“A universal peace, it is to be feared, is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts.” —James Madison, 1792
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Seems like no nation wants to take the lead to fight the Islamic State. So much for Barack Obama’s “international community” and “leading from behind.” Each one of them has a 1-2-3-not-it approach to summoning enough initiative for ending the Islamic State once and for all. Oh sure, Syrian rebels, the Peshmerga and the Iraqi army are all battling corners of the group on their turf, and the West is content to lob a few bombs in Islamic State territory every day, but no one has set a vision for the endgame. Now, the general secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, announced the organization won’t be leading the effort to end the caliphate and ensure security for its partner nations.
“Muslims are on the front line in this war,” Stoltenberg said. “Most victims are Muslims, and most of those who fight against the [Islamic State] are Muslims. We can not carry on this struggle for them. The United States has a limited number of special forces. In the foreground, however, is strengthening local forces. This is not easy, but it’s the only option.” Despite the attack on America’s homeland in San Bernardino, Obama is content — using National Review’s Arthur Herman’s analogy — to huddle behind the Maginot Line while Nazi Germany perfects its Blitzkrieg tactics. Instead, he addressed the nation Sunday to say he was doubling down on his strategy of “inherent resolve” and oh, to make firearms more difficult to acquire, because that would disrupt the jihadists who by the way are waging a “knife intifada” in Israel. It’s time Obama adopted a winning strategy.
If the Syrian refugees the Obama administration is accepting into the United States really are the most needy — the ones most at risk at being caught in the crossfire of the Syrian civil war — then why has the U.S. government only accepted one Christian refugee? A total of 237 Syrian refugees entered the country since Nov. 13, the day the Islamic State struck Paris. But only one Greek Orthodox individual landed on our shores, despite U.S. law requiring that asylum seekers be asked about the role religion played in persecution. Remember: Christians are fleeing the Middle East after their churches are targeted and razed — and it’s not just the Islamic State carrying out the atrocities. The Obama administration, however, continues to refuse to consider religion with any of its Middle East dealings. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was preparing to deport 27 Christians who were seeking asylum after fleeing the Islamic State.
As a result of the Syrian refugee question, Congress is stepping up its involvement with immigration policy. The House passed, with a 407-19 vote Tuesday, a measure reforming the nation’s Visa Waiver Program. The bill would require travelers holding passports for Western Europe who also traveled to Iraq, Iran, Syria or Sudan in the last five years to get a visa and undergo more scrutiny before entering the states. But there is only so much reform that Congress is willing to do. While there is bipartisan support to reform visas, the very program that accepted a single Christian will probably fall to Barack Obama’s veto pen. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) believes Democrats have enough votes to sustain the Obama administration’s Trojan horse refugee program for Syrians.
The attack in Paris was a hard lesson and wake-up call, but the French are showing signs of learning. During a state of emergency crackdown, “French authorities announced [last week] they shut down three mosques for an alleged ‘pattern of radicalization,’” reports USA Today. French authorities found Islamic State propaganda, as well as weapons and ammo, and they made scores of arrests.
Of course, USA Today also notes the flip side: “but terrorism analysts said such tactics are unlikely to be repeated in the USA.” Thanks to Barack Obama’s blinding Islamophilia, he would never allow such a thing. And Democrats follow his lead. That’s why several Democrat lawmakers attended a prayer service at a radical mosque and Obama’s DHS secretary held a press conference at a mosque tied to the Muslim Brotherhood — both after the San Bernardino attack.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Louis DeBroux
In a Sunday speech he clearly had no interest in giving, Barack Obama spoke to the nation from the Oval Office in an attempt to address the fears of many Americans following attacks in Paris (130 dead, almost 400 wounded) and San Bernardino (14 dead, 21 wounded) by Islamic jihadists. He failed to assuage those fears, primarily because he once again proved that he is clueless as to the real threat and the real enemy.
To no one’s surprise, Obama used these recent tragedies to renew his push for more gun control in what was actually pretty savvy political theater.
Under the guise of combatting terrorism, Obama declared, “To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? … We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.” Then he mocked, “I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.”
This is craven theatrics, but it will work on some Americans. All the public is going to hear is “no-fly list” and “guns,” and then they’re going to think, “Why do Republicans want to put guns in the hands of terrorists?” Mission accomplished for Obama.
But there are three glaring problems with Obama’s proposed “solutions” — one practical, one political, and the other constitutional.
The practical problem is that neither Syed Farook nor Tashfeen Malik (the San Bernardino terrorists) was on the no-fly list. In fact, none of the terrorists involved in Islamist terror attacks on U.S. soil have been on the no-fly list, so Obama’s “solution” would not have prevented these terrorists from purchasing guns. Furthermore, legal purchases are not the only means of obtaining firearms. France has far more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., and yet the attacks in Paris still happened.
There is also the fact that the government terrorist watch lists, which include the no-fly list, are riddled with errors. There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason as to how someone ends up on the no-fly list. There are more than 280,000 Americans with no recognized ties to terrorism on the watch list, including some who are on the list for no other reason than making controversial statements on social media unrelated to terrorism, or refusing to be government informants, or simply due to clerical errors. Indeed, none other than deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was denied flying privileges five times because someone with a similar name was on the no-fly list. (In this case, however, at least TSA had the distinction of stopping a man responsible for the death of an innocent woman).
The constitutional issues with his “solution” are even more problematic.
Obama’s denial of gun purchases by law-abiding citizens would be a violation of our Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. American citizens have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged in recent years that this is indeed an individual right. It would also violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, and Fifth Amendment protections against being deprived of God-given liberties without due process. Arbitrarily placing someone on the no-fly list and denying access to firearms would constitute a presumption of guilt by government.
The placement of American citizens on these watch lists was so arbitrary and capricious that last year a federal court ruled that the federal government’s system for addressing objections by citizens placed on the no-fly list was unconstitutional, as the government would not tell those on the list why they were on it or how to get off the list.
While Obama is eager to use any means to deny Second Amendment rights to American citizens, one wonders whether he would be willing to immediately fire the 72 Homeland Security employees who are currently on the no-fly list.
Our illustrious federal paladins missed the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists had been wedded to their radical Islamist ideology for “some time,” and had been planning such an attack for a long time, even going to a local firing range just days before the attack to practice shooting.
Maybe Obama’s minions missed these jihadis because they were more focused on punishing Obama’s political adversaries. After all, it was Obama’s own IRS that targeted conservatives for scrutiny, harassment and audits. And it was Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009, just months after he took office, that published an internal report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which warned that potential domestic terrorists included veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who oppose gun control, so-called racists (as we all know, all opposition to Obama is solely because he is black), those who believe in limited government, those who oppose illegal immigration and those who revere the Constitution.
But surely Obama would never use that no-fly list as a back-door method to disarm his political opponents and deny them their rights, would he? Let’s ask Stephen Hayes, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard and a Fox News contributor, who found himself on the no-fly list. Hayes notes, “The way I got off of it was, Bret Baier on ‘Special Report’ was hosting Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson for an interview that was to be largely about immigration. And at the end of the interview, Bret raised my case and said, ‘Mr. Secretary do you think Steve Hayes is a terrorist?’” Soon thereafter, Hayes was removed. But most Americans don’t have those connections.
Patrick Henry, speaking at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of the Constitution, warned us to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.” Thomas Jefferson concurred, declaring, “In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”
No president has ever proven more untrustworthy than Barack Obama, and we’d be fools to trust his promises of security in exchange for us giving up our constitutional rights. So thanks but no thanks. We’ll cling to our guns and religion.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
- ANALYSIS: China Games the Climate Change Conference
- An Effective War on Terror Requires Decades
- Iran Tests Limits — and Another Missile
- A Tale of Two Welfare Systems
- Obama Hires Islamic Sympathizer to Take on the Islamic State
- Florida Sheriff: We Need Good Guys With Guns
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
- Michelle Malkin: National Security Profiling Is a No-Brainer
- Jacob Sullum: Autonomous Terrorism Calls for Autonomous Defense
- Tony Perkins: Do You Fear What I Fear?
For more, visit Right Opinion.
- Man Accused of Soliciting Killings of U.S. Service Members
- DOD Offered ‘Forces That Could Move to Benghazi’ Immediately
- No ‘Workplace Violence’: Calif. Shooting Planned a Year in Advance
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report
OPINION IN BRIEF
Michelle Malkin: “Anti-profiling radicals want it both ways. They damn federal homeland security officials when they gather intelligence based on threat factors and behavioral factors — and damn them in hindsight if they don’t. FBI agents are condemned as bigots when they attempt the most modest of surveillance measures, and they are damned as bumblers when they fail to act on information gathered through those means. Perhaps you’ve forgotten how Muslim groups balked after 9/11 when federal investigators went to mosques to ask about knowledge of terrorist attacks. What were they supposed to do — go to Catholic nunneries and Buddhist temples instead? … [L]et’s remember amid this latest outbreak of anti-profiling hysteria that the same grievance groups who object to taking ethnicity, religion and national origin into account during wartime zealously defend discriminatory racial and ethnic classifications to ensure ‘diversity’ on college campuses, guarantee government contracts for minorities, and achieve manufactured ‘parity’ in police and fire departments. In suicidal America, there’s always a ‘compelling government interest’ for using discriminatory classifications — unless that compelling interest happens to be the nation’s very survival.”
Insight: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” —William S. Burroughs (1914-1997)
The bottom line: “The president said conservatives are afraid of Islamic women & orphans. No, just Islamic women willing to make their own child an orphan.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest
Upright: “There is not much the government can do about the sort of terrorist threat that President Obama described in his speech on Sunday. … The only viable alternative, self-help, is one that Obama seems ideologically incapable of considering. … In the face of self-directed terrorists who are invisible until they strike, the last thing we should do is prevent law-abiding Americans from carrying guns. Autonomous terrorism calls for autonomous defense.” —Jacob Sullum
“Stay informed — because stupid people are ruining America. God blessed me with a voice and a big mouth and I’m going to use it to try to wake people up and convert some of the stupid people.” —Herman Cain
Village Idiots: “We’re in a new phase in the global terrorist threat. … This new phase requires a new approach to counter-terrorism and homeland security. … In responding to this new environment, we must not vilify American Muslims. We must not throw a net of suspicion over American Muslims and an entire religion. We must not force American Muslims to run and hide and retreat to the shadows.” —DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The FBI is watching a LOT of people: “You know, obviously we have concerns whenever we see people who have large stockpiles of weapons or appear to be in the process of accumulating weapons and ammunition.” —Loretta Lynch
Demo-gogues: “We have to look at [the climate issue] as if we’re fighting a war. And we are fighting a war. And the war is against climate change, and our goal is to save the planet for our kids and our grandchildren.” —Bernie Sanders
Late-night humor: “President Obama gave a rare national address [Sunday] night from the Oval Office. Then [on Monday], Hillary Clinton said it was her favorite episode of ‘House Hunters.’” —Seth Meyers
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.