Last week, Donald Trump got himself in a bit of hot water for proposing a:

complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.

His iron-clad polling has been somewhat wobbly since then.

What Americans think

That said, on December 8, 2015, an MSNBC poll asked if he had gone too far with his proposed plan.  Americans overwhelmingly responded no. See the second and third screens at the link.

One shows that all minorities said he hadn’t gone far enough: 87% of Hispanics, 88% of other groups and 96% of African Americans.

In fact, Caucasians objected the most to Trump’s words, but only by 31%.

Looking at the results by age, 92% of 18-24-year olds and 82% of 25-34-year olds said the Republican candidate hadn’t gone far enough.

By contrast, 65% of 35-54-year-olds and 61% of those 55 and over felt Trump had overstepped the mark.

On December 11, world human rights leader (irony alert) Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia tweeted:

You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S presidential race as you will never win.

That same day, a new anti-Trump campaign ad for little-known Republican candidate Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) had just the opposite effect on a focus group that Republican media consultant Frank Luntz put together. In fact, the more Air Force Col. Tom Moe denounced Trump in favour of Kasich in the advert, the more the focus group reinforced their support for the billionaire.

The Independent reported their reactions:

“It was too far over the top,” one voter said.

“They use every trick in the book to make him look like the ultimate bad guy,” said another.

And:

“It was like his greatest hits,” said Tiffany Alm, 43, a stay-at-home mom who had moved to the D.C. area from Wisconsin. “It’s Donald Trump, and it’s entertaining.”

Meanwhile, on Saturday, December 12, The Gambia’s president Yahya Jammeh declared the country an Islamic republic to distance it from its colonial past:

As Muslims are the majority in the country, Gambia cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy.

Another example of the delusion that Christianity is the white man’s religion, when the early Church was widespread in the first few centuries in Africa until Islam conquered so many lands in the north.

But I digress.

Back to ‘the Donald’, so called because that is how his first wife referred to him.

What if he is carefully analysing the situation?

Facts emerging

A number of startling pieces of information have emerged after San Bernardino.

No doubt we will find out more. The period between Christmas and the New Year is a good time to report bad news, so keep watching, listening and reading during the holidays if you can.

Blank passports

On December 10, ABC News reported that IS might have its own printing machines to fake Syrian passports.

If you have ever seen photographs of IS literature and press releases, you will know that they have excellent graphic designers and publishing facilities. Everything looks flawless.

In this case, though, it is possible that the extremists have taken over the passport office (emphases mine):

The 17-page Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Intelligence Report, issued to law enforcement last week, says ISIS likely has been able to print legitimate-looking Syrian passports since taking over the city of Deir ez-Zour last summer, home to a passport office with “boxes of blank passports” and a passport printing machine. Another passport office was located in Raqqa, Syria, which has long been ISIS’s de facto capital.

“Since more than 17 months [have] passed since Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour fell to ISIS, it is possible that individuals from Syria with passports ‘issued’ in these ISIS controlled cities or who had passport blanks, may have traveled to the U.S.,” the report says.

Trump now looks a bit less hysterical.

Other attacks planned

A reader at Hillary is 44 (as in the 44th President) reproduced an auto-generated transcript of another ABC News report which states that the San Bernardino couple had much more in mind. Excerpts of David Muir and Brian Ross’s news story follow. I have made small edits to the transcript to correct it, e.g. changing ‘tax’ to ‘attacks’:

Good evening it’s great to have you with us here were to Wednesday night and we begin tonight with chilling new details about that young couple who turned into killers. From the very start authorities have wanted to know were there other were attacks in the works … 

The husband, Syed Farook, visited a local high school more than once. Authorities are investigating whether the school with 2,400 students was the next target. The husband worked for the local government as a hygiene inspector. He would have had good access to much of the buildings he inspected.

We’re working very very hard to understand that they had other plans either for that day. Or earlier.

As for the couple meeting and marrying:

What brought these two together? Now authorities are telling us both were committed to terrorism before they even met. And you’re about to hear what they discussed online before she was issued that visa to come to America …

Even before they started dating, they were already committed terrorists. And online as early as the end of 2013. They were talking to each other about Jihad and martyrdom before they became engaged and then married and lived together in the United States. Which also means that whatever US background checks were done from a leaked so called fiancée visa. They failed to discover that someone espousing jihadist violence was being allowed into the country. The United States government does not normally ask the intelligence community to look at the emails of somebody be just because they’ve applied for a visa. There’s just too many of them. An examination of more leaked photos shows her evolution. As she went from wearing a loose scarf and make up at the start of college to a more and more conservative dress. The leaked FaceBook account has been taken down but ABC news was able to recover post from the profile page of an account authorities believe was hers …

Furthermore:

The FBI director said today his agents are investigating whether terrorist match makers are using fiancée visas to get their people into the USThat is a game changer … a very, very important thing to note. Brian Ross with us again here tonight and Brian you’ve been reporting on the friend here and the FBI authorities questioning him and now we’ve learned of a possible target, another attack that had planned sometime back that they didn’t go through with. Reviewing for Luke’s friend who provided in the assault rifles and Ricky Marquez. According to members of Congress who have been briefed by the FBI mark has claims he and Farooq had planned an attack in 2012. But got cold feet. The FBI busted up another terror plot in a nearby citythe FBI … is trying to verify those claims and Marquez’s mental stability but as far back as 2012 …

Trump’s words now seem a bit less out of order.

The wife — Tashfeen Malik

Roger L Simon, writing for PJ Media, tells us a bit about the situation in general and, specifically,  important facts about the couple, including one concerning Tashfeen Malik:

… to deny we have a gigantic Muslim problem in this country and in the world is to be a troglodyte of epic proportions.  Something has to be done, domestically and internationally, even if it’s not Donald’s “Full Monty.”

The source of the conundrum is not just Syrian refugees; it’s the entire Middle East. Almost all people visiting or immigrating from the area are potential jihadists, not to mention other Muslims across the world from Western Europe to Indonesia. This isn’t racial profiling — it’s reality. The husband and wife fanatics who wreaked havoc in San Bernardino did time in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which masquerade as allies. Despite what might seem like red flags in their backgrounds, the couple passed blithely into this country without incident.

The wife, apparently, even gave a place of birth in Pakistan that is non-existent. Was there actually any real vetting? Our border people all should spend some time in Israel, learning how you do these things. Obviously, they don’t know. In this sense, Trump is entirely correct. At present, our border security is nearly worthless.

The FBI isn’t a whole lot better. They’re now claiming the couple was “radicalized.” What does that mean? Not much. In fact, it’s meaningless. The wife at least came from a culture where the process of Islamic anti-Western indoctrination begins essentially at birth. If you think that is an exaggeration, spend ten minutes at MEMRI.org. If Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook were “radicalized,” then literally hundreds of millions have been.

We seem to have a couple who have criminal records in their home countries and the wife might have given false information about her birthplace in Pakistan. They were freely admitted into the United States.

Do Trump’s words seem hysterical now?

Simon suggests making Sharia illegal and making a pledge against following it a condition of admission to the US, as Communism is. That is a weak proposal. Anyone can pledge anything and do the opposite.

I was shocked to read that Simon considers Hamtramck in Detroit — which used to be a bastion of Polish auto workers — one of America’s:

Islamic ghettoes.

How times have changed.

The baby and CAIR

CAIR — Council on American-Islamic Relations — has always been presented by the media as a balanced, ‘moderate’ organisation meant to help Americans understand Muslims. It’s been around for at least 20 years, if not longer. It has chapters in major cities.

What people do not realise is that CAIR is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as are any number of Muslim organisations and charities not only in the United States but around the world.

Andrew C McCarthy, author of The Grand Jihad, looked at CAIR’s role in the outcome of the baby Farook/Farouk/Farooq and Malik left behind.

In an article for PJ Media, McCarthy tells us that whilst mourners in San Bernardino were burying their dead, CAIR in Los Angeles pressed for the six-month old child to be placed with a Muslim family:

Fatima Dadabhoy, a CAIR-LA attorney, explained, “CAIR-LA is working to make sure that the baby is placed with a Muslim foster family while she remains in the custody of San Bernardino County Child Protective Services.” (My [McCarthy’s] italics.)

Why so insistent on a Muslim foster family and then ultimate placement of the child with her Muslim blood relatives?

Because that is what sharia requires.

McCarthy says:

As I’ve explained previously, Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik) is a classic sharia manual compiled by a revered fourteenth century Islamic scholar, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri.

Section m13.2 of the manual prescribes “The necessary conditions for a person to have custody of a child.” Subsection (c) relates:

If the child is a Muslim, it is a necessary condition that the person with custody be a Muslim.

Subsection (c) elaborates with commentary by Sheikh Umar Bakarat, a nineteenth century Islamic scholar. Placement of a child in the custody of a Muslim is a mandate of sharia

because [being a parent to a child] is a position of authority, and a non-Muslim has no right to authority and hence no right to raise a Muslim. If a non-Muslim were given charge of the custody and upbringing of the child, the child might acquire the character traits of unbelief (kufr).

What appears less reasonable — CAIR’s request which overrides American laws or Trump’s opinion?

Syed Farook, father, discusses Syed Farook, son

Time had a short article which gives us a few details about Syed Farook, the son. He was, in his father’s estimation:

obsessed with Israel.

Also:

He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.

Finally:

Federal investigators are currently looking into whether the younger Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, radicalized her husband, the Associated Press reports.

Syed Sr gave an interview to Italy’s La Stampa a few days ago. Various news outlets have been busy translating excerpts into English. La Stampa‘s journalist conducted the interview in English, translated it into Italian for the newspaper and now it is being translated back into English.

USA Today reports that Syed Sr attempted to calm down his son:

I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist,” the elder Farook told the newspaper. “Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there.”

So, there’s nothing objectionable about that, yet, Trump takes a verbal hit for his views on national security?

Syed Sr was unhappy that his son liked guns. The Week tells us:

“One time I saw him with a pistol, and that made me mad: ‘In 45 years in the United States,’ I yelled, ‘I have never had a weapon.’ He shrugged his shoulders and said: Too bad for you.” The father also said that his son, like his estranged wife, was religiously conservative, but that he himself comes from the city and is a liberal.

Raw Story excerpted La Stampa‘s interview and another, from The Times of Israel. Syed Jr’s sister said:

According to an earlier interview with the younger Farook’s sisters, the family saw no warning sign that he would go on a shooting rampage that would leave 14 people dead and 21 injured in San Bernardino.

“It’s the very opposite of what we were taught,” Eba Farook said.

Enrique Marquez, relative by marriage and neighbour

The Daily Mail has an excellent article on the complicated life and relationship of Enrique Marquez, the man who allegedly acquired guns for the San Bernardino attack and might have planned a 2012 one with Syed (the son).

Marquez was married to Syed’s sister-in-law Mariya Chernykh, a Russian. However, the two did not share an address. She was living with another man, Oscar Romero. (Don’t ask me. I’ve read this two or three times and cannot make sense of the arrangement.)

In 2011, Chernykh’s sister Tatiana married Syed’s brother — also named Syed, only the middle names are different.

Marquez and Syed Farook, the terrorist, lived next to each other in Riverside, California. Farook later moved to Redlands, his home when the San Bernardino attack took place. Nonetheless, Farook often went to Marquez’s house to work on cars.

Marquez converted to Islam and one of his friends, Michael Stone, told Good Morning America presenters:

He said something along the lines of there’s Muslims in our own backyard just ready to go haywire and attack and we didn’t think nothing of it.

On the night of the San Bernardino attack, Marquez posted on Facebook:

I’m very sorry guys. It was a pleasure.

The next day, Marquez checked himself into a mental health facility. It is thought his marital arrangements were bothering him.

The Mail reports that FBI agents have since searched Marquez’s home. The article also reveals an interesting detail:

Raheel Farook, the older brother who became the brother-in-law of Marquez, served in the U.S. Navy, joining in 2003 shortly after graduating from high school.

It is unclear whether this fact has any relevance at this time. Let’s hope it doesn’t.

As for Marquez:

Federal agents raided Marquez’ home in Riverside, California, on Saturday. Marquez was being interviewed on Tuesday, a law enforcement official said.

Evidence emerged today showing that Marquez may also have been plotting another attack with Farook back in 2011 or 2012 at a school in California.

Following his death in a gun battle with police after the massacre at Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino last Wednesday, investigators reportedly found multiple photos on Farook’s cell phone depicting Carter High School in the city of Rialto.

Working as an environmental health inspector for San Bernardino County for five years, Farook had repeatedly visited Carter and other schools in the area.

The images on Farook’s phone were exterior shots of the school, which has about 2,500 students.

Conclusion

We all know that Donald Trump has never been the world’s most eloquent speaker.

However, his blunt statement — like it or not — points to an intractable problem. Let us hope this is temporary. After all, Trump did not say there should be a lasting ban, merely a temporary one whilst authorities can figure out what is happening.

I do not agree with the way Trump stated the problem nor do I necessarily agree with his recommendation — although millions of Americans do.

However, one thing is true: America, like Europe, has much work to do in vetting immigrants more fully.

The situation is out of hand.

Therefore, whilst the media and the elites are whining about billionaire Presidential candidates, let’s take time to investigate the facts before taking sides.

Advertisements