Well, we are as defenseless as we can be --- say those who fear the russians, chinese, koreans and muslims.
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:57:17 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/defenseless-in-the-face-of-our-enemies?f=must_reads > > > Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies > > by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY > <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/detail/andrew-mccarthy> > June 30, 2016 > > [image: Description: > http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20160629_obamaandlorettalynch.jpg] > > Editor's note:* The following is adapted from a **speech* > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP9q2UCrhF4>* the author delivered this > week at the Westminster Institute in McLean, Va. The topic: "Defenseless in > the Face of Our Enemies: What Keeps America from Protecting Itself from > Radical Islam."* > > Two weekends ago in Orlando, Fla., in the wee hours of the morning, a > gunman opened fire in a gay nightclub teeming with revelers. After killing > and wounding scores of people, he took hostages in a restroom. He began > calling police and media outlets, began crafting social-media posts, all > for the point of announcing what was already clear to the nightclub > denizens who'd heard him screaming, "Allahu Akbar!" - Allah is greater! - > as he fired shot after shot: Omar Mateen was a stealth Muslim militant. > > He was an adherent of radical Islam who committed his atrocity in > furtherance of its ongoing jihad against America and the West. He took time > in the midst of the carnage to make *bayat* - a pledge of allegiance - to > Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of the Islamic State terror network and its > proclaimed caliphate. > > By the time police barged in three hours later and killed Mateen in a > firefight, he had murdered 49 people and wounded another 53, many quite > seriously. > > It should have been possible to see Omar Mateen coming. He was a > first-generation American citizen, born in this country to immigrant > parents from Afghanistan and raised in a troubled household - one in which > the father is a visible and ardent supporter of the Taliban, the > fundamentalist jihadist group that ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s, harbored > al-Qaeda as it plotted and executed the 9/11 attacks, and to this day wages > war against American troops as it fights to retake the country. > > Mateen, who was 29 when he committed his mass-murder attack, was > repeatedly suspended for fighting throughout his childhood school years. > Academically, he had great difficulty - despite being nominally American > from birth, he was mired for years in English programs for students who > speak other languages > <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/18/the-unhinged-home-that-raised-orlando-killer-omar-mateen.html> > > in the home. His rantings during the attack indicated that he considered > Afghanistan to be his home, and that he identified, first and foremost, as > a Muslim: a member of the worldwide *ummah* - not a citizen of the United > States, the nation he volunteered to levy war against, just as the Islamic > State (or ISIS) exhorts its acolytes to do. > > Mateen was investigated not once but twice by the FBI in the three years > before he turned the Pulse nightclub into an abattoir. The first time > because, while working as a security guard, he claimed to have ties to both > al-Qaeda and Hezbollah - two infamous jihadist organizations that have > killed more Americans than any others. Mateen also claimed mutual > acquaintances with the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon. > He spoke of longing for a martyr's death - meaning: He wanted to be killed > while waging jihad against Allah's enemies, the Americans. > > The FBI further learned that within a two-year period starting in 2011, > Mateen had made two pilgrimages to Islamic sites in Saudi Arabia. In > Islamic terms, both pilgrimages were considered lesser ones - *umrah*, > which is not required and can be done any time of year, as opposed to > *hajj*, the visit to Mecca, which all physically and financially capable > Muslims are required to make at least once in a lifetime, during the last > month of Islam's annual lunar calendar. > > An investigator open to drawing commonsense conclusions about Mateen's > potential attachment to Islamic extremism (perhaps the more precise term is > *sharia > supremacism*) would be apt to note that Mateen's trips were voluntary > immersions into fundamentalism in an Islamic society in which sharia is > rigorously enforced and jihadism is known to thrive. Many Muslims never > make *umrah* at all; to make it twice in a short space of time is highly > unusual. > > But, as we shall see, the FBI - through little fault of its own - is > encouraged to shun commonsense conclusions about Islamic ideological > attachments. The investigation was closed because agents concluded Mateen > was not a threat: He was simply making outlandish, belligerent claims for > the purpose of spooking his co-workers. (To be fair to investigators, that > theory was consistent with Mateen's provocative and anti-social behavior > throughout his childhood.) > > The second investigation of Mateen was indirect. The actual focus of the > FBI's probe was Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who is believed to be the first > American Muslim to conduct a suicide bombing as part of the Islamic State's > jihad in Syria. It turns out that Abusalha attended the same Orlando-area > mosque frequented by Mateen. > > This fact is worth pausing over for a moment. The *Washington Post*'s > report is telling. It informs us that Mateen and Abusalha "*prayed* at > the same Fort Pierce, Fla., mosque" > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-had-closely-scrutinized-the-orlando-shooter-before-dropping-investigation/2016/06/13/838e9054-3177-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html> > > (emphasis added). This description of what the two men must have been doing > in the mosque is consistent with a quarter-century of government, media, > academic, and other opinion-elite sculpting of public perception: Islam, we > are to believe, is a religion just like any other; a mosque, therefore, > must be a house of worship like any church, temple, or synagogue in the > West - nothing more than a sanctuary where believers gather for communal > prayer. > > Of course, to the student of fundamentalist Islam and its > sharia-supremacist teachings, this is sheer nonsense. > > There is a reason why much of the jihadist violence in the Middle East and > its environs occurs on Fridays - *Juma*, the Muslim Sabbath, on which > believers pour out of mosques after being treated to the imam's political > diatribes and incitements to jihad against Western imperialism. > > While there are various ways of interpreting Islam, many of them benign > and reformist, sharia supremacism is not so much a religion as a radical > political ideology with a religious veneer. It does not recognize a > division between mosque and state, or between spiritual and political or > civic spheres of life. In this aggressive, fundamentalist construction of > Islam, the mosque is not a mere "house of worship" where believers gather > strictly "to pray." Far from it. *The mosque is the political and > ideological center of what, in the West, is an anti-assimilationist > movement bent on conquest, not prayerful pluralism.* > > Hassan al-Bannah, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world's most > influential, most sophisticated sharia-supremacist movement, taught a > farsighted form of ground-up revolution. It would plant its flag and grow > outward in enclaves, small towns, and - eventually - big cities, districts, > counties, states, provinces, and countries across the globe. > > And where would it plant its flag in every place it sought conquest? > Bannah instructed that *the mosque and its companion Islamic community > center would be "the axis of the movement" wherever the movement took root.* > > Nor does an American investigator need to be steeped in Muslim Brotherhood > doctrine to grasp this - however much those of us with eyes to see might > *wish* every American counterterrorism agent were acquainted with > Brotherhood doctrine. > > In the quarter-century since I prosecuted the jihadist cell that bombed > the World Trade Center in 1993 and plotted - unsuccessfully - to conduct > simultaneous strikes against iconic New York City landmarks, the Justice > Department has indicted and tried numerous terrorism cases. In these > prosecutions, the hub is invariably the mosque. To take my case as a > typical example, we proved that the mosque was used for jihadist > radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, training, and plotting, in > addition to serving as a safe space for the storage and transfer of > firearms. > > Why were jihadists so brazen in this regard? Because while our government > consciously avoids acknowledging the straightforward tenets of sharia > supremacism, Muslim militants go to school on the West. They know that, > heedless of what courtroom proof shows and what common sense says, our > opinion elites stubbornly cling to the depiction of Islam as a monolithic > "religion of peace," in which the mosque is merely and unvaryingly a place > of prayer. > > In this second investigation in which the FBI crossed paths with Mateen, > it concluded that he and Abusalha, the suicide jihadist, were passing > acquaintances at best; that their connection to the same "house of worship" > was mere happenstance. > > Still, in the course of the investigation, the Bureau stacked new, > troubling facts atop the Mateen intelligence haul that had already been > compiled. A witness told investigators that Mateen had been a devotee of > videos featuring the late al-Qaeda firebrand Anwar al-Awlaki - a jihadist > who, before finally being killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, > mysteriously slipped through the FBI's net several times over the years, > beginning with his apparently conspiratorial meetings with some of the 9/11 > suicide hijackers. > > Moreover, it turned out that Mateen had enrolled in an online Islamic > "seminary" run in Orlando by Marcus Robertson, a Muslim militant who had > been known to the FBI since the early 1990s, when he served as a sometime > bodyguard of the Blind Sheikh - the leader of the jihadist cell in my > aforementioned terrorism prosecution. > > Back then, Robertson was the leader of a violent gang that robbed banks > and post offices in order to underwrite the jihad. He was also described by > one jihadist as a reliable source for explosives, detonators, and > high-powered weapons. Robertson, however, served only a brief stint in > prison, apparently because he agreed to become a covert agent for American > intelligence agencies, a dubious arrangement that came to an abrupt halt in > 2007, when Robertson physically attacked his CIA handler in North Africa > and was ousted from the informant program. > > Robertson resurfaced in Florida a year later - naturally, as an imam in > yet another "prayer" center, the al-Ihsaan mosque, formerly known as the > Islamic Center of Orlando. Simultaneously, he reinvented himself as a > sharia scholar, running the Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary (later > redubbed the Timbuktu Seminary). That was the seminary in which Mateen > enrolled. > > For now, the extent of the Robertson-Mateen connection is unknown - it is > possible that Mateen merely enrolled in the online course and did not deal > with Robertson personally. It is known, however, that Robertson used the > seminary at least once for the purpose of jihadist recruitment. He and a > co-defendant, Jonathan Paul Jimenez, were convicted in a criminal case > involving tax fraud, the purpose of which was to raise money to finance > Jimenez's paramilitary training in Africa. > > In connection with that case, which also involved a firearms offense, > Robertson was incarcerated for nearly four years and proved alarmingly > adept at converting inmates to his radical interpretation of Islam. Yet > because the Justice Department had charged Robertson only with a tax > offense, not a terrorism offense, a federal judge released him in mid-2015 > on a sentence of time served. According to the court, the FBI's evidence > that Robertson had terrorist ties was too flimsy to warrant the ten-year > sentence urged by prosecutors. > > Was Mateen inspired by Robertson, just as he was clearly inspired by ISIS? > Just as there is reason to believe he may have been inspired by Abusalha? > Do his roots in radical Islam run deeper, a progression from his father's > attachment to Taliban fundamentalism, an ideology tracing back a millennium > and of which the brutalization of homosexuals is a core element, firmly > based in scripture and deeply rooted in sharia? > > Only further investigation will tell us for sure. > > Or will it? > > Emerging reports indicate that the FBI may have missed some behavioral > clues, such as a reported attempt to purchase body armor - a report that > may have been sketchy and hard to link to Mateen. I can assure you, though, > based on nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, that such clues are missed in > nearly every case. They tend to look a lot clearer in 20-20 hindsight than > they were in real time. > > Jihadist atrocities are more common homeland occurrences now, in the > eighth year of Obama, than they have ever been - more common even than in > the pre-9/11 Clinton years, when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center > and plotted against other targets but usually struck American facilities > overseas (our Air Force dormitory in Saudi Arabia, our embassies in East > Africa, our naval destroyer in Yemen). > > And while government officials and media analysts spout on about the > phenomenon of "lone wolf" attacks by "homegrown" terrorists, it is more > myth than fact. Repeatedly, we find out that the wolves in question were > not "lone" and hidden, but *known* and in plain sight. And though they > may strike at home, the ideology that fuels them is foreign and hostile to > the West. > > All that said, we should stipulate that the FBI is overwhelmed. There is a > natural tendency, after an atrocity occurs, to focus myopically on the > lead-up to the attack - as if any relevant investigation must have been the > only investigation in the world. But that is a gross distortion of reality. > > Of the nearly 36,000 people who work for the FBI, fewer than 14,000 are > investigative agents. National security is a crucial part of the Bureau's > portfolio, but the FBI is statutorily the lead investigative agency in > virtually every category of criminal offense in federal law. At most, there > are a couple thousand agents assigned full-time to counterterrorism. Those > numbers are multiplied somewhat by joint federal-state efforts - the Joint > Terrorism Task Forces in several metropolitan areas across the nation. Even > so, because the Bureau is an intelligence agency as well as a > law-enforcement agency, there are over a thousand terrorism investigations > ongoing at any one time. The FBI director indicates that there is activity > that must be monitored in all 50 states. Unless there are flashing neon > signs of imminent attack, the small number of investigators can only spend > so much time on any one suspect. > > Of course, that time can be maximized, or wasted, depending on whether > investigators know what they're looking for . . . and whether they are > permitted to look for it. > > Clearly, the FBI spent a lot of time on Mateen. It sent confidential > informants to interact with him, conducted physical surveillance, covertly > monitored some of his phone calls, and interviewed him face-to-face three > separate times. It concluded that his bark was bad, but his bite was > non-existent. Honoring guidelines imposed on terrorism investigations, the > FBI closed its case. That is, in addition to concluding that no charges > should be filed, *the Bureau further decided that additional monitoring > of Mateen was not warranted.* > > In retrospect, this seems reckless. But the FBI is not incompetent, far > from it. The agency knew Mateen was worth a heavy investigative investment. > The problem is that the FBI answers to the Washington political class. The > bipartisan Beltway has long ruled that advocacy of radical Islam is > protected by the Constitution. It has long instructed its investigators, > preposterously, that seditious beliefs and agitation are immune, not just > from prosecution, but even from *mere inquiry*. > > What passes for Obama's national-security strategy, known as "Countering > Violent Extremism," exacerbates this problem. CVE delusionally forbids the > conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on > terrorist plotting. The FBI is in the impossible position of trying to > conduct investigations that follow the facts wherever they lead, while > fearing that such investigations - by illuminating the logical progression > from Islamic scripture to sharia supremacism to jihadist terror - will > enrage its political masters. > > Understand: Nothing in the Constitution mandates this suicidal betrayal of > national security. It flows from Washington's lunatic concoction of an > imaginary Islam > <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428020/san-bernardino-shooting-terrorist-act-says-giuliani> > > - a belief system the sole tenets of which are peace and *anti*-terrorism. > President Obama and the counsel he keeps > <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414064/find-countering-violent-extremism-summit-intersection-islamists-and-leftists-andrew-c> > > (many of whom are connected to insidious Islamist organizations tied to > the Muslim Brotherhood > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388020/search-moderate-islamists-andrew-c-mccarthy>) > > insist this "anti-terrorist" "Religion of Peace" is the *only *viable > interpretation of Islam. We are not just to believe, we are pressured to > endorse, the fantasy that sharia supremacism is a "false Islam." > <https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/> Its palpable > mainstream status in the Middle East and elsewhere is not to be spoken of. > > The FBI is bound by guidelines promulgated by the Justice Department > <https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2008/10/03/guidelines.pdf>, > > most of which have been in place since the administration of President > George W. Bush. They impose a caveat on every investigation: > > These Guidelines do not authorize investigating or collecting or > maintaining information on United States persons solely for the purpose of > monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful > exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United > States. > > On its face, this admonition should not be problematic. It instructs that > agents may not investigate for the *sole* purpose of monitoring > activities protected by federal law. Consequently, if agents have *other > legitimate purposes* for investigating - such as preventing terrorist > attacks or probing terrorism conspiracies - the Justice Department guidance > is no bar to conducting an investigation in which a mosque or a protest > rally may foreseeably come under scrutiny. > > Political dissent and the exercise of religion are protected by the First > Amendment. But this is a protection against being *prosecuted* merely for > one's words or religious observance. *It is not a shield against > investigation for criminal activities that are motivated by religious or > political belief*. > > Not only may one be investigated and prosecuted for criminal offenses that > are motivated by one's beliefs or speech; it has long been the law that > evidence of one's beliefs and speech, which is often highly relevant to > proving criminal intent, may be admitted in a prosecution for such offenses. > > Simply stated, if you are a Muslim who believes sharia law must be imposed > on society, and you tell people that Allah commands the commission of > violent jihad to impose sharia, that belief and statement are admissible > evidence if you are charged with bombing or terrorism conspiracy crimes. > You are not being prosecuted for what you believe or what you said; *you > are being prosecuted for the crimes*. The beliefs and statements are > evidence of your state of mind - just as they are in all kinds of criminal > cases beyond terrorism. > > That being the case, there is nothing inherently wrong with, much less > constitutionally offensive about, the concept that radical religious or > political beliefs should trigger investigations. That is especially the > case if those beliefs are conveyed by aggressive language, or by > association with other radicals or mosques known to endorse jihadism. > > Here's an important principle we must get right: *It cannot be that > evidence an investigator may use to prove **guilt** of terrorism offenses > is somehow insulated from an investigator's **suspicions** about > potential terrorism offenses.* The goal of counterterrorism is supposed > to be the *prevention *of jihadist attacks, not the hope that there may > be a living terrorist or two still around to be indicted and tried only > after Americans have been murdered. > > In law enforcement, however, what matters most is not what *the law* > allows investigators to do. It is what the *investigators' superiors* > allow them to do. > > That brings us to "Countering Violent Extremism." In essence, CVE holds > that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/276181/how-nypd-gets-jihad-right-andrew-c-mccarthy>, > > or even with Islamist ideology that reviles the United States. President > Obama has conclusively proclaimed: "Muslim American communities have > categorically condemned terrorism" - end of discussion . . . as if that > were an incontestable proposition or one that told the whole story. > > Thus, the administration narrative continues, the real threat to our > security is not Muslim terrorist plots against us *but our provocation of > Muslims*. By the Obama administration's lights, our national-defense > measures following the 9/11 attacks have conveyed the misimpression that > America is at war with Islam. > > Remember, we're in Fantasy Land, so we're not supposed to pause at this > point to ask: *What, then, prompted the 9/11 attacks in the first place?* > What prompted the increasingly audacious series of attacks from the 1993 > bombing of the World Trade Center to the 2000 bombing of the *U.S.S. Cole* > - all during those sensitive, Islamophilic Clinton years when, we're to > believe, jihadists didn't think America was "at war with Islam." > > Instead of asking such impertinent questions, we are simply to accept the > president's say-so that the key to our security is to "partner" with the > leadership in Muslim communities - much of which just happens to be tied to > or heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. > > In a major 2007-08 prosecution (the *Holy Land Foundation *case), the > Justice Department proved that the Brotherhood financed the Hamas terrorist > organization to the tune of millions of dollars. That same Muslim > Brotherhood is the main subject of my 2010 book, *The Grand Jihad* > <https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/the-grand-jihad-how-islam-and-the-left-sabotage-america-paperback/>. > > The title is lifted from an internal Brotherhood memo seized by the FBI and > presented at the *Holy Land* trial - a memo in which Brotherhood honchos > stationed in the United States explained that their mission here is a > "grand jihad" to "eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within" - > by "sabotage." > > Under CVE, we are to let our Islamist "partners" train the police, and let > them be our eyes and ears in Muslim communities. Because we all share the > same interests, you see, we should rest assured that these Islamist leaders > will alert us if there is any cause for concern. > > Makes perfect sense, right? > > If it is possible, the practice of CVE is even more of a national-security > disaster than the theory. This is probably best documented by my friend > Stephen Coughlin in a recent and essential book: *Catastrophic Failure: > Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad* > <http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophic-Failure-Blindfolding-America-Jihad/dp/1511617500/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon> > *.* > > Apart from being an exceptional lawyer, Steve is a trained military > intelligence officer who has studied our enemies' threat doctrine, Islamic > supremacism. Again, to be precise, it may be best to call it "sharia > supremacism" because it reflects the classic sharia-based Islam that is > mainstream in the Middle East. *Catastrophic Failure *is about how the > United States government has systematically stifled the study of this > doctrine since before 9/11. CVE is the paragon illustration of how the > Obama administration has exacerbated this catastrophic failure - a failure > that I have branded "willful blindness" since first encountering it as a > prosecutor two decades ago. > > As Coughlin demonstrates, CVE is no secret. For example, the Department of > Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - which is > every bit as radical as the infamous Civil Rights Division in the Obama > Justice Department - has worked with the National Counterterrorism Center > to develop government-agency training programs that "bring together best > [CVE] practices." > > One product of this effort is a handy two-page instruction document of CVE > "Do's and Don'ts." > <http://www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/docs/shared/cve%20do%20and%20dont.pdf> > The "Don'ts" tell agents to avoid, among other things, "ventur[ing] too > deep into the weeds of religious doctrine and history" or examining the > "role of Islam in majority Muslim nations." The guidance further admonishes: > > Don't use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, > freedom to protest, or other constitutionally protected activity, with > criminal activity. One can have radical thoughts/ideas, including disliking > the U.S. government, without being violent; for example, trainers who > equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic > tenets of the First Amendment. > > As we've already observed, this interpretation of the First Amendment is > patent rubbish. Again, there is no free-speech protection against having > one's words examined for intelligence or investigative purposes. > Free-expression principles protect Americans against laws that subject > speech to penalty or prosecution - a protection, by the way, that the Obama > administration seeks to deny to speech unflattering to Islam > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427521/john-kerry-charlie-hebdo-comments>, > > under a U.N. resolution it jointly sponsored with several Islamic nations. > > In sum, Obama's CVE strategy expressly instructs our investigators to > consider only violent or criminal *conduct*. They are told to ignore > radical ideology, particularly if it has the patina of "religious > expression." They are directed to turn a deaf ear to anti-Americanism and > the desire to impose sharia, which just happens to be the principal > objective of all violent jihadists, and of the Obama administration's > oft-time consultants, the Muslim Brotherhood. > > Our agents, furthermore, are cautioned to avoid doing anything that smacks > of subjecting particular groups to heightened scrutiny. After all, that > might imply that terrorism committed by Muslims has some connection to > Islam - specifically, to the undeniable, unambiguous commands to violent > jihad found in Muslim scripture. > > Obviously, this CVE guidance is exactly what our investigators follow when > they consciously avoid scrutinizing jihadist social-media postings by visa > applicants from Muslim-majority countries - such as Tashfeen Malik. She was > the Pakistani immigrant who joined her jihadist husband, Syed Farook, in > carrying out last December's mass-murder attack in San Bernardino (in which > 14 people were killed and dozens wounded). > > There is nothing secret about CVE. It is right there in black and white. > Willful > blindness > <https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/willful-blindness-a-memoir-of-the-jihad-paperback/>, > > furthermore, is a guiding principle of Obama's governance. It is the same > rationale used to justify purging instruction about the Islamic doctrinal > roots of violent jihadism from materials used to train our law-enforcement, > military, and intelligence agents. > > Finally, the mulish determination to hamstring our investigators is > manifest in federal immigration policy, which actually promotes the > infiltration of alien radicals into our country. > > As a matter of law, it remains true that the first obligation of the > federal government is national security, particularly protecting the lives > of Americans and the homeland. It is also true that aliens outside the > United States do not have a right to enter the United States, nor do they > enjoy Bill of Rights protections under the Constitution. > > It should come as no surprise then, that there is considerable legal and > historical precedent for excluding from our country aliens who have > exhibited an affinity for foreign enemies of the United States, hostility > to the Constitution, and hostility to the government of the United States. > > Moreover, it has historically been the goal of our immigration law and > policies to promote assimilation and fidelity to American constitutional > principles on the part of newly admitted aliens. To this day, aliens about > to be naturalized as U.S. citizens are required to take an oath to defend > the Constitution and renounce allegiance to any foreign sovereign. > > It also remains true that aliens outside the United States do not have > constitutional rights. Their legitimate expectations of due process are > quite low. The Supreme Court ruled in 1950 > <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5235136558696880110&q=United+States+ex+rel.+Knauff+v.+Shaughnessy&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1> > > that they get only whatever due process Congress chooses to give them. And > under a long-established legal doctrine ("consular non-reviewability"), > courts are theoretically barred from second-guessing the rejection of visa > applications by State Department consular officers. > > Nevertheless, these foundational principles were eroded in the latter half > of the 20th century by the political Left. As James R. Edwards recounts in > an essential 2005 report for the Center for Immigration Studies ("Keeping > Extremists Out: The History of Ideological Exclusion and the Need for Its > Revival <http://cis.org/HistoryIdeologicalExclusion>"), progressives > argued that historical restrictions against immigration by alien anarchists > and (especially) Communists had been based on nativist fears and an > exaggerated estimation of the threat that our government would be violently > overthrown - an estimation that, to the contrary, was bolstered by > extensive proof of Communist infiltration that emerged after the Soviet > Union's collapse. > > The political Left championed new international arrangements, such as the > 1975 Helsinki Accords, that aimed to facilitate international travel and > began a gradual rejection of immigration restrictions based on radical > political ideology. Simultaneously, the Warren Court's expansion of First > Amendment protection for anti-American radicalism served to erode > immigration restrictions that had sought to exclude aliens ideologically > hostile to our society and system of governance. > > The Court extended First Amendment protection to the abstract discussion, > teaching, and advocacy of the overthrow of our government > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/298> (tenuously > distinguishing it from conspiratorial action to achieve that goal). > Similarly, the justices protected the "mere advocacy" of illegal acts > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444> (tenuously > distinguishing such "advocacy" from actionable incitement to violent crime). > > While federal courts did not expressly and directly recognize > constitutional rights for aliens, they used a loopy theory to derive such > rights. They reasoned - if you can call it that - that the First Amendment > rights *of Americans* to free political speech and assembly were somehow > violated by the exclusion of alien radicals from our midst. The exclusion, > we were to believe, deprived American citizens of the "right" to hear what > these radicals had to say - as if their physical presence were necessary > for this purpose. > > The overarching theme was that immigration restrictions based on an > alien's radical, anti-American *ideology* were to be discouraged. > Restrictions, instead, were to be limited to situations in which there was > evidence of subversive or terrorist *action*. > > There were still restrictions in federal statutory law that enabled the > government to exclude aliens who were members of subversive organizations, > or who had advocated seditious acts against the United States. But leading > congressional Democrats warmed to the Supreme Court's suggestion that > radical ideology is basically harmless and has no causative connection to > violent action. Led by Senator George McGovern (D., S.D.), lawmakers in > 1977 pushed through legislation that waived these provisions in almost all > cases. > > Later, in 1988, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., N.Y.) and > Representative Barney Frank (D., Mass.) succeeded in enacting an amendment > that effectively granted First Amendment protections to non-immigrant > aliens. Finally, the 1990 Immigration Act, spearheaded by Congressman > Frank, largely repealed the reliance on radical ideology as a basis for > excluding aliens. Henceforth, aliens could be excluded for involvement in > terrorist *activity*, but not for holding the *belief*, or "merely" > *advocating*, that the United States government should be overthrown. > > In short, as the Soviet Union teetered and collapsed, Washington convinced > itself that the "End of History > <https://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550>" was upon us: > It was only a matter of time until progressive welfare-state democracy > spread across the world. In the meantime, we were to believe that the > American people would never again face significant threats to our security > and our way of life. > > The post-sovereign, international Left, which sought to eliminate > distinctions between citizens and aliens, saw no contradiction in awarding > aliens outside the U.S. the privileges of constitutional protections, with > no expectation of their taking on the duties and loyalties of American > citizens. Political progressives haughtily assumed that there were no real > foreign threats on the horizon. > > About a year later, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They've been > striking us ever since. > > So are we defenseless against our enemies? > > Well, we are as defenseless as we can be when the impediments to strong > national defense are self-imposed. As bleak as things may seem, most of the > restrictions on us could be quickly reversed were the will there to do so. > Eyes willfully shut can be willfully pried opened. We could recognize what > ought to be the undeniable connection between radical ideology and violent > action. We could subject Islamists to heightened scrutiny while remaining > mindful of our Muslim allies - those who help us infiltrate terror networks > and stop attacks, those who celebrate liberty and reject the imposition of > fundamentalist sharia as a system of totalitarian governance. > > We could recognize that, however one assesses the seriousness of the > Communist threat and the likelihood that it might have pursued the violent > overthrow of our government, the modern jihadist threat is vastly > different. Whether its belligerent sharia-supremacist ideology leads > inexorably to murderous atrocities is not an abstract academic question. > The progression from scripture to incitement to violence is a fact too > often repeated to doubt. We could therefore conclude that an immigration > policy crafted for the challenges of the Soviet era is not suitable for our > current threat environment. We could make sensible changes. > > These are things we can do to become less defenseless, but they do not > address a basic cultural question. Sometimes a people becomes defenseless > *because > it decides it is no longer worth defending*. This is a prospect we must > dread as we hear, more relentlessly it seems with every new jihadist > attack, that we are to blame - that America is always the culprit that > provokes, not the target defending liberty against would-be tyrants. > > A sound counterterrorism strategy can right a lot of wrongs and shore up a > lot of weaknesses. Alas, it cannot convince us that what we stand for is > worth the effort. > > > > Read more: Family Security Matters > <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/defenseless-in-the-face-of-our-enemies?f=must_reads#ixzz4D4N4dfbf> > > http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/defenseless-in-the-face-of-our-enemies?f=must_reads#ixzz4D4N4dfbf > > Under Creative Commons License: Attribution > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0> > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYWhiZjVoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjcyOTU4ODU-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb21iZmFrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NzI5NTg4NQ--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
