Will Obama Now Protect Us?
Instead of investigating, MI-5, in conjunction with the CIA and other U.S. agencies, should see to it not only that the mosques are infiltrated, but that the university Islamic Society of which Abdulmutallab became a leader is closed down. Terrorist fronts and training institutes cannot be protected under the auspices of academic freedom, as if the Muslim student group was just another campus organization. The same goes, of course, for the London Muslim Center in Whitechapel.
Finally, our own intelligence agencies and the administration have to be level with the public. For an administration committed to openness, the report on Prison Planet.com about the testimony of Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell, who was on Flight 253 the day of the attack, is both shocking and chilling.
Various passengers have confirmed that other passengers were videoing the entire episode during which Abdulmutallab was subdued, although none of these videos have turned up on the television news so far, and no one has surfaced who took them. Talking on the Alex Jones show, Haskell confirmed that another man had been arrested, and that he saw a well dressed Indian man helping Abdulmutallab get on the plane in Amsterdam, even though he held no passport. Abdulmutallab, he told them, was a Sudanese refugee, and they often held no passports and were always allowed to board planes.
What is horrifying is Haskell’s testimony that the FBI agents were a “complete embarrassment” and put the passengers in great jeopardy, since they made them stay on the plane for 20 minutes although they did not know at that time whether or not there were more explosives present. He noted that a bomb-sniffing dog stopped at luggage held by an Indian man who was about 30 years old, and that the man was then led away in handcuffs by agents to a separate interrogation room.
Instead of listening to his story, Haskell maintains that the agents tried to trick him and do all they could to discredit his account, one to which he is sticking. Moreover, he is only telling the media what he saw, and is carefully refraining from drawing any conclusions about the episode.
Is this too something that, two days later, we will learn has just somehow surfaced from data collected by intelligence agencies that were not shared? Will President Obama then appear again with a statement, bringing forth evidence the nation learned of days earlier, but which he acknowledges for the first time?
To this observer, it is clear that more is wrong than an intelligence failure, although certainly that too exists. It is, as Vice President Cheney said to much admonishment from liberals, that at present, President Obama is not protecting the nation. But it has also been said by some liberals who have broken ranks, and finally concluded the same thing. As Jacob Heilbrunn wrote in his Huffington Post column, “Obama offered nothing more than platitudes about remaining vigilant against terrorism. Sorry, but vigilance isn’t enough.” He went on to conclude, and this is truly surprising from a columnist who until now has been an Obama cheerleader, that “it is galling to see the Obama administration respond tardily and ineptly to the threats emanating from abroad and to try and brush off the public with blandly reassuring fictions about their security.” As he says, Obama’s actions are “cause for alarm.”
Dick Cheney couldn’t have said it any better.
“Will Obama Now Protect Us?”
Barack Obama is not going to protect America. There are three reasons why one should be very pessimistic:
1.) Obama is poorly educated. A Harvard liberal arts degree is normally a joke. This is especially true if the recipient has dark skin. Obama has never done any serious reading in his entire life. He may not even have the ability to read a halfway difficult book.
2.) Our current occupant of the White House is convinced that the United States is merely enduring a sort of justified “blowback.” Americans have allegedly crapped on the non-white peoples of the world. We ultimately created the terrorists. Any violent response will only further anger them. Best to do nothing.
3.) Obama is too busy to get do any serious thinking. He simply does not have the time to dwell on the challenging matters ignored during his first forty-eight years on this planet. Obama is a quintessential example of the Peter Principle. He should still be a mere Illinois state senator.
Well, we all know just how hysterical Mad Melanie Phillips is these days. ” Londonistan”?? Hardy har har!
Just another over-the-top Zioneocon. Moving right along, nothing to see here.
Mr. Thomson, I too share your disdain for the President’s academic, and intellectual accomplishments; but, his BA is from Columbia, he got a JD from Harvard (we think, since he refuses to release any transcripts, etc.)
Here’s my question: How is it that anyone is visa eligible whose name appears on the list of what some say are up to 500K people suspected of involvement with terrorism? Forget the no-fly list, forget the issue of secondary screening, forget the whole body scans: All the various problems that people are discussing would be rendered moot if a visa was never issued or once issued was revoked upon reference to this list.
Now I’ve heard some say and read others who begin, “Well, there weren’t sufficient grounds or evidence . . .”, or “We can’t profile based on ethnicity, religion, . . .”. Those who say or write such things are woefully, if not willfully, ignorant or barefaced liars. Let me explain.
With each passing day, there hundreds and perhaps thousands of south and east Asians that are routinely denied visas to visit this country because they are 1) Asian, or 2) single and female, or 3) have a family member already in residence here; all of which have been disqualifying reasons given on the presumption based on no evidence beyond profile and stereotype that the person(s) being denied represent a threat to overstay their visa.
I could go on at length with other similar criteria as applied. Anyone with family or friends from that part of the world can give you many examples from personal experience or that others they know. Know too that when visas are denied reasons are to be given and these and others are. This is no mystery, nor is it the subject of conspiracy minded guessing. It’s a fact of life in that part of the world; and a large part it is. So, when a government official, or other spokesman, asserts the need for sensitivity to this or that shibboleth of PC politics, look at them as fools or liars, and probably both.
If even a Obama toady like Jacob Heilbrunn is getting cold feet things are moving in the right direction. But it will take something really awful for our system to regurgitate the PC toxins slowly poisoning us. BTW will Muslim women get a pass on the full body scans on grounds their modesty will be offended? Islam has grown accustomed to special accommodation and it will be hard to turn back now.
Imagine that we were living in a thriller novel. Then the FBI agents tried to put off Haskell because the Indian man escorting the bomber was really a spy infiltrating the terrorists. The bomb failed to detonate because the spy sabotaged it; being a big part of such a nearly successful mission will get him in good with the Yemeni al Qaeda guys and position him to really keep track of them. The FBI doesn’t want Haskell calling attention to the guy and how we let him get away because it would screw up the operation.
Don’t you wish we were living in a thriller novel?
Is Obama some sort of fool?
I thought that in Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi he had found the best life insurance policies in the world, but now I’m not so sure.
The man is a simpleton and a fool. A dangerous fool.
Like Obama said “he is an isolated extremist”. That’s why his do-it-yourself explosives failed to ignite. His plans, the guy helping him to get on the plane, whomever he got the explosives from, his meetings with the radical imam – all those never happened.
Odysseus, I, too, have wondered about that 500K list. So what if ~.01% of the world is refused automatic flight privleges on US in-bound and domestic carriers? OK, I can understand not putting in a blanket ban, but why not provide notification to these folks when they try and purchase a ticket that they need to provide sufficient proof they aren’t who we think they are before we’ll let them on?
Hell, sometimes it seems that security at NFL games is more complete than what the TSA offers.
Odysseus – reasons for denial of visa are placed in the file but I don’t believe the applicant is informed why.
Am I mistaken
I suspect the change in O-man’s position is because he learned (or Rahm told him) that he can blame it on the CIA (Panetta) and State (Hillary) rather than his beloved Jackboot Janet.
In the meantime, pay no attention to the Imam linking this attack to Hassan. Both ‘deranged loners.’ Nothing to see here.
ns: I believe you are correct to this extent: I don’t know of a regulation requiring that consular staff provide a reason for denial. I’m certain that a written reason is not required. However, of the cases, that I and my wife are aware, a reasons have been given verbally as justification for denial at the time of the consular/embassy interview.
submandave: NFL security probably is better in many ways. Personally, I don’t see why a blanket ban on all 500K isn’t appropriate. Think of it this way: if the concern motivating most denials is that someone might overstay their visa, why would membership on the larger list not be doubly disqualifying in light of this concern?
By the way, concern of visa overstays really is the principal motivation behind most denials of visa applications. The presumption is that all visa applicants are immigrants. Here is the relevant passage from Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as quoted on the State Dept’s website related to visa denials:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/denials/denials_1361.html
“Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…”
Further discussion of INA Sec 214(b) can be found here:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_2173.html
The other relevant act is INA ACT 212:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/31?hilite=
The bottom line in all of this can be taken from the first State Dept. link above where its written: “Our consular officers have a difficult job. They must decide in a very short time if someone is qualified to receive a temporary visa. Most cases are decided after a brief interview and review of whatever evidence of ties an applicant presents.” Given the numbers of applications processed, the minimal amount of time allotted for interviews and decision making, and the absolute discretion accorded consular staff under US law, of course stereotypes, and profiling will be the norm in reaching decisions on whether or not to grant a visa. I do think you’ll find that it’s easier to get a tourist visa to visit the US being young, single and European than if you are young single and Asian.
I’m not advocating for mass granting of tourist visas from any part of the world, nor am I suggesting that the job of consular officials is easy or their behavior unprofessional. What I am suggesting is that profiling and stereotyping have been going on in the process of denying non-immigrant visas for a very long time and this will not change. Suggesting the contrary doesn’t stand up to the reality. To further suggest that there was need for sensitivity at any point in the case of Abdulmutallab, or any case like his, flies in the face of routine insensitivity that takes place in the process every single day. To me, that is foolishness on a breathtakingly grand scale.
Will Obama Now Protect Us?
Why should he do so now, when there is absolutely nothing in what we know of him and what he has done to indicate that he would have the slightest desire to do so?
Obama, his administration, and the Democratic Party regard the American people as expendable in all cases. And, what is more troubling, is that they have no qualms about displaying that fact openly, and apparently have absolutely no fear of paying any price at the polls for either that attitude or its public display. What do they know of the coming year that we don’t?
Subotai Bahadur
Ron: no the president is leaving you guys!!!!!
Hmmmm . . . what happened to my longish post in response to submandave and ns? There was nothing objectionable by the PJM standards listed above. It was, I thought, rather thorough and contained relevant links to the US State Dept. website.