Obama equates the danger from Syrian refugees with that of tourists
Sometimes it seems as though there are so many outrages occurring, and so many lies/misrepresentations told, that some of the most important get lost in the shuffle and start blending in with the rest of the din. For example, about five weeks ago President gave forth a comforting message meant to soothe the silly frightened children known as The American Public, and to belittle the Republican position:
Speaking to reporters with his usual impatience, Obama said Republicans are ginning up unsubstantiated fear when it comes to our new neighbors [the Middle Eastern refugees].
“The idea that somehow they pose a more significant threat than all the tourists who pour into the United States every single day just doesn’t jive with reality,” Mr. Obama said. “So my expectation is after the initial spasm of rhetoric, the people will settle down, take a look at the facts, and we’ll be able to proceed.”
This is interesting on a number of levels. If you think about it, there’s no reason a tourist couldn’t commit a terrorist act. The same is true of those coming here on visas, whether those visas are overstayed or not (many Republicans candidates are suggesting finding a better way of vetting and/or tracking people here on visas of all types), as was well-demonstrated by the carnage in San Bernardino—where one of the perpetrators was here on a fiance visa—not long after Obama’s remarks.
But even before that, there was an interesting little historical fact that Obama was ignoring when he made his remarks, which is that most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on visas. Actually, they were here—wait for it—on tourist visas and business visas:
The fact is, only one of the 19 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. That one was Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian terrorist who piloted the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, according to a 2004 staff report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In his student visa application, Hanjour provided paperwork showing that he was enrolled in an English as a second language program in Oakland, Calif., but he never attended after arriving in America (a fact that would draw scrutiny today [sic?]). He did not, however, overstay his student visa.
Of the other 18 9/11 hijackers, 14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country.
So President Obama may indeed be correct that the danger from Syrian refugees is similar to that from tourist visa holders. Unfortunately, that’s not really a great argument for the case he’s trying to make—which is that no one should worry about either phenomenon.
Naturally, terrorists who are here longer and who have time to plan and to recruit can probably do more damage. But there is little question that those who come here as refugees, or on tourist visas, or on student visas, or on business visas, could be terrorists. And of course, terrorists would always be a tiny tiny percentage of the whole of each group. But it only takes a very small number of terrorists to do damage: in many cases, just one.
Or two, as in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers. They weren’t Syrian refugees, but this is their initial history. Note the role played by tourist visas:
In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa. Anzor Tsarnaev applied for asylum, citing fears of deadly persecution due to his ties to Chechnya.
The story of the Tsarnaevs illustrates several principles. One is that actual or potential terrorists can come here many ways, including (of course) as refugees on on visas of various kinds, including tourist visas initially. Another is that the Muslim immigrant population in this country—and all Western countries—constitutes a reservoir of potential recruits for jihadists, either through the influence of radical mosques, acquaintances, or online. The longer a person lives here the more assimilated that person would be, and the less vulnerable to this—theoretically. But in practice, it is most definitely possible for a long-term resident or even someone born here to become radicalized. As we see from the Tsarnaev brothers, as well as in San Bernardino and the pattern of attacks in Europe, those who have been born here or lived here from childhood are hardly immune.
That does not mean that refugees from a country such as Syria, which is loaded with terrorists, are not also potentially dangerous. Obama would have us draw a false conclusion from his equivalence, whose main purpose is to mock and/or condescend to those who question his judgment.
Maybe the Press could do its job and point out FACTS like the above.
Cornhead:
Don’t sit on a hot stove till they do.
Just identify the problems, and fix them, Mr President. Despite the obfuscation, there remains the essential fact that Obama tries to obscure. He is responsible for the security of the United States, and of its citizens. Quibbling about the various ways in which terrorists might enter the country is beneath the dignity of the Office. Not that he cares for that.
The USN, learning from the Royal Navy, has traditionally held the ship’s Captain responsible for all that happened in his ship, or to his ship. Harsh; but fair. Don’t take the job, if you don’t accept the criteria. In my opinion, the President of the United States should not be held to a lower standard.
The more we push ‘multi-culturalism’ and the less we encourage assimilation by Middle Eastern immigrants, the more influence there will be by outside forces. If you move to a new country but refuse to adopt the ways of that country (either by language, conduct or belief system), I will guarantee that you will harbor more dislike for that country and be more easily misled by outsiders.
It is the idea that ‘all’ cultures are good and somehow America is about ‘all’ cultures’ is a falsehood. America has its own culture and those who wish to come to America should be respecting OUR culture. If they don’t like American culture, then maybe they shouldn’t live here.
Obama’s main purpose is to obfuscate. Tangential attacks upon Republicans are icing on the cake.
But if not for Obama, the left whom he serves is “pissing into the wind”. Islamic attacks are going to increase not lessen.
Andrew McCarthy explains why.
Is he that stupid, to think that we are that stupid? Seems to be.
This must be a misquotation. He could not be that stupid.
Maybe the reporter misheard or even accidentally hit the “V” key rather than the “B”.
I have not listened to the entire press conference. But if you want to see this clown of a president, really worked up, really show where his loyalties lie, to see him petulantly, visibly, acknowledgedly, pissed off that he doesn’t have a blank check to write against the tolerance and self-sacrifice of Americans, then watch this performance.
This is a social war for all the marbles, and “we” are just beginning to realize what it ultimately means.
Might as well include the link, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uoxNkVdDgM
You can cut to the chase by going to the 20 minute mark
“Is he that stupid, to think that we are that stupid? Seems to be.” Sam L
Neither, he just thinks there is nothing that can be done to stop him and, thanks to half of America, he’s right.
“Just identify the problems, and fix them…”
The problem, for Obama, is America’s criminal existence.
He’s and his stalwart team are working on “fixing” it.
File under: Jive talkin’ (24/7)
The most important thing to recognize is NOT how they got here, NOT what visa or vetting they received, NOT how long they have been here, NOT what activities they did or didn’t do when here, but rather the one and ONLY ONE commonality held by all………… Islam.
They are not tourists. They are the consequences of anti-native policies in “Syria” and America. Mr. Pro-choice in Chief is only fooling his most fanatical or desperate supporters.
At what point do ostensibly normal people realize that taking morons and socialists seriously as moral peers and political fellows is suicidal?
In a libertarian polity and society at least, they are forced to step up to freedom or to die trying. In ours, you are forced to die trying to drag them where they want to go.
No wonder so many don’t care if the house burns down.
“Freedom Matters More …”
Freedom means nothing for those who wish to remain as slaves, of Islam and the Left. For those that want freedom, first get rid of the slaves and their slave mentality.
I’ve long held that the reason the Obama administration knowingly discriminates against Christian and other religious minority refugees is that such people would not become his political allies in his jihad to fundamentally transform the US. And make no mistake; the Muslims in the refugee tsunami arriving in Europe make no bones about the fact that they have no intention of assimilating to the culture of Europe. They are demanding Europe “fundamentally transform” to suit them.
Members of religious minorities, on the other hand, would just be relieved to be here and grateful for the chance to fit in. So what use are they to Obama.
This is true as far as it goes, but as I was reading this it occurs to me there’s another obvious reason Obama wants to keep members of religious minorities out. Because if they arrived in any significant numbers and spoke out about how they were abused and oppressed by average Muslims it would be impossible for Obama and his ilk to continue to lie about the true face of Islam. For instance:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/world/asia/pakistan-asia-bibi/index.html
“A Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan plans to take her case to the country’s highest court after a high court last week rejected her appeal, her attorney says.
Asia Bibi, a mother of five from Punjab province, was accused of defiling the name of the Prophet Mohammed during a 2009 argument with Muslim fellow field workers…”
Christians, Jews, and other religious minorities whose existence is tolerated in Muslim majority countries that strictly apply sharia such as Pakistan as long as they pay the jizya, or protection money, occupy a second class status that is far, far worse than anything ever imposed by Jim Crow laws. Per sharia no non-Muslim can ever have any authority over a Muslim. So non-Muslims are restricted to the most menial and degrading occupations. In Pakistan the colloquial term for a Christian is “sweeper,” as in street sweeper. Every once in a while a Muslim will decide “those sweepers are getting uppity and forgetting their place.” And every Muslim knows how to put them in their place. Consequently non-Muslims’ lives hang by a thread. At any moment any dispute with a Muslim neighbor can lead to them being accused of blasphemy or slandering Islam and the prophet. And just as a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, a Christian’s testimony is nothing against that of a Muslim’s. So to be accused is to be convicted.
And per the Quran, per the Sunnah, per the Pact of Ummar the third of the four rightly guided prophets, this is how it’s supposed to be. They are to constantly to fear the wrath of Allah at the hands of the Muslims as part of their punishment. Who oppressed Asia Bibi? Not ISIS, but her Muslim neighbors. And in fact the Quran places a religious obligation on Muslims to oppress non-Muslims. It is both a duty, and for far too many Muslims a pleasure, to do so. The Quran says that the “people of the book” (primarily Jews and Christians) who do not accept the “religion of truth” (Islam) are to suffer a painful punishment not only in the hereafter but in this world as well (verse 9:74). And by what means will Allah deliver this painful punishment in this life? The hands of the Muslims are to be his tools of punishment (verse 9:14).
The German police union is insisting that Muslims and non-Muslims must segregated and housed separately because otherwise they can not guarantee the lives and health of the non-Muslims. The Muslims are harassing, threatening, intimidating and attacking the non-Muslims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11896855/Christian-and-Muslim-refugees-should-be-housed-separately-says-German-police-chief.html
” Christian and Muslim refugees should be housed separately in Germany to minimise tensions following growing levels of violence at asylum seeker shelters, a police chief has urged.
Jé¶rg Radek, deputy head of Germany’s police union, said migrants should be divided, following increasing numbers of attacks on Christians in refugee centres… ”
The left constantly is looking for the root cause of terrorism. Naturally, since they insist Islam can never be the the cause of terrorism because Islam has nothing to do with terrorism (truly moderate Muslims are aghast by such stupidity; of course Islam has something to do with Islamic terrorism). So naturally leftists miss the most obvious radicalizing factor. Muslims typically arrive in the west with far less education and fewer job skills. Mostly they don’t work. They have lots of time to contemplate their status on the lower rungs of society. If they do work, what kind of work can they get? They’re driving the filthy kuffar around in taxis, or serving them food, or even worse busing their tables.
This is not the way Islam promised them it would be. Allahu Akbar does not mean God is great. God is great would be Allahu Kabir. Akbar is the superlative, comparative form of Kabir. Allahu Akbar means the god of Islam is greater. Greater than any god of any other religion, greater than the government of the Kuffar since those are not based upon sharia which is god’s law, greater than anything the non-Islamic world has to offer Muslims.
Perhaps the best way to capture the meaning of Allahu Akbar is as Islam Rules! But Islam doesn’t rule; the world is upside down. The radicalizing factor isn’t poverty or lack of opportunity as my earlier statements might imply. It is a matter of status. Non-Muslims are supposed to serve Muslims. Ideally the Muslim holy warrior doesn’t work at all but lives off the jizya of the conquered dhimmis (one reason devout Muslims in Europe prefer to live off of welfare, which they consider a form of jizya). And Muslims are supposed to rule over non-Muslims.
Muslims have a few routes open to them to set the world right. One is to establish no-go/sharia-enforcement zones which all major European cities with significant Muslim populations have despite the official denials. Another is rape. Rape we have always been told is not about sex but about power. This is abundantly clear when it comes to Muslim rapists in Europe. They don’t rape Muslim girls. They rape blonde Swedish girls; Stockholm is now the rape capital of Europe. It also explains the Rotterham child rape ring that apparently raped approximately 1500 white English girls. When Muslims gang rape a Swedish girl or climb on top of a barely teenaged English girl they are showing the dhimmis who is boss.
Other ways of setting the world right, of course, include heading off to the caliphate or shooting up bars and restaurants in Paris.
None of this has anything to do with Islam, we are told. But if Obama actually allowed non-Muslim refugees in this country the word might get out that’s the type of big lie that Josef Goebbels would be proud of. It has very much to do with Islam.
You just don’t get it. 80% of immigrants vote Democrat. Every immigrant is a threat to America just based on how they vote. They don’t have to wage jihad to destroy America. They just have to vote Democrat.
With all your smarts and education you still can’t grasp this one simple reality. It’s like some kind of Stockholm syndrome with you.
Dead people vote Demoncrat too. They don’t particularly need live bodies, except to pad the stats to make it look less like fake votes were counted. 5586 votes counted in a district with a population of 3000 is suspicious even to idiot serfs.
Add in another 5000, and the excess gets covered up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4
This is from Stefan Molyneux, something of an outlier in social hierarchies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
More Histories about Islam and the Crusades.
December 30th, 2015 at 8:53 am
boxty said:
“You just don’t get it. 80% of immigrants vote Democrat.”
What part don’t I get, boxty?
December 30th, 2015 at 1:35 am
“I’ve long held that the reason the Obama administration knowingly discriminates against Christian and other religious minority refugees is that such people would not become his political allies in his jihad to fundamentally transform the US. And make no mistake; the Muslims in the refugee tsunami arriving in Europe make no bones about the fact that they have no intention of assimilating to the culture of Europe. They are demanding Europe “fundamentally transform” to suit them.”
He’s importing the Muslims precisely because they’ll be his political allies. The grateful Christians and Yazidis on the other hand likely won’t be part of the 80% of refugees who vote Democrat.
Actually, boxty, I think there’s one thing you don’t get. And it’s the same thing Obama and the Democrats don’t get.
These Muslim refugees aren’t going to fit the typical refugee pattern. Sure, they’ll vote Democrat, and they’ll live on welfare. For a while. Long enough to make the left think they have another captive block of client voters. But they aren’t conducting this hijrah to vote Democrat and live on welfare and be the clients of the Democrats.
They’re coming here and bringing their sociopathologies with them with one purpose in mind. To take over.