At the end of a get out the vote campaign event in New Hampshire on Wednesday, […] was asked about […] plans for protecting cyber security.
“It is one of the most important challenges the next president is going to face,” […] said.
[…] said that the technology offenses conducted by hostile states have become more advanced. […] named Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea as countries that are just going to accelerate their attacks on the cyber infrastructure of the United States.
“We first have to figure how to create what would be an understanding with these nations that we will not tolerate their cyber theft and their cyber evasiveness, and we certainly would never ever sit still for a cyber attack,” […] said.
No. Instead we’ll just put secret material on a private server located in a bathroom somewhere and you can just help yourself.
And yes, it was Hillary Clinton, the irony impaired candidate.
The AP reported that during Clinton’s time at the State Department that it was one of the worst agencies in the federal government at protecting its computer networks. The deteriorating situation continued well into when John Kerry took over.
Anthony DeChristopher over at The Hill thinks the latest finds on Hillary’s email server are a “game changer”. And he makes a good point … it’s a game changer for someone:
Special Access Programs (SAP) is a game changer. It is now undeniably clear that the results of the FBI investigation will be the end of one of two things: Hillary’s bid for the White House or the legitimacy of the FBI—at least when it comes to prosecuting cases on the mishandling of classified material.
The FBI’s reputation has been tarnished in the last decade or so. No longer is it thought of quite in the same way it once was. A series of missteps, scandals and problems have lowered the once sterling reputation of the law enforcement agency.
On the other hand is a powerful political figure that’s in the running for President of the United States and just happens to be of the same party and the presently serving President of the United States. To make it clear, the FBI works for the executive department under the Department of Justice. And, of course, the DoJ is headed by an Obama appointee. Oh, and remember, the Dems want to hold on to the White House.
Hillary Clinton is a “win at any price” person. She badly wants to be the first female President of the United States. Badly. Very, very badly.
The FBI wants to polish up its reputation as the incorrigible and incorruptible law enforcement agency that isn’t swayed or impacted by politics, but simply enforces the law.
Something has got to give.
DeChristopher is apparently a former Special Forces soldier who gives you a brief run down of the gravity of the Clinton offense.
First, when imagery that is classified SECRET//NOFORN (no foreign national) is viewed, regardless of the absence of classification markings, it is distinctly evident. Second, any documents that contain or reference HUMINT is always classified SECRET, and if specific names of sources or handlers are mentioned, they are at a minimum SECRET//NOFORN. Third, SIGINT is always classified at the TS level. It’s not uncommon for some SI to be downgraded and shared over SECRET mediums, however, it is highly unlikely that a Secretary of State would receive downgraded intelligence. Finally, SAP intelligence has been discovered on Clinton’s private server, and many are now calling this the smoking gun. SAP is a specialized management system of additional security controls designed to protect SAR or Special Access Required. SAR has to do with extremely perishable operational methods and capabilities, and only selected individuals who are “read on” or “indoctrinated” are permitted access to these programs. The mishandling of SAP can cause catastrophic damage to current collection methods, techniques and personnel.
Got it? This isn’t something that is hard to figure out, and anyone who has worked at high levels of government for years already knows all this. Now comes the chaser:
In other words, if you have worked with classified material for more than a day, it seems highly implausible that someone could receive any of the aforementioned over an un-secure medium without alarm bells sounding. However, reading about a Special Access Program on an unclassified device would make anyone even remotely familiar with intelligence mess their pantsuit.
You can tell it has put her highness off her stride, but she’s resurrecting the VRWC to cover that.
However this is going to be interesting to watch. There is a large amount of evidence that points to her being directly responsible for a horrific, nay, epic security breach at the highest level.
Will the FBI do it’s job? Or is this, like so many Clinton scandals, going to end up with no action being taken when you can be sure if it was you or I, we’d be frog-marched so fast to the local hoosegow that it would make our heads swim.
But we’re the little people, aren’t we?
I’m more than a little bemused by the current self-inflicted problem Europe is experiencing and the US seems more the willing to allow to happen here, given that the current administration pretty much shares the ideals under which Europe is foundering. I certainly understand the wish to aid people displaced by wars. But since when did that mean committing to the mass immigration of a religious culture that has, demonstrably, refused to assimilate into the dominant culture of the countries into which they’re being imported (this isn’t a new phenomenon for Europe … it’s been going on for decades). How does Europe, which has existent large populations of unassimilated migrants of the same religious culture assume this will somehow be different?
Of course, we’re talking about Islam. Well, we’re talking about it. As Andrew McCarthy points out, those in favor of welcoming this mass importation are talking about “fantasy Islam”. This New Year’s Eve, reality slapped fantasy Islam and its adherents in the chops:
Nearly 200 women have filed criminal complaints in Cologne, the vast majority charging all manner of sexual assault. There have been few arrests, though, and nearly none involving sex crimes. The Muslim men used a tactic that has escaped the notice of fantasy Islam devotees but is well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.
But, but … that’s not supposed to happen. Not in fantasy Islam which is all about peace and coexistence. In fact, those that believe that nonsense are all about naiveté and willful ignorance. And there is a building backlash to this absurd policy:
A poll published by the Sunday edition of the influential tabloid Bild showed 49% of Germans feared a repeat of the Cologne events in their hometowns. Similar New Year’s Eve assaults were reported on a smaller scale in the cities of Hamburg and Stuttgart.
Authorities, who have described the violence in Cologne as unprecedented in the country, have also said that most potential suspects had applied for asylum in Germany or were in the country illegally. Cologne’s police chief was forced out Friday amid criticism over the police’s failure to prevent the attacks and its apparent hesitation to acknowledge that the attackers may have been asylum applicants. The police chief, Wolfgang Albers, denied trying to cover up the backgrounds of suspected attackers.
The attacks have also provoked an emotional debate in Germany on how to deal with sexual violence. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker drew heavy criticism after saying that women should keep an arm’s length distance from men in situations that could escalate. She later apologized, saying she didn’t mean to set a code of conduct for women and that the attackers were the ones responsible in cases of sexual violence.
Since the New Year’s eve attacks in numerous cities in Europe, the narrative that has been spun by the backers of this mass immigration has been reduced to tatters. There’s even evidence other incidents have been essentially covered up. In Sweden, for example, a major newspaper stands accused of no failing to report such problems, but essentially refusing to do so.
And the media in the US seems just as complicit in trying to deny what happened on NYE was anything to do with refugees or, by inference, Islam:
“It was not clear,” the New York Times opaquely explains, “that any of the men involved were among those who arrived in Germany over the past year from conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
While the NYT tacitly agrees that the incidents happened, in this land of #allwomenshouldbebelieved, it apparently has difficulty believing the descriptions of the men those 200 assaulted women identified because of what that would mean in terms of identifying their religion. One thing that seems to be clear, however … it wasn’t a mob of German (or other) European males.
So the fellow travelers invested in fantasy Islam continue to refuse reality and are reduced to shouting “Islamaphobia” at anyone who disagrees.
The situation here isn’t much different. I understand Obama will have a Syrian refugee sitting in the balcony for his (thankfully) last State of the Union speech. It is obviously a symbolic presence meant to assure us that there’s nothing to fear by importing fighting age men from an Islamic country into this nation. Because, you know, government is on the job and has this rigorous vetting process before any refugees are allowed in the country. You have nothing to fear.
Two men born in Iraq who came to the U.S. as refugees had court dates in California and Texas Friday on terror-related charges, as investigators say one of the men wrote that he wanted to travel to Syria because he was “eager to see blood.”
How did that happen? One assumes those two were also a product of that “rigorous vetting process”. How many more like them are still at large?
As for those who might come here from Syria, guess who is handling their screening?
The recent terrorism-related arrests of two refugees from the Middle East again showed the national security risks associated with the present refugee screening process. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies analyzes this refugee resettlement screening process and the large role played by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the entity entrusted with the entire pre-screening process for Syrian refugees being considered for resettlement in the United States.
The UNHCR screens refugees and then presents the U.S. with potential resettlement cases; 22,427 Syrian refugee cases have been submitted. The selecting, pre-screening, and referring refugees for resettlement, as well as the humanitarian care of the well over four million Syrian refugees, has been accomplished with what amounts to one staff member for 2, 862 refugees. The selection process uses the following guidelines: “The mere absence of information, or one’s inability to find information that supports an applicant’s claim, should not in itself justify a negative eligibility decision.” The only requirement for applicants’ statements is that they “must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.”
Yes, friends, that same entity whose “peacekeeping” troops are so well known for rape. I’m sure that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, no?
So why is it that Europe’s leadership and media continue to invest themselves in fantasy Islam? Here’s one explanation. Remember when the Catholic church’s sex scandal broke? Remember how abysmally the church handled it? Remember how badly it all went for the Church?
Instead like the church for political, economic or cultural reasons the countries of Europe hung back and the communities became isolated and unassimilated. And when the cultural effect went beyond the results have been devastating, In Rotherham, in Birmingham, in Cologne, in Oslo in Paris and in literally thousands of other places the authorities have decided to go all in with a comfortable lie. They have chosen to pretend that millions of unassimilated muslims in the west are not a problem, they have chosen to ignore the no go zones, the violence, the murder of their citizen and even the rape of their women and children for the sake of proclaiming that none of these things have anything to do with Islam, its practice or its culture.
Like the church scandal the driving force here is fear and a desire to put off a confrontation that this big lie is making more a more likely. And like the church scandal the longer the west remains in denial the greater the cost of solving the problem
So again, the questions – reasonable questions – arise concerning these refugees. Why must they come here (why can’t they be resettled in cultures in the area they come from which are compatible with theirs?)? And if they come here, shouldn’t they assimilate instead of segregate and demand their own culture be both tolerated and implemented? How does one implement cultural demands that require their own brand of law be superior to ours? Or that women essentially be treated as chattel? How many stonings, rapes, honor killings and acid attacks would we be willing to endure in the name of tolerance?
Victor Davis Hanson gives us 4 points necessary for successful immigration, the model for the past in the US. They are a key to why, unlike Europe, America has been successful with its immigration over the centuries. While the left scoffs at the idea of a “melting pot” and even warns that using the term is a “micro aggression”, Europe’s “salad bowl” proves their alternative to be … another fantasy. Here’s Hanson:
One, immigrants came legally. Breaking the law was a lousy way to start American residency. How can an immigrant continue to respect and follow his adopted country’s legal system when his first act as an American resident is to mock federal law?
Two, immigration was blind and diverse. It did not favor one particular group over another. The more diverse the immigrant blocs, the less likely they were to form lasting separate communities. There were, of course, mass influxes of immigrants in the past, but they were quite diverse: gobs of Germans, hordes of Irish, masses of Italians and Sicilians, huge influxes of Poles and Jews, lots of Japanese and Chinese, large arrivals of Mexicans. But note how diverse and varied were the immigrants’ places of origin and how destined they were to bump into each other upon arrival. Each group was wary of the other trying to use immigration as a crass tool to boost their own political fortunes by bringing in more kin than their rivals.
Three, immigrants usually arrived in manageable numbers; mass arrivals were usually periodic and episodic, not continuous and institutionalized. Only that way could the melting pot absorb newcomers and avoid the tribalism and factionalism that had always plagued so many prior failed multi-ethnic national experiments abroad. To avoid the fate of Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia, immigrants—geographically, politically, culturally—by needs were soon intermixed and intermingled.
Four, both hosts and immigrants insisted on rapid Americanization. Immigrants learned English, followed all the laws of their host, and assumed America was good without having to be perfect. Otherwise they would have stayed home.
Fantasy, willful ignorance and an abject refusal to confront evil lead to the mess Europe now finds itself facing. Reality, as usual, doesn’t deal nicely with those who refuse to recognize it. The threat to our country comes from those who believe in a culture and religion that, as they would have it implemented, is incompatible with Western ideals. They have no business here.
Hopefully we won’t duplicate the stupidity with which Europe has so naively committed itself. There is nothing wrong with slowing things down and ensuring we aren’t allowing those who don’t want to or won’t assimilate into our country. We don’t need or want those who are like the two just arrested in California and Texas. And, if that is “Islamaphobia”, then so be it. I’ll live with the tag.
So, what would a ban on all Muslims being allowed into the US do?
Well, I don’t know. I certainly understand why there are those calling for it but there’s a simple point here, as pointed out in San Bernardino:
The attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last week were discussing jihad at least two years before they opened fire in California, the FBI director said Wednesday.
The husband-and-wife duo “were radicalized for quite a long time before their attack,” FBI Director James B. Comey said during an appearance on Capitol Hill. This follows earlier statements by investigators that the shooters had both been adherents to a radical strain of Islam long before the massacre.
And one of them was a US citizen born in the United States.
Certainly, banning all Muslims from entry into the country would probably weed out some potential jihadis. But a committed jihadi isn’t likely to seek permission to enter. Not with the condition of our borders. And, on the other hand, I find it completely contrary to what I believe, even though I certainly have a level of understanding for those calling for it.
More importantly, and right’s questions aside, is the exclusion likely to do to Muslims here exactly what happened to the San Bernardino male half of the killing team. Radicalize them … or some of them. Homegrown jihadis.
All that said, it certainly seems that a devout believer in Islam would have a higher likelihood of embracing radicalism than some other religions. Part of that is because it is so incompatible with Western values and ideals. So, a devout follower is less likely to assimilate than those of other religions. Couple that with the demands of Sharia law and it appears to be totally incompatible with Western values and ideals (to those who become radicalized because of that incompatibility).
What about them? What does a country do with citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, who don’t want to assimilate, don’t want to embrace the country’s ideals and insist, in fact, demand, that the country change to accommodate their beliefs?
Just a bunch of questions that have popped into my mind as I watch all of the politics of the issue flying around the airwaves.
Those words were uttered by President Obama prior to the Paris massacre by ISIS. Politico argues that the words were in response to a specific question about territory ISIS controlled. And, frankly, if that’s the argument I think it has some credibility. However, in the same interview, Obama said:
Until Assad is no longer a lightning rod for Sunnis in Syria and the entire region is no longer a proxy war for Shia-Sunni conflict, we’re gunna continue to have problems. … with making sure that ISIL continues to shrink in its scope of operations until it no longer poses the kind of threat that it does, not just primarily to us, but to neighbors in the region[.]”
Just as clearly, that’s a claim that the administration and it’s allies in the region will keep up their operations to ensure that “ISIL continues to shrink its scope of operations” until it is no longer a threat. While it may not specifically state that “ISIL is contained”, it certainly implies success in “continuing” to “shrink” ISIL/ISIS’s “scope of operations”. To me, its pretty much the same claim as “ISIS is contained”.
However, as usual, reality trumps fantasy:
Since October 10, ISIS and its sympathizers around the world have killed at least 525 people in six attacks in six countries outside its so-called caliphate.
American counterterrorism officials say that of the six attacks, three were directed by ISIS from its territory in Syria and Iraq and another two were so-called “announcement” attacks — local ISIS elements revealing their existence in dramatic fashion.
Yes, that’s right, friends and neighbors, since October 10th, 525 people around the world have died as a result of this “shrinking” of ISIL/ISIS’s “scope of operations”. 525 in 6 separate attacks. And the fact is, our “leader” was trying to peddle the notion that ISIL/ISIS was being controlled.
Does it sound like success in “shrinking” the “scope of operations” of this terrorist group? Does it look like ISIL/ISIS is being controlled?
Most people would read it as a very large expansion of operations by a group largely out of anyone’s control on the opposition side.
But then, most people aren’t in “denial” (and if you’re wondering, remember the correct answer is “gun control”).
I’ve seen many critiques of it, but for me it was, well, boring. Why? Because it was so predictable. Other than some grudging acceptance of the terrorism that has spawned in the US, it was the usual nonsense of lecturing the citizens of the US like they were children. Jim Geraghty picked up on that too:
At this point in his presidency, Obama speaks with only one tone, the slightly exasperated and sometimes not-merely-slightly exasperated “adult in the room” who constantly has to correct his fellow Americans, who are always flying off the handle, calling for options that “aren’t who we are,” betraying our values, and so on. He’s always so disappointed in us.
At certain points, Obama sounded as if he was speaking to children. “The threat is real, but we will overcome it.” “We will not defeat it with tough talk, abandoning our values, or giving in to fear.” “We will prevail by being strong and smart.”
And yet, we’ve heard nothing “strong or smart” from the man giving the lecture. Nothing. For instance:
He made yet another pitch for barring anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list from purchasing firearms. He simply ignored any of the objections, whether it’s the lack of due process or judicial review, the arbitrary, foggy nature of how someone gets on the list, or the fact that 280,000 people with no recognized terrorist group affiliation are on the list.
Sounds good to those who don’t really think about it, but is it? Not really. Why? Well, that’s fairly simple:
You know who wasn’t on the no-fly list? The San Bernardino shooters. Nor was the Fort Hood shooter. Nor the Boston bombers. Nor the Chattanooga shooter. In other words, no perpetrator of any major attack on American soil was on the no-fly list.
So again, the “smartest guy in the room” acts exasperated with the “children” but offers up a whole lot of nothing – except the usual dump truck load of words – that addresses the problem.
As someone tweeted when they found out that Obama, Biden and Rice among others were meeting to address San Bernardino, “Our JV team”.
“We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic,” [Obama] said. “We don’t make good decisions if they’re based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks.”
There you have it, folks: If you doubt any portion of our current refugee policy, you’re “hysterical.” Never mind that a recent poll showed 13 percent of Syrian refugees declaring a “positive” or “somewhat positive” view of ISIS, or that at least one of the Paris attackers apparently arrived in France posing as a refugee. Never mind the 26 charges of terrorism brought up against foreign-born individuals in the U.S. in the past year, as Sen. Jeff Sessions documented this week, or the fact that in October, FBI Director James Comey testified that our current system likely can’t effectively vet Syrian refugees.
More importantly, never mind the fact that opposition to current refugee protocols doesn’t necessarily translate into opposition to helping refugees altogether; had Obama led with an acknowledgment of the system’s weaknesses and showed genuine concern towards fixing them, we might be in a different situation today. As it is, a new Bloomberg poll shows 53 percent of Americans opposing the current settlement plan.
Yes, that’s right, our President is on extreme. And of course he considers the GOP to be the real extreme, characterizing them as wanting no refugees from Syria at all. Granted there are certainly those who do indeed want that. But broad brushes are a little, well, broad.
In effect, no one is saying turn away “widows and 3 year old orphans”, as some on the left have characterized the attitude on the right.
What is concerning everyone is the number and percentage of young, military age men in this mix. Are they jihadists that ISIS is trying to smuggle into the US. Despite their claims, the administration has no idea. That’s a national security issue and the safety of the citizens of the US take priority over a bunch of refugees. Of course that’s how the job description of President goes, but apparently, Obama is trying to rewrite that. Risk is a matter of opinion, and a good leader would develop a process that would be transparent and assure the public of its safety. But then, we have Obama …
And what most want is a “pause” before wholesale importing of refugees, to review the vetting process and tighten it up if necessary. In the meantime, I’m sure, if the US asked nicely, these refugees could be placed in a neutral middle Eastern country until that process is complete. That would assure their safety.
But to hear Obama and his supporters, it is as if the right is just so damned racist and xenophobic that they can’t tolerate the thought of helping any foreign refugees by placing them here (of course, history tells a different story).
Tell you what. To show your good faith Mr. Obama, let’s first start by giving refugee and immigration status to our Iraqi and Afghan interpreters who are at daily risk for helping us and many on the right have been trying to get here for years. That’s been a hill the left just doesn’t seem to have been able to climb.
Then they can again assume their superior attitude and lecture the rest of us on our “responsibility” to others.
As exemplified by Margaret Carlson on “Morning Joe”:
Carlson said of assimilating immigrants, “we do know how to do it. Europe doesn’t know how to do it. France especially doesn’t know how to do it. England not very good at it. And so, we have less of a problem. You know, those people who have snuck in, that, I don’t know if they’ve snuck in, but maybe they become Americanized, maybe the anger goes away. Maybe what they snuck in to do they’re not going to do, because we do have an acceptance of these people, as Congressman [Keith] Ellison (D-MN) said. They’re more patriotic because they’re here and they work harder.”
Because that’s why jihadists came here – to assimilate, get jobs, work harder.
Remember when we were told that all the members of ISIS needed were jobs? If we’d provide that, well, they’d just settle down and quit trying to impose a 7th Century caliphate on the world. And then there’s Mohammed Atta, who basically came here, hung around, tasted the “good life”, learned to fly and shopped at Walmart and ate at Pizza Hut the day before he flew a hijacked plane into one of the twin towers. He “assimilated” quite well didn’t he, Margaret?
The fact that the left will not admit to or recognize the fact that this is a war of ideologies and the radical Islamist ideology isn’t about “assimilation”, any more than was the Nazi ideology, is dangerous. They also apparently can’t admit that there is evil in the world and in this case, it is epitomized in ISIS, and one must confront evil head on. If they did any of that they’d have to admit their “tolerance” and “multicultural” arguments are nonsense. Admitting all of that would also demand they take action.
None of that is going to happen with this crowd. Just look at the man in the White House. He’s all about pretending. He’s pretended for quite some time that ISIS isn’t really a threat. His failure to admit, recognize and confront the evil that is radical Islam has helped lead us to this point. And he still won’t take action. But he’s not going to. In a recent speech, he as much as said that:
But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.
Whether or not he goes to Walter Reed, this is just an excuse leveraged off of the military. My first thought was if he’s not able to make the hard decisions that will keep the American people safe, he needs to resign from the job. The second thing I thought was, just as I did, these young men and women were willing to pay the price necessary to keep this country safe, and he’s just made that effort worthless. It has been all OJT for him anyway, and he has failed miserably. As to playing “political games”, that’s all the man does. This play on wounded military is just that.
We’ll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it’s entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I’m too busy for that.
Of course the CJCS have presented numerous proposals that he wouldn’t even entertain, much less approve and none of which included the dreaded “boots on the ground”. He’s simply not going to do anything serious. The above is politics. He no more wants to meet and debate than he wants to strike ISIS. He’s “too busy” being arrogant and inept and leaving a huge mess for whomever it is that has to fill the vacancy we’ve actually had for 7, going on 8, years. As for doing “what’s required to keep the American people safe”, apparently importing possible jihadis from a hot bed of them how this is done.
This is the legacy of liberalism
Beautiful, ain’t it?
Even Mother Jones know the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue:
Here’s the thing: to the average person, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to the country. We know that ISIS would like to attack the US. We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees. And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it’s pretty easy.
So it doesn’t seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.
Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here? Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
They just cancelled a soccer game in Germany due to very hard intelligence that terrorists planned to bomb it. And, of course, Paris.
Why wouldn’t it be “reasonable” to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to those who are supposedly intellectually above average on the left?
That, my friend, remains the question, doesn’t it?
One of the three in the title doesn’t belong there:
I watched, incredulously, as all three contenders in Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley — refused to say the slaughter was the work of “Muslim” extremists.
Clinton blamed “jihadis.” But despite prodding, she would not speak of the Islamic elephant in the room.
Sanders stood by his earlier claim that climate change, not creatures in suicide vests, presents the biggest threat to this planet because it makes poor people into terrorists by interfering with their crops or something.
At that point, I switched to the Syfy channel to get a bigger dose of reality.
And probably got much more of a dose of reality than the Democratic debate.
Imagine claiming “climate change” was the “biggest threat to the planet” when terrorists are blowing up people in France. Or the simple fact that the climate really hasn’t shown any change in over a decade.
Who are “jihadis” and what religion do they represent, Ms. Clinton?
And who’s two memes, “ISIS is the jayvee” and “other civilized countries don’t have this sort of problem (referring to mass killings), were utterly destroyed? Not to mention watching the French president show what leadership means by hitting ISIS immediately, repeatedly and hard?
Oh, that would be our Commander-in-Chief, the semi-retired and totally disconnected Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, the importation of 10,000 Syrian refugees will continue as planned.
Yup, Syfy would seem to deal in reality much more than our President and the Democrats.