Entries in Boston Marathon (11)
New Hampshire author Andy Martin says the Boston Bombers - the Tsarnaev Brothers - are “Obama’s children”
Andy says President Obama’s “America-is-in-decline” approach to world affairs is the true source of Muslim radicalization
There is no “self-radicalization,” Andy says; Obama himself is the source of Muslim radicalization
(NEW YORK) (May 5, 2013)
On April 21st, the New York Times’ respected liberal columnist Thomas L. Friedman referred to President Obama’s “Muslim grandfather.” (Please see Link #1 below). Seven days later, Friedman again referred to “Obama’s “Muslim grandfather.” (Link #1)
It is almost unimaginable today, but nine years ago when I first raised the issue of then-Senatorial candidate Barack Obama’s religion I was attacked by the media for telling the truth. The same New York Times that today allows Friedman to link “Obama’s grandfather” to Islam, in 2008 sought to demonize me by publishing a front-page story making all sorts of false accusations (please see Link #2).
So what’s happened? What’s changed since 2004? Well, Friedman, who has lived in the Islamic world, knows the truth. Islam descends through the father, not the mother. For Friedman to repeatedly state that Obama has a “Muslim grandfather,” while politely overlooking Obama’s putative Muslim father, is to point directly at President Obama’s Muslim roots as a source of our problems in the Muslim world. Friedman may be suggesting, inferentially, that Obama’s heritage is more of an influence and more of a problem than Friedman originally anticipated.
People can change their religion; President Obama says he has done so. But people can’t change their culture and values. Obama says he hasn’t. Obama told New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that Obama had a total recall of the Muslim muezzin call to prayer (see link #3).
Obama may claim to have left behind his Muslim roots. But young Muslims such as the Tsarnaev Brothers reject Obama’s “conversion” to Christianity. The Tsarnaevs see our president as a Muslim who has never publicly rejected his family’s faith. Thomas Friedman’s continuing concern with Obama’s family religion is testimony to the fact others agree with me.
Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech and Obama’s constant overtures to radical Muslim nations may be the real reason the Boston Bombers “self-radicalized.” The Tsarnaev brothers may be “Obama’s children.”
I am not for a moment suggesting President Obama intentionally or directly encouraged the bombings. But, indirectly, Obama’s complacent and compliant attitude toward radical Islam has created the conditions and circumstances where young Islamists are not “self-radicalizing” but rather radicalizing directly in response to Obama's stimulus.
After all, why are only Muslims “self-radicalizing?” Lots of people have grievances, all over the world. They are not committing terrorist acts.
When I began to study Barack Obama in depth in 2004 I was alone. The media were spoon-fed Obama’s propaganda.
When I landed in Honolulu five (5) years ago, I was the first scholar to conduct independent research into Obama’s past.
Although I am credited with creating what the media sought to call the “Birther” movement, I had and have nothing to do with some of the thieves and crackpots that have sought to profit from false claims about Obama’s birth. I have found no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu. Even the New York Times was forced to admit I clearly differentiate between fact and theory (see Link #2).
In fact, the reason Obama’s henchmen have attacked me so relentlessly over the years is precisely because I only seek to find the facts and to search for the truth.
You can see the short film I produced at www.boycotthawaii.com which prompted other researchers to produce their own films. In other words, over the past nine years I have been and continue to be a catalyst for research and investigation into Obama’s origins.
For the past five years I have convened an annual conference in Washington, DC to discuss my research into Obama, and to present my theories about where we are headed in the future (www.nationalconferenceonobama.blogspot.com).
This year we are combining the national conference with sponsorship by Contrarian Commentary, and we are holding our meetings in Honolulu beginning May 8th. This is your opportunity and invitation to attend the conference, to financially support the continuing investigation, and to help us spread and share the ongoing research. We kept a lid on the conference with this late announcement because we have some explosive leads that we are pursuing in Honolulu.
When we began planning the 2013 meeting a couple of people said to me, “Why bother, the election is over?” First, the “election is not over.” Obama will be in power for three more years. Need I say more?
Second, many of the seeds Obama planted in his first term took time to germinate. “Self-radicalization” is one of them. Obama’s unwillingness to stand up for America, and his refusal to defend our values against competing “values” from the less civilized world, have now created a cotillion of continuing terrorism.
Many liberals were offended when conservatives attacked Obama for not defending American “values,” and for appointing an Attorney General who refuses to even mouth the term “Islamic terrorism.”
Anyone who has ever been an avid gardener, as I am, knows plants can take years to grow to maturity, and some plants are just slow starters. I have a plant that went in the ground five years ago; many times I thought he had died, but he is sprouting this year. Likewise, political doctrines do not create an instant response. That is why the Tsarnaev Brothers may be “Obama’s children.” It took time for their violent anti-American attitudes to explode into the reality of the Boston bombings.
Since Obama started planting his seeds in 2009 he has mismanaged (sabotaged?) the federal bureaucracy so as to limit counterterrorism activity. Today, Obama's so-called “self-radicalized” seeds are bearing bitter fruit. Obama planted a lot of seeds in the past four years. The Tsarnaev Brothers are not alone.
If ordinary Americans are not prepared to break through the relentless propaganda of the Obama Administration (Benghazi: “what difference does it make?; Benghazi: “that was along time ago”) then we can expect more anti-American activity from Obama’s children.
It is Obama himself who has radicalized the Muslim world. He has created and presented a portrait of America as being in decline, a helpless and hapless nation. Obama’s actions are “radicalizing” Islamic extremists. There is no such thing as “self-radicalizing.” College students respond to incitement from their environment and from their national leaders. That is why I have labeled the Tsarnaev Brothers “Obama’s children.” There are many more “Obama children” out there.
Please be sure to pass these comments along to your family and friends. Right now I am perhaps the only source labeling Obama’s bogus “self-radicalization” claims what they are: the fruits of Obama’s surrender to the Muslim world over the past four years.
It took Tom Friedman five years to catch up with the reality that Obama was raised in a Muslim family. What are the media ignoring today that they will only admit five years from now when it is too late? At ContrarianCommentary we like to say we “see over the horizon.” Our work in 2004 looks pretty good in retrospect. That’s the best reason to support our continuing efforts.
Won’t you join us in Honolulu for a scintillating and controversial conference, or support our work with a contribution if you can’t attend in person?
P.S. While my research into Obama is independent and scholarly, I do not hide my own Republican views. The Republican Party’s internal incompetence, in Illinois in 2004, and nationally in 2008 and 2012, has done a great deal to facilitating Obama’s rise to power. While I try to keep scholarly research and investigation separate from partisan politics, there is no denying that Republican Party failures to confront Obama and to understand the threat he poses to the United States have allowed him to endanger our national security. At a time when Christians in the military are threatened with prosecution for “proselytizing,” President Obama has been very subtly proselytizing the Muslim world to rise up against America. Facts are facts. The truth is the truth. The Tsarnaev Brothers are the fruits of Obama’s efforts.
Fox News Reports On Disgusting Protest Signs Used At Events Sanctioned By President Obama’s Organizing For Action In New Hampshire Concord – New Hampshire Republican Party Executive Director Matthew Slater today called on Democrats to denounce the outrageous attempt by President Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA) to politicize the Boston Marathon attacks. Fox News (5/1/13) reported last night that OFA-NH used disgusting and inappropriate signs at a recent gun protest organized by the group in front of Senator Kelly Ayotte’s office. One of the signs, which was splattered in “fake blood”, read “More shot in one day, than marathoned.” “It is outrageous that Democrats would use such appalling and disrespectful signs at an event that was officially organized and sanctioned by President Obama’s field operation. The President should be ashamed of the message that was approved and used by his organization at this protest because it is insensitive, unacceptable and has no place in our political discourse.” “The actions of OFA-NH clearly demonstrate the disgusting tactics that President Obama’s political machine is using to push his extreme agenda. Senator Shaheen, Governor Hassan, Congresswoman Shea-Porter and Congresswoman Kuster need to stand up to their own party by denouncing OFA and telling President Obama that the organization’s unacceptable actions are not welcome in New Hampshire.”
Click Here To View Video Clip
Fox News Reports On Disgusting Protest Signs Used At Events Sanctioned By President Obama’s Organizing For Action In New Hampshire
Concord – New Hampshire Republican Party Executive Director Matthew Slater today called on Democrats to denounce the outrageous attempt by President Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA) to politicize the Boston Marathon attacks. Fox News (5/1/13) reported last night that OFA-NH used disgusting and inappropriate signs at a recent gun protest organized by the group in front of Senator Kelly Ayotte’s office. One of the signs, which was splattered in “fake blood”, read “More shot in one day, than marathoned.”
“It is outrageous that Democrats would use such appalling and disrespectful signs at an event that was officially organized and sanctioned by President Obama’s field operation. The President should be ashamed of the message that was approved and used by his organization at this protest because it is insensitive, unacceptable and has no place in our political discourse.”
“The actions of OFA-NH clearly demonstrate the disgusting tactics that President Obama’s political machine is using to push his extreme agenda. Senator Shaheen, Governor Hassan, Congresswoman Shea-Porter and Congresswoman Kuster need to stand up to their own party by denouncing OFA and telling President Obama that the organization’s unacceptable actions are not welcome in New Hampshire.”
April 26, 2013
Inspector General report: "the IRS cannot conduct extensive eligibility checks similar to those with other Federal programs that typically certify eligibility prior to the issuance of payments or benefits."
The Boston Marathon terrorist bombers were on welfare.
Why did Hilda Solis spend between $50,001 and $100,000 to retain the services of one of the most prestigious white collar law firms in D.C. in the year prior to her leaving the Administration?
Dr. Benjamin Wiker chronicles the left's complete conquest of educational institutions over the past 150 years.
The editors of National Review look at the harsh realities of the Boston bombings and the impact on the Senate immigration bill. What should we really be focused on when it comes to immigration reform? Answer below, or click here.
Also today on NRO, Defense Week (#DefenseWeek) continues with Colonel Allen West (Ret.) on what history should teach us, is it time to throw out the QDR and start anew by Jim Lacey, and Pete Hegseth and James Rosen chime in on defense spending and the melding of missions between agencies. NRO Defense Week continues tomorrow with Cliff May and Peter Brookes.
ICYMI: In honor of the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, Ed Gillespie reflects upon the man and his legacy.
What Boston Means for Immigration Policy
The Boston Marathon bombing has intensified objections to the Gang of Eight’s so-called comprehensive-immigration-reform bill, and rightly so: The terrorist attack in Boston underlines several failures in our immigration system — failures that the bill under consideration would do little or nothing to rectify and would in some cases make considerably worse.
From a domestic-policy point of view, the most critical of these failures is the failure to maintain an immigration system oriented toward assimilation — the unapologetic expectation that immigrants will be fully immersed in American life. Assimilation has important cultural and economic benefits. It also makes immigrants less likely to become Islamist terrorists. The case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev — a non-citizen, charged in 2009 with a violent crime, flagged by a foreign intelligence service as a likely Islamic radical and terror threat, who traveled abroad to jihadist hot spots before returning to the United States to carry out his attack — suggests very strongly that our screening-and-evaluations system is broken. The case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev suggests very strongly that our ability and willingness to fully assimilate immigrants is damaged, much as the London bombings pointed toward the United Kingdom’s inability or unwillingness to assimilate its immigrants.
Assimilation was never part of the agenda for the Tsarnaev family. The bombers’ parents claimed refugee status at a time when their place of residence was Kazakhstan, where there are many ethnic Chechens and little in the way of persecution that would justify refugee status. In fact, Tsarnaev père apparently had little reason to fear persecution in Russia, either: He returned there to live, and his son Tamerlan spent an extended period of time with him there, with side trips to the Islamist hot spot of Chechnya. Tamerlan never became a U.S. citizen (his flagging by the Russian intelligence service as a likely Islamic radical prevented that), his parents had returned to Russia, and he himself was in and out of the country a great deal: not exactly a candidate for what our forebears used to quaintly describe as our national melting pot.
The Gang of Eight bill would move us away from the traditional American ideal of assimilation rather than toward it. It would grant amnesty to many illegal immigrants with a tenuous connection to the United States, and to some who are not even currently living here. At the same time it would do a great deal to increase unskilled immigration, particularly by Hispanics. And it would create a new class of “temporary” workers and their families who would be expected to be in this country but not of it, until those standards are relaxed. Combine these features of the bill and what you have is not a recipe for welcoming new Americans but for encouraging cultural and linguistic separatism.
Most illegal immigrants come here for economic reasons, of course, and not out of any desire to join our country in any larger sense. Others cross the border illegally for entirely different reasons: Among those who took advantage of the 1986 amnesty was “agricultural worker” Mahmud Abouhalima, one of the terrorists who carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Terrorism aside, the main consequence of the 1986 amnesty was to encourage even more illegal immigration and, consequently, even less assimilation.
Rather than tighten refugee-status rules that the Tsarnaevs abused, the Gang of Eight bill would loosen them, for example by removing the one-year deadline for claiming refugee protection once on American soil and by abbreviating the review process for many such claims for protection.
Senator Lindsey Graham and other partisans of the Gang of Eight bill argue that its security provisions would help to ferret out threats. In practice, that is unlikely to be the case. Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s file should have had more red flags on it than a May Day parade, but that was not enough for the FBI to revisit his case or question his travel to Chechnya. As the 11 million illegals testify, our federal bureaucracy and law-enforcement agencies either cannot or will not enforce the immigration laws we already have on the books. The Gang of Eight bill would have them start enforcing our immigration laws — and administer a guest-worker program, and evaluate and process 11 million illegals, and improve the vetting of new immigrants. That is unlikely to prove successful. Senator Graham’s endless infomercial promises to the contrary are either cynical politics or sloppy thinking — both of which are in varying degree characteristic of the Gang of Eight’s overall approach. We would not be surprised if Senator Graham also promised that his bill would relieve lumbago and get rid of hard-to-clean grass stains.
Rather, there will be a great deal of political pressure to clear the “backlog” of legalization-seekers as quickly as possible. And though the possibility may not have occurred to Senator Graham, would-be terrorists are just as likely to take their chances staying illegal in a highly liberalized enforcement environment as to submit to federal background screening under the Gang of Eight bill.
While our piecemeal enforcement at the borders is a national scandal, those who enter the country illegally but overstay their visas account for some 40 percent of illegals. The Gang of Eight bill would require the executive to establish a system of visa controls to address this problem. The problem is this: Congress passed a law requiring that very thing 17 years ago, and has on multiple occasions restated its demand that the law be enforced. So far, nothing doing. That pattern is characteristic of our immigration system in toto: a very fine collection of laws enforced in the most desultory fashion by a government beholden to business interests and ethnic lobbies hostile to the law as written. A government that was serious about restoring its credibility on the issue would at the very least get control of the border and fulfill Congress’s 17-year-old visa-control mandate without attaching a destructive amnesty to the package. Likewise, Janet Napolitano’s proposal for using improved passport technology to track those who come and go across our borders is a very fine idea on its own, no amnesty necessary. But the amnesty is the centerpiece here: To the bill’s proponents, everything else is an afterthought.
The Boston attack is far from irrelevant to the immigration debate. From the failures of law enforcement to the failures of assimilation, the case of the Tsarnaev brothers points both to what is wrong with our existing immigration system and what is wrong with the Gang of Eight’s plan to reform it.