of  
national feelings,   
religion, and the   
economic existence of national groups, and the  
destruction of the   
personal security,    

liberty,  health,  dignity, and even the 

lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.""...



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.