Seven years ago today, I shared a piece under the headline, Few Differences Between Somali, Domestic Pirates. Little did I realize how much I’d miss those Somali pirates after they were replaced on the world stage by new dogs known as ISIS.
Above: A screenshot of a post published 8 years ago today, but no longer online.
On Nov. 18, 2008, I wrote:
Regardless of where they sleep — or don’t sleep — at night, modern-day pirates seem to be receiving a lot of attention of late. Perhaps their notoriety stems from the fact that they share so much in common.
Sea-loving lowlifes can be found hijacking ships off the coast of the lawless Puntland region of northeastern Somalia” and pointed to examples of their latest work:
• On Sept. 27, the Somali pirates seized a cargo ship containing 33 Russian T-72 battle tanks bound for Kenya. Though nearly two months have passed since its capture, the ship and its prized contents remain in the hands of the pirates, birthed alongside 11 other illegally-seized ships.
• Some two weeks later, the Somali pirates nabbed an Iranian vessel carrying what was later determined to be a floating “dirty bomb” headed for the Israeli coast. It was recovered — but only after 16 pirates died from burns suffered as a result of their proximity to the vessel’s radioactive cargo.
• Over the weekend, the Somali pirates hijacked what has been described as the largest “booty” ever seized by marauders at sea — a Saudi oil tanker carrying $100 million of “black gold.”
Chief Gangplankster Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and cronies in 2008.
Conversely, land-lubbing pirates can be found wearing silk and wool suits while walking the halls of government in our nation’s capital, promoting a massive bailout of the financial industry by the federal government (a.k.a., “taxpayers”):
• Two months ago, domestic pirates tossed about problem-solving figures that ranged from $700 billion to $1 trillion — or, by some estimates, an estimated $6,500 per family. After much rhetoric was exchanged, they passed a two-phased bailout package — $350 billion per phase. Pirates voting in favor of the measure reconciled their actions by claiming that “doing nothing was not an option.” Soon after, they began feigning surprise over the fact that the people they put in charge of the money can’t tell us where they’ve spent it.
• Today, the same pirates, led by Chief Gangplankster Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are holding meetings to discuss the matter of a proposed $50 billion bailout of the nation’s domestic automobile industry. That industry, by the way, is one many of the pirates say is “too big to fail.” Apparently, their financial illiteracy prevents them from reading articles on the subject — like this one by George Will — that explain in precise detail that the industry has failed.
Obviously, both groups of pirates are keen on taking advantage of opportunities in order to realize their own twisted versions of success. My worry, however, is that the pirates in Washington will, one day too soon, pass what might be described as a piece of ‘dirty bomb’ legislation that blows up on in the faces of all Americans.
Seven years later, Somali pirates have been replaced by ISIS fighters, but the ranks of our domestic pirates have seen only minor leadership changes (i.e., Paul Ryan replace John Boehner as speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell took the Senate gavel from Harry Reid). And, as for so-called “dirty bomb” pieces of legislation,” we’ve seen plenty of ’em blow up in our faces.
On the heels of Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, I decided to share a piece I published for the first time Oct. 24, 2012.
Click on the image above to see a screenshot of Hillary’s statement that can no longer be found on the State Department website.
Published under the headline, Emails Prove Obama Lied About Libya Attacks, the text of my article appears immediately below the video of then-Secretary of State Clinton’s televised statement about the attack at Benghazi:
Copies of official emails obtained by Reuters show that Obama Administration officials lied about what had taken place in Benghazi, Libya, following the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in the North African country.
According to those emails, senior Obama Administration officials were informed approximately two hours after attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that leaders of the Libyan terror group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit for the attack that left four Americans — Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and computer specialist Sean Smith — dead.
After weeks of watching Obama Administration officials change story lines, point fingers and blame the attack on a video, this news brings to mind the question of the 3 a.m. phone call made famous in ads aired by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008. It also makes more chilling the words of Eric Nordstrom, a State Department Regional Security Officer who testified during an Oct. 10 meeting of the full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. His testimony begins after the 1:30 mark in the video below.
“It was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Nordstrom said. “And the question that we would ask is, again, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’”
Later in the video, he added what is perhaps his most disturbing commentary about the events leading up to the attacks.
After asking his regional director for 12 more agents, he said that director told him, “You’re asking for the sun, moon and the stars.”
Nordstrom went on to describe what he told that regional director was most frustrating about his assignment.
“It’s not the gunfire, it’s not the hardships, it’s not the threats; it’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me,” he said, adding, “For me, it’s like the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”
It becomes even more difficult to believe Nordstrom’s request for extra agents was turned down when one realizes that State Department officials had issued a travel warning to U.S. citizens about conditions across Libya only two weeks earlier.
Vote wisely Nov. 6.
Though too many Americans failed to heed my advice in 2012, they can make amends in 2016 by NOT voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Raised during an interview with CNN’s John Berman Monday, Dr. Carson’s concerns came, much like mine did, less than 48 hours after President Barack Obama announced the United States will welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement over the next 12 months. Now, I’m left wondering if he read the article I published yesterday. But I digress. UPDATE 9/16/2015 at 4:01 p.m. Central: It turns out that the president is going to allow 10,000 more than originally planned. For details, see this Bloomberg report published today.
If you have a close or direct connection to Dr. Carson’s campaign team, please let me know. I’d love to send him a copy of my second nonfiction book,The Clapper Memo, or meet with members of his team to bring them up to date on the proven vetting technology discussed in the book.
The technology discussed in The Clapper Memo was proven highly accurate and effective in places like Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq before it was unceremoniously banned by the powers that be inside the Department of Defense, including James R. Clapper Jr., the man now serving as director of National Intelligence. It’s now being used by more state and local law enforcement agencies than any other, including polygraph. And it shouldmust be used on every prospective refugee trying to enter the country, regardless of their country of origin.
Hope to hear from someone in the Carson Camp soon!
Over the weekend, President Barack Obama announced the United States will welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement over the next 12 months. Now, sane Americans must wonder how government officials will screen out terrorists among the refugees entering the country through refugee processing centers in almost every state.
This U.S. Department of State map shows where refugees, including those from Syria, will be sent.
The transcript of a State Department background briefing for reporters Sept. 9 offers some clues about how those ostensibly in charge of the nation’s foreign affairs programs — including Secretary of State John “F’n” Kerry and other left-wing political appointees — plan to ensure no members of the Islamic State and other Islamic terror groups enter the United States under the guise of being refugees. Michael Gordon of The New York Times asked the first question:
“Could you tell us, please, what the range of numbers is? You say you want to – the Secretary wants to increase the number of refugees that are admitted, so what is the range you’re looking at and what does that cost? And then it seems that part of the problem is vetting, in that the UN has submitted a list but it takes a long time to vet these people. Are you looking at committing more resources to speed up that vetting process? Thank you.”
As someone who spent four years investigating the federal government’s use of so-called credibility assessment technologies in places like Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, I’m more aware than most of the capabilities that exist within our defense and intelligence agencies for conducting background checks and vetting (a.k.a., “screening”) foreign nationals. That awareness makes me more than a bit interested in the response of an unidentified “senior State Department official” to Gordon’s question. It appears below with acronyms deciphered by yours truly:
“The Secretary talked about a range of different numbers, but I will not be sharing them with you today. And there was varying views within the group from the judiciary committees of the House and Senate about how receptive they were to increasing the numbers of refugees coming.
“And the process to bring refugees here is careful and deliberate, and that’s – as a result, it takes a while. It takes between 18 to 24 months between when a refugee is referred to us and when they – if approved, when they end up arriving in the United States. And a big reason for this is the care that’s put into the security vetting for them. It involves several aspects. Part of it is that every refugee has their sort of case file put together with help from organizations that we fund overseas, and then those files and the refugees’ families themselves are interviewed by someone from the Department of Homeland Security, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And then we also check their names against a whole series of U.S. Government databases to make sure that they’re not already in there – some sort of derogatory information about them.
“What we’re trying to do is weed out people who are liars, who are criminals, or would-be terrorists. And this is something that slows down the process and it’s taken very seriously by everyone involved in it.”
The response, especially the description of the security vetting process having “several aspects” and being “careful and deliberate,” reminds me of what I was told repeatedly over a period of several months in 2012 by U.S. military public affairs officers speaking on behalf of the now-defunct International Security Assistance Force, precursor to the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. An excerpt from a July 12, 2012, statement appears below:
“We (ISAF) have today, just as we discussed back in April, advise the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in assisting them to develop improvements to the overall vetting and recruitment process for the ANSF. The 8-step vetting process, which we have discussed in the past, is the result of our advising on this issue. Just like everything else that we (ISAF) advise on in Afghanistan, it is an ongoing and continuous process. We continually advise our Afghan partners on ways to improve processes. Again, the Afghans have the lead and are responsible for vetting their recruits into their security forces.”
Two months after receiving the statement above via email, I learned Afghans had not been in charge of all of the vetting taking place in that country. Instead, U.S. Army personnel were doing much of the vetting and, by September 2012, had grown “increasingly frustrated” with the eight-step vetting process that turned out to be largely ineffective at stopping so-called “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attacks, the often-deadly surprise attacks waged against U.S. and coalition forces by allegedly-trustworthy Afghans wearing the uniforms of Afghan military, police or security agencies.
If federal government officials are not willing to subject Syrian refugees to the same highly-effective interrogation technology that was used to interrogate members of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle (a.k.a., “The Deck of Cards”) as well as hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and other detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere around the world, then we might as well plan to see a significant increase in the number of terror attacks waged on U.S. soil.
Click on image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo by Bob McCarty.
To learn more about the no-touch, no-torture, no-pain non-polygraph interrogation technology that was used with great success before its use by Department of Defense personnel was banned in October 2007 by James R. Clapper Jr., then Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and now Director of National Intelligence (i.e., nation’s top intelligence official), visit TheClapperMemo.com. There, you’ll find an overview of my second nonfiction book,The Clapper Memo, as well as several stellar endorsements the book has received. FYI: You’ll also be able to order a copy of the book!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.
Donald J. Trump
After weeks of agonizing by establishment Republicans and the mainstream media… agonizing over the question of what a bull-in-the-China-shop candidate like Donald Trump is doing among the largest-ever field of well-qualified Republican presidential candidates… Trump has announced a simple, straightforward plan for immigration reform, a plan that could represent a “watershed moment” in U.S. history. The Trump Plan is based on three core principles:
1. That the U.S.-Mexican border must be secured by building a wall or a fence along the entirety of our southern border,
2. That all immigration laws currently on the books must be fully and rigidly enforced, and
3. That the number one priority for any future immigration plan must be based on what is in the best cultural and economic interests of the American people… and nothing else.
As part of his immigration plan, Trump calls for a nationwide system to identify and locate all illegal aliens… those who have entered the country illegally, as well as those who’ve entered legally and overstayed their visas. To accomplish that end, Trump proposes tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
What he suggests is precisely what conservatives and Republicans have been promoting ever since mass illegal immigration began. However, Trump departs from Republican orthodoxy by taking a totally no-nonsense approach to the problem of the so-called “anchor babies,” defined as infants born to pregnant foreign women who come to the Unites States, illegally, just to insure that their babies can acquire U.S. citizenship by being born on American soil.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves and their children who were born on U.S. soil. The authors of the amendment could never have conceived of a time when pregnant women would travel great distances from foreign lands for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment. The “anchor baby” concept has created an entire underclass of undocumented aliens who are allowed to remain in the country under an unwritten law that protects families from being separated and prevents infants with U.S. citizenship from being forcibly deported along with their illegal alien parents. Trump, who says what conservatives and Republicans have always feared to say, merely scoffs at suggestions that to deport all illegal aliens would separate foreign parents from their minor children. In an Aug. 16 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he made his position on “anchor babies” crystal clear, saying, “We have to keep the families together, but they have to go.”
He also ventures outside Republican orthodoxy by taking a no-nonsense approach to the status of Obama’s so-called “Dreamers” -– non-citizens who were brought to the United States illegally as children, who’ve grown up here, who’ve been educated here, and who would be political and cultural strangers in the native lands of their parents. He expresses no desire to separate “Dreamers” from their illegal alien parents by allowing them to remain in the United States while their parents are deported. Instead, he insists that Obama’s executive order shielding the “Dreamers” from deportation must be rescinded.
So what is it about Trump’s immigration reform plan that would qualify it as a “watershed moment” in American history? Its significance is not that it has a chance of being enacted and fully implemented; as a nation we are still far too politically correct and we have far too many “squeaky wheels” among liberals and Hispanic activists to accomplish that anytime soon. No, the significance of Trump’s immigration reform proposal is much more subtle. Just as Rush Limbaugh’s major contribution to our national persona is not that he has caused elections to be won or lost, but that he has caused millions of politically uncommitted Americans to understand where they fit in the political spectrum, Trump’s straightforward approach to solving the illegal immigration problem has made it okay for previously hesitant Americans to openly agree with his no-nonsense approach. It is what most Americans have always believed, but were afraid to put into words for fear that they would be branded as racists or xenophobes.
The point is, Americans are fair and reasonable people. Scratch almost any American and you’ll find a person who would fully expect to be deported from a foreign country where they were living illegally. So why would they not expect foreigners living in the United States illegally to react in the same way? In short, it’s time we expected our uninvited guests to act like grownups, and Trump’s no-nonsense approach to the problem of illegal immigration gives us all license to finally put those expectations into words.
But more importantly, his courageous stance on illegal immigration also provides us with the opportunity to bring other critically important issues to the fore… issues that, until now, have been stuck in quagmires of constitutional uncertainties and/or political correctness. Of these, none are more important than the unrelenting invasion of radicalized Muslims and the chilling threat of Islamic terrorism inside our own borders.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Islamists arrive in the United States despising the country and all it represents, intending to make converts, exploit the freedoms and rights granted them, and build a movement that will effect basic changes in the country’s way of life and its government. The superpower status of the United States makes it especially attractive to those who wish to change the world order; what better place to start? Islamists do not accept the United States as it is but want to change it into a majority Muslim country where the Qur’an replaces the Constitution.”
The United States has already provided refugee status for more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined. Yet, in spite of that insanity, the Obama administration has recently announced that we are prepared to receive an additional 70,000 unvetted Muslim refugees, including many with strong ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda. Some come seeking safety, some come seeking a better life, but many others come in the hope of doing us great harm.
In order to neutralize and reverse radical Islam’s contribution to the cultural infestation of the United States, we must attack the problem of Muslim immigration with the same level of courage with which Donald Trump approaches illegal immigration. In short, we should not hesitate to confront Muslim infiltration by enacting new legislation, tailoring the language of the Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:
SEC. 1. PREAMBLE. The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence. Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.
SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS. Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence, or the government of any State, Territory, District, possession, or political subdivision thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.
With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islamic jihad illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of, ccausing them to self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Islamists could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.
American policymakers could take a lesson from the Slovakians. When asked by United Nations officials to accept “their share” of Muslim refugees, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, Ivan Metic, replied, “We could take 800 Muslims, but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?” Clearly, what Metic was saying is that building permits for mosques might be very difficult to obtain in Slovakia. Officials in the United States and other western nations should learn to be equally “welcoming” to Islamists.
What Donald Trump’s straightforward no-nonsense approach has done is to finally make it acceptable to debate some of our major national problems by putting political correctness behind us. When all is said and done, Trump may not be electable. However, if his presence in the race ultimately makes it permissible for us to deal with racial discord, immigration reform, and the threat of radical Islam without fear of being branded racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, or politically incorrect, his candidacy will truly be seen as a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.