Amid the chaos of the 2009 holiday travel season, jihadists planned to slaughter 290 innocent travelers on a Christmas Day flight from the Netherlands to Detroit, Michigan. Twenty-three-year old Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab intended to detonate Northwest Airlines Flight 253, but the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned and brave passengers subdued him until he could be arrested. The graphic and traumatic defeat they planned for the United States failed, that time.
June 23, 2016: The Brexit Vote Could Change EVERYTHING And Plunge Europe Into Financial Chaos
Following the attempted attack, President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to “connect the dots.” He said, “this was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”
Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material—the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.
After leaving my 15 year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.
Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.
A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future—especially beforean attack occurs.
As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015).
You have to consider that in the US every month 5 million jobs are lost and around the same amount of jobs is newly created. On the balance, for the ninth consecutive month now net employment growth was below 200’000 jobs in May, according to estimates based on real-time income tax withholdings. Also, it appears that the old jobs people are losing pay more than the new jobs that are being created. So in essence, we’re having more jobs but no income growth. That makes sense because how do companies make more money in a no-growth world? They pay their workers less.
The economy is growing slower than people have been expecting because of what I call the politics of fairness. With politics of fairness I mean basically that people think they should be entitled to get free education, free healthcare, not to lose their jobs because that’s only fair. Since President Obama has taken office he has increased food stamps, increased free loans to college kids and increased phony disability claims. Also, he has introduced all these add-on regulations that help his consistency. More people are on the doll than ever before and economic growth is as slow as it has ever been – and that’s related.
The politics of fairness have created the economics of hopelessness. We’re following the European model which is to maintain the status quo: Don’t let competition damage or disrupt existing businesses. The politics of fairness create anti competitiveness because if you are guaranteeing workers a job for a lifetime you want to make sure the company they work for doesn’t go out of business. Therefore, you can’t allow new competition to come in. So you install tests, regulations, rules and barriers to block market entry.
Hillary’s State Dept. Blocked Investigation into Orlando Killer’s Mosque
“The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three- or four-hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases,” he told WND on Sunday.
In other words, the FBI had limited options at stopping Mateen because it was ordered to back off its investigation into his mosque.
“…The United States had – to be fair – we had helped create the problem we’re now fighting,” she said in an interview with Fox anchor Greta Van Susteren. “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force on Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.”
Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. shut down an investigation into the mosque Orlando killer Omar Mir Siddique Mateen attended because it “unfairly singled out Muslims.”
The Fort Pierce Islamic Center, where Mateen worshipped several times a week, was under investigation by both the FBI and DHS as early as 2011 for ties to a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaal which was linked to several terrorist organizations.
But the investigation was shut down under pressure from the Clinton-ran State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office out of fear of offending Muslims, according to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney.
“The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three- or four-hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases,” he told WND on Sunday.
In other words, the FBI had limited options at stopping Mateen because it was ordered to back off its investigation into his mosque.
This secret document confirms that Clinton’s State Dept. – and the Obama administration in general – were directly responsible for the rise of ISIS, which is now targeting the West.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, confirmed the document’s importance.
“I don’t know that [the Obama administration] turned a blind eye [to ISIS], I think it was a decision; I think it was a willful decision,” he said.
Clinton even admitted some responsibility.
“…The United States had – to be fair – we had helped create the problem we’re now fighting,” she said in an interview with Fox anchor Greta Van Susteren. “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force on Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.”
The EU is a horribly anti-democratic bureaucratic monstrosity that is suffocating the life out of most of Europe a little bit more with each passing year. So if I was British, I would most definitely be voting to leave the EU.
And in recent days, the campaign to leave has been rapidly picking up steam. In fact, two of the latest major surveys show that “leave” has taken the lead…
An ORB poll for the Telegraph showed 48 percent of Britons would vote to remain in the European Union, while 49 percent would vote to leave.A YouGov poll for the Times of London showed 46 percent preferred to leave, while 39 percent wanted to remain.
Two other recent polls have “leave” ahead by 10 points, and there is another that actually has “leave” winning by 19 points.
So what could we potentially see happen?
Well, for one thing big banks like Morgan Stanley are warning that the euro and the British pound could take big hits…
Secondly, there is a very strong probability that financial markets all over Europe could horribly crash, and the European Central Bank and the Bank of England are already promising to provide artificial support for the markets if that happens. The following comes from Reuters…
The European Central Bank would publicly pledge to backstop financial markets in tandem with the Bank of England should Britain vote to leave the European Union, officials with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
The preparations illustrate the heightened state of alert ahead of the June 23 referendum, which will help determine Britain’s future in trade and world affairs and also shape the EU. The pound and euro have lost value on fears a Brexit could tip the 28-member bloc into recession.
Such an announcement from the ECB would come on June 24 if an early-morning result showed that British voters had chosen to leave the EU, according to the sources.
Gerald Celente – The Next 8 Days May Change The World Forever
Articles: The American Left is Beneath Contempt
Articles: The American Left is Beneath Contempt
No comments:
Post a Comment