|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: December 09, 2015, 05:32:06 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 12-9-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Dec. 9, 2015
THE FOUNDATION
“A universal peace, it is to be feared, is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts.” —James Madison, 1792
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Leading From Behind Has Predicted Result1
Seems like no nation wants to take the lead to fight the Islamic State. So much for Barack Obama’s “international community” and “leading from behind.” Each one of them has a 1-2-3-not-it approach to summoning enough initiative for ending the Islamic State once and for all. Oh sure, Syrian rebels, the Peshmerga and the Iraqi army are all battling corners of the group on their turf, and the West is content to lob a few bombs in Islamic State territory every day, but no one has set a vision for the endgame. Now, the general secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, announced2 the organization won’t be leading the effort to end the caliphate and ensure security for its partner nations.
“Muslims are on the front line in this war,” Stoltenberg said. “Most victims are Muslims, and most of those who fight against the [Islamic State] are Muslims. We can not carry on this struggle for them. The United States has a limited number of special forces. In the foreground, however, is strengthening local forces. This is not easy, but it’s the only option.” Despite the attack on America’s homeland in San Bernardino, Obama is content — using National Review’s Arthur Herman’s analogy3 — to huddle behind the Maginot Line while Nazi Germany perfects its Blitzkrieg tactics. Instead, he addressed the nation4 Sunday to say he was doubling down on his strategy of “inherent resolve” and oh, to make firearms more difficult to acquire, because that would disrupt the jihadists who by the way are waging a “knife intifada” in Israel. It’s time Obama adopted a winning strategy5.
The Syrian Refugee Religious Test6
If the Syrian refugees the Obama administration is accepting into the United States really are the most needy — the ones most at risk at being caught in the crossfire of the Syrian civil war — then why has the U.S. government only accepted one Christian refugee7? A total of 237 Syrian refugees entered the country since Nov. 13, the day the Islamic State struck Paris. But only one Greek Orthodox individual landed on our shores, despite U.S. law requiring8 that asylum seekers be asked about the role religion played in persecution. Remember: Christians are fleeing the Middle East after their churches are targeted and razed — and it’s not just the Islamic State carrying out the atrocities. The Obama administration, however, continues to refuse to consider religion with any of its Middle East dealings. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was preparing to deport 27 Christians9 who were seeking asylum after fleeing the Islamic State.
As a result of the Syrian refugee question, Congress is stepping up its involvement with immigration policy. The House passed10, with a 407-19 vote Tuesday, a measure reforming the nation’s Visa Waiver Program. The bill would require travelers holding passports for Western Europe who also traveled to Iraq, Iran, Syria or Sudan in the last five years to get a visa and undergo more scrutiny before entering the states. But there is only so much reform that Congress is willing to do. While there is bipartisan support to reform visas, the very program that accepted a single Christian will probably fall to Barack Obama’s veto pen. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) believes11 Democrats have enough votes to sustain the Obama administration’s Trojan horse12 refugee program for Syrians.
French Raid Mosques, Democrats Visit Them13
The attack in Paris was a hard lesson and wake-up call, but the French are showing signs of learning. During a state of emergency crackdown, “French authorities announced [last week] they shut down three mosques for an alleged ‘pattern of radicalization,’” reports14 USA Today. French authorities found Islamic State propaganda, as well as weapons and ammo, and they made scores of arrests.
Of course, USA Today also notes the flip side: “but terrorism analysts said such tactics are unlikely to be repeated in the USA.” Thanks to Barack Obama’s blinding Islamophilia15, he would never allow such a thing. And Democrats follow his lead. That’s why several Democrat lawmakers attended a prayer service16 at a radical mosque and Obama’s DHS secretary held a press conference17 at a mosque tied to the Muslim Brotherhood — both after the San Bernardino attack.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Denying Rights to Combat Terrorism?18
By Louis DeBroux
In a Sunday speech4 he clearly had no interest in giving, Barack Obama spoke to the nation from the Oval Office in an attempt to address the fears of many Americans following attacks in Paris (130 dead, almost 400 wounded) and San Bernardino (14 dead, 21 wounded) by Islamic jihadists. He failed to assuage those fears, primarily because he once again proved that he is clueless as to the real threat and the real enemy.
To no one’s surprise, Obama used these recent tragedies to renew his push for more gun control in what was actually pretty savvy political theater.
Under the guise of combatting terrorism, Obama declared, “To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? … We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.” Then he mocked, “I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.”
This is craven theatrics, but it will work on some Americans. All the public is going to hear is “no-fly list” and “guns,” and then they’re going to think, “Why do Republicans want to put guns in the hands of terrorists?” Mission accomplished for Obama.
But there are three glaring problems with Obama’s proposed “solutions” — one practical, one political, and the other constitutional.
The practical problem is that neither Syed Farook nor Tashfeen Malik (the San Bernardino terrorists) was on the no-fly list. In fact, none of the terrorists involved in Islamist terror attacks on U.S. soil have been on the no-fly list, so Obama’s “solution” would not have prevented these terrorists from purchasing guns. Furthermore, legal purchases are not the only means of obtaining firearms. France has far more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., and yet the attacks in Paris still happened.
There is also the fact that the government terrorist watch lists, which include the no-fly list, are riddled with errors. There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason as to how someone ends up on the no-fly list. There are more than 280,000 Americans with no recognized ties to terrorism on the watch list, including some who are on the list for no other reason than making controversial statements on social media unrelated to terrorism, or refusing to be government informants, or simply due to clerical errors. Indeed, none other than deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was denied flying privileges five times because someone with a similar name was on the no-fly list. (In this case, however, at least TSA had the distinction of stopping a man responsible for the death of an innocent woman).
The constitutional issues with his “solution” are even more problematic.
Obama’s denial of gun purchases by law-abiding citizens would be a violation of our Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. American citizens have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged in recent years that this is indeed an individual right. It would also violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, and Fifth Amendment protections against being deprived of God-given liberties without due process. Arbitrarily placing someone on the no-fly list and denying access to firearms would constitute a presumption of guilt by government. |
