Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Nidal in a Haystack

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, terror, paris, ISIS, nidal, haystack, syrian, refugees
Will it still be "workplace violence" when it's your family killed in a mall, restaurant, or stadium?
Despite the carnage of the terrorist massacres in Paris, Barack Obama is continuing to treat the war on terror as a game. A game which combines "Where's Waldo?" and Russian roulette.

Specifically, the president is doubling down on his desire to bring large numbers of Syrian refugees into the United States as quickly as possible, despite the fact that many of them are males of military age and, despite White House assurances to the contrary, there is simply no effective means of vetting individuals to determine who might have terrorist ties.

Following a statement about his refusal to change any alleged strategy he has for dealing with ISIS ("what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or America winning"), the president went on to label it "shameful" that many legislators and governors are asking him to delay the flood of Syrians long enough to weed out the ones for whom "death to America" is more than just a slogan.

Choosing to completely remove the issue of national security from the equation, Obama suggested that screening the Syrians amounted to religious persecution against Muslims. "That's not American," sneered the least-American president ever. "That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion."

A sentiment which will come as a pretty big shock to the pro-life Christians running Hobby Lobby, who had to fight the president tooth and nail in court because their belief in compassion for the unborn didn't pass the inflexible religious tests dictated by Obamacare.

Hope n' Change isn't anti-immigration (legal immigration) nor are we against taking in refugees fleeing from genuinely life-threatening circumstances. But that being said, we place a higher priority on our national security and believe that the influx of Syrian refugees (particularly young males) should be stopped until there is clear evidence that this administration has both the capability and intent to thoroughly screen individuals before letting them in and effective methods of monitoring them afterwards.

If that's an inconvenience to the refugees, they - and Barack Hussein Obama - should blame the terrorists who killed 129 people in Paris and the radical Islamic extremists who commit atrocities worldwide every day instead of the open-hearted but justifiably cautious American people.


UPDATE: Just to underscore the fact that he is a complete horse's ass, here's Obama's latest pronouncement on the refugee situation and the bipartisan call to slow things down: “Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” Obama said of the GOP. “At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”

Unfortunately for Obama's straw man argument, a short time later a female suicide bomber (perhaps a widow?) blew herself up in Paris when confronted by police officers who were conducting anti-terror raids.


Mike aka Proof said...

"Nidal in a haystack"? *Golf clap*

miniskunk said...

We don't use religious tests? What about the Christians who are trying to flee the murderous Muslims that Obama refused asylum to?

Anonymous said...

@miniskunk, O'Baja lies, he's a Muslim, it's what they do. Even the Democrats are slowly waking up to the fact O'Baja has no interest in the American people or our safety, not the ones who put him in office , definitely not those "against him" and his administrations blatant disregard for our safety.

Anonymous said...

I liked the analogy of a "Nidal" in a haystack until I realized that the haystack is nothing but Nidals.

Gang of One said...

Mark Levin had a caller who said something not too far removed from this: they vetted Nidal every which way, ignored all the warning signs. How are they going to vet thousands of "refugees"?

Geoff King said...

Thus far, 31 governors have stated that they do not Syrian refugees relocated to their states. Unfortunately, the Refugee Act of 1980 gives the federal government ultimate control over where and when these people can be placed. However, the states can make the process as difficult as possible by withholding all funding.
Until the feds can prove that all have been properly vetted, I feel the resistance given by these majority of states is fitting and proper. National security must come before humanitarianism.

WD said...

The problem is no longer just military age men. It would be nice to think you can be compassionate towards women and children but women. including mothers, are now suicide bombers. Or attacking with knives. Children are used as bombers and smugglers. Fake passports are easy to obtain. There is no answer but exclusion that protects us here in our home.

Fred Ciampi said...

A rhetorical question perhaps, but why hasn't someone in authority placed barry under arrest? He has broken every law in the books from day one, shredded our Constitution, made a mockery of our military, and is an asshole. Just wondering......

Judi King said...

Someone asked why these young, male, military age refugees don't stay in Syria and fight for THEIR own country against the misguided morons taking it over. I agree with that. I also agree with Mr. Trump's statement that our "dic" is INSANE. He has all the symptoms of MANY mental illnesses and should be institutionalized. Some are also saying a safe zone should be, and should have been, established in Syria which sounds like an excellent idea instead of importing potential terrorists. I hope the Governors are able to prevail.

CenTexTim said...

Stilton, you got it exactly right. It's a question of priorities - our genuine desire to help those in need vs. our safety and security. It's awfully hard to help others when you're getting shot and blown up.

re: safe zones in Syria and elsewhere - it sounds like a good idea, but it's not that easy to execute. Here's some food for thought.

David aka True Blue Sam said...

Russian Roulette with an automatic...

Rod said...

RE The update: Barry is insane but he's not stupid. He knows that's an entry-level transparent argument. The use of refugees as part of a large campaign of aggression is not new. He's obviously not protecting this nation with even the most simple of preventative actions. TO CONGRESS: How much longer will we tolerate this?

PRY said...

Re: Gang of One...great point! Even if the Ubama regime reluctantly allows a 'pause' to get their pinko ducks in a row and agree to some sort of vetting system, why would we ever believe the results of said vetting system, if that were even possible at this point? As pointed out earlier, Nidal got the same vetting treatment but no bells went off there and look what we got. More dead American patriots! There is just no good solution to the myriad dangers facing this country now...a prudent person realizes that what is required now is appealing to a higher power for mercy and holding on tightly to the posterior!

Shelly said...

Every time he makes a snarky remark, something happens right after to make him look like an incompetent buffoon. His presser on Monday revealed what a petulant, small little man he is. Any criticism is met with childish rhetoric. The sycophant press is turning on him as even they can see the writing on the wall. Even Chris Matthews is criticizing him and that spells mucho trouble for Little Lord Fauntleroy. This smug asshole has been carried on a pillow his entire life and really thinks his own poop doesn't stink. I agree the young male refugees should be turned back to do their own fighting. The thing that irks me the most is we the taxpayers have sent billions of humanitarian aid to the Gulf States oil-rich nations so they want our money but not the refugees? Things are going to reach a boiling point soon and I'm fearful for our nation.

Bobo said...

Pass a law holding the people doing the vetting, and POTUS responsible for their decision to allow a refugee into our country. Lets put a mandatory 10 year sentence to hard labor at Fort Leavenworth as the penalty. No excuses, no alibis, no misunderstandings. Only the die hard, bleeding heart liberal would be ignorant enough to take that chance knowing how easily they can be fooled by these conniving terrorist a-holes.

If the other governors and Congress as a whole don't stand up and say NO, then maybe they should be held responsible for all the refugees being sent to their states and made to keep tabs on where they are 24/7/365. They get the same sentence as the vetters if they lose track of the refugee and something horrific occurs because of
their lack of attention.

We need some accountability and punishment in this country for wrongdoers.

Just my thoughts....

Joseph ET said...

Ambassador John Bolton says that international law allows refugees to be kept in the first safe country they can get to. Then the international community must see to their needs (food and water, etc.) and security. Also, many of the current batch of refugees don’t qualify as refugees.

There is about 56 Muslim Countries in the world and it makes no sense to move refugees 8,000 miles to an incompatible culture, where they’ll have to deal with a different language, different climate and different religion. If these people are kept in a country close to their home it would be easier for them to return home after the problems are resolved. After they get into the USA we will never get them to go back to their homes. I have read that in Germany these ungrateful guest are demanding better housing, food, faster internet and more money for the monthly welfare check to supplement their raping and robbing.
They say that about 73% of this refugee group are military age males. That seems very suspicious to me. Some of these guys need to be undergoing an interrogation to find out what’s really going on.

We need to get some Vets to explain to Obama that widows and orphans can and will kill you just as dead as anyone else.

Reminder: The Boston Marathon bombers were vetted refugees!

At least our “guests” from South America are not as likely to sneak up behind you to remove your head or stab you in the back or blow themselves up.

Colby Muenster said...

Fred Ciampi said...
"A rhetorical question perhaps, but why hasn't someone in authority placed barry under arrest?"

Rhetorical, maybe, but this is a question that has an answer. Nobody in the spineless Congress or Senate will dare even broach the subject because they value their own hides too much to actually uphold the Constitution. You know, "it could happen to THEM one day!" "It's too late in O'liar's term to start proceedings now!" O'Liar has repeatedly broken the law because he knows damn well nobody has the nuts to step up and stop him. Sad.... and this includes guys like Cruz, Sessions and the like.

And I still say we should let the Syrian "refugees" in. In to sanctuary cities like San Francisco, that is. They actually WANT people like this, so by God, they can have 'em! I'm thinking Hawaii is a good place for the refugees too, especially the neighborhood around Paradise Point Estates in Kailua Bay. I'm sure they would be most welcome there.

As far as Governors not having the authority to deny immigrants? They have just as much authority as O'Muslim had to declare we were taking them, or to shoot down Keystone, or to declare open borders, or (fill in the blank). These Governors outnumber President Resident, and I pray they have the balls to take a stand. O'Liar ordering the arrest of a standing Governor would not have good optics.

John the Econ said...

I guess if the government had a better track record of "vetting", this wouldn't be such a problem for Obama. But the left has created a culture of fear over pointing out anything suspicious, for fear of being prosecuted for "racism". 9/11 might not have happened had it been for this PC disease.

But I'm going to take a longer view on this. I am not against the notion of accepting refugees. It's just that I'd like a few answers first, like what is the long-term plan? So what's the end-game here? We've already absorbed over 10% of the population of Mexico and central America due to regional corruption, failed socialistic policies and plain poor economics and political instability. Now Europe is absorbing North Africa and the Middle East, and the left wants us to do the same. "Boots on the ground" or "interfering" anymore in in the affairs of these nations that are repelling their own citizens seems to be a non-option, and the situation in these regions is not going to improve anytime in the foreseeable future. And frankly, even in the "good times" most of these places were not that great, so once here, few are going to want to return ever. And in a land where a $15 minimum wage seems inevitable, relatively few of the low-skilled are going to get employed, which means free time and mischief. So when does it end? Are we to absorb nearly the entire population of these caliphate and socialist hell-holes until western civilization is no longer recognizable?

I think its inevitable that at least some of these people come. I'd think that if I was the Democrats, I'd hope and pray that nothing bad happens within the next 11 months, else we really might end up with a President Trump. Overall, over the last decade, contrary to the leftist narrative America has been very patient and tolerant of Muslims here. That probably will not be the case should any Paris-like event occur. I fear for a lot of innocent people, of all cultures. And when things get ugly and unstable, I fear what the Federal government's reaction will inevitably will be.

John the Econ said...

...and now the President is telling lies about "widows and orphans", which are actually a surprisingly small subset of the "refugees" we're talking about. Shameless. It's not the "widows and orphans" Americans are worried about.

My guess is that patently false statements like that hurt his cause more than help.

John the Econ said...

And today from the "Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations" file:

John Kerry: "Rationale" for Charlie Hebdo attack more understandable"

Did our Secretary of State actually say this? "There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of - not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, 'Okay, they're really angry because of this and that.' This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate."

Wow. So the next time a woman is raped, will Kerry rationalize that it was due to a short skirt?

(Think that's hyperbole? It's been the attitude among intellectuals in Progressive Europe for some time now. And note that the linked article is 8 years old, and the professor quoted made her statement almost 15 years ago)

So if I get really, really, really offended, my homicidal rage could be "rationalized"? Or does such rationalization of terrorism only apply to certain demographics? And isn't that contradictory to the Multiculturalist notion that all cultures are to be judged equally? Or is this a slip that western civilization really is superior in that we hold our citizens (or at least the privileged white male ones) to a higher standard?

Doc said...

If our bat-crap crazy president doesn't understand the true threat from radical muslims (aren't they all followers of sharia?!?!?), then let him go wander around Syria without a combat battalion of Marines to protect his head from being separated from the rest of his worthless, traitorous body!

David in SoCal said...

Funny how Oimporterofisis tries to befuddle us with rhetoric about 'Women widowers', and '3 year old children' that pose 'no' threat to America as un-vetted illegal immigrants. Guess he didn't watch the PBS special, and realize that these '3 year old children' will grow up to be adult terrorists, and at least one of the France attackers WAS a woman.
Here's yer link:

May God help us, and may we be able to protect ourselves; Osoetoro won't.

Gang of One said...

@John the Econ --
My guess is that patently false statements like that hurt his cause more than help
Not when he has a complicit media, academy, and entertainment regurgitating and pushing the same false narrative. The entire Leftosphere is replete with accusations and recriminations that the conservatives ranks are filled with racists, Islamophobes, etc., ad nauseum.
That the scales are falling from some eyes, e.g., Jerry Rivers aka Geraldo Rivera, whose daughter was in Paris during the massacre. I get the feeling that the Leftoid narrative is losing its audience, as it is being exposed for the morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest pack of lies that it is.

John the Econ said...

Totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but this is big:

Nation's largest insurer may exit Obamacare due to losses

(It's not "may". It's since been announced that they are withdrawing)

"Insurers have had trouble signing up young and healthy individuals on the Obamacare exchanges, which is necessary to offset the costs of covering older and sicker enrollees. This has forced insurers to hike premiums, raise deductibles, and slash the number of doctors and hospitals offered on its plans. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has cut its enrollment expectations for 2016 to about half of what they were when the the legislation became law.

The year 2017 is significant for insurers, because that's the year when several programs designed to mitigate risk for insurers through federal backstops go away. The hope was that those programs would act as training wheels for Obamacare in its first few years of implementation, but after that, the insurers were supposed to be able to thrive on their own. UnitedHealth's statement suggests otherwise."

Yeah, that's the problem of basic policy on sheer "hope" as opposed to common sense.

But here's the inevitable, that I've been telling people from the very beginning, that ObamaCare was little more than a Trojan horse designed to destroy what was left of private insurance and care in America, and make Americans "cry uncle" in their resistance to what the Progressives have really wanted all along, "single payer".

Even the Obama cheerleaders at the New York Times are less than rosy, but can't just bring themselves to offering a mea culpa:

Last year, we encouraged returning Obamacare customers to shop around for a better deal. This year, a lot of people will have no choice. In markets throughout the country, the plan in the most popular category that was least expensive this year will not be offered next year. That means that some people who took our advice and shopped for a bargain will need to shop again, even if they’re happy with their plan.

It's happening people: The collapse has begun. What will be really interesting is what will happen next fall, when people who've already taken a massive hit this year in their rates and coverage (the rates we pay literally doubled this year) see what their options (or lack of them) are just before an election. Wouldn't it be interesting as voters take their rage out on the Democrats for the mess they created, and then leave it to the GOP that will then be forced into creating the "single payer" system that the Democrats wanted all along?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Mike aka Proof- I'd used the line here in the comments, but thought that a visual version might get shared more online. It's not just a pun - it's a damned accurate metaphor.

@miniskunk- Shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about them!

@Anonymous- I defy anyone to tell me what Obama would be doing differently if he was a declared Muslim intent on ruining this country.

@Anonymous- Maybe not all...but even one is too many.

@Gang of One- Nidal Hasan teaches a HUGE lesson. All of the warning lights and bells were going off, but nobody wanted to do anything about it for fear of being called an Islamaphone by this administration. And it ended in death and horror.

@Geoff King- Obama is placing these people into states against the will of the governors and citizens, and providing no information about who they are or how they were vetted. He might as well be a travel agent for sleeper cells.

@WD- Indeed, women (like the whore who blew herself up in Paris) can be killers and, sadly, kids can grow into killers (like the Boston bombers). Barry needs to drop the snark and get serious - but it will never happen. His primary goal isn't so much to import terrorists as it is to flood our nation with immigrants unlikely to assimilate so as to kill the American way of life from within.

@Fred Ciampi- Oddly, it's because Washington DC lacks what Caitlyn Jenner still has.

@Judi King- I agree that many of those of military age should be fighting their own battles rather than seeking asylum here. That being said, I can also understand wanting to get the hell out of dodge with your family when things turn insane. I'm not entirely hardhearted about the plight of these people - but our security has to come first.

@CenTexTim- It is hard to come up with a plan to make these refugees safe while keeping our own citizenry safe. And no less so because the Obama administration flat out can't be trusted.

@David aka True Blue Sam- You paint a vivid and accurate picture.

@Rod- Congress will certainly tolerate the president's abuses right through his last day in office. Which can't come soon enouh.

@PRY- To the extent there ever were good solutions possible, I think the window has closed now. We have to choose between the "least bad" options now.

@Shelly- Barry's dismissive, sneering attitude brings me to the boiling point every time. And of course, his policies do the same. I really do think we may hit an unprecedented crisis point before he leaves office.

@Bobo- Sadly, the only people who can demand that accountability are the ones who stand to benefit most from not having accountability. But I, too, wish the people doing the vetting would have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

@Joseph ET- It's my understanding that the Syrian refugees being (ahem) vetter for entry to the U.S. don't reflect the same demographics as the invading hoardes in Europe. Still, it seems like there are many more logical countries for them to go to.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Colby Muenster- I agree that if the refugees MUST come in, they should be farmed out to the communities that have been the most vocal about wanting them, including sanctuary cities and college campuses. And the Hawaii idea is pretty good, too, as it would give Barry a chance to mingle with his "widows and orphans" during his vacations.

@John the Econ- As I mentioned a few comments above, I think Obama's end game is to dilute the American genome (culturally speaking) with so many immigrants that our national identity will cease to exist. Because, not to put too fine a point on it, he hates our national identity.

Like you, I fear what kind of feces will hit the fan when (not if) we have a Paris-style attack in our country (my paranoia says later this month, so let's just hope I'm crazy). Some of what Trump says makes sense - but other things he says are emotional, irrational, and becoming frighteningly popular.

Regarding Barry's "widows and orphans" statement, I'd like to see the smug slapped right off his face.

And then there's John Kerry saying that cartoonists who challenge radical Islam are "asking for it." As, presumably, is anyone else who - in the words of B. Hussein - would "slander the prophet of Islam." Insanity.

@David in SoCal- Even Barry knew he was lying. And savoring it.

@Gang of One- I hate to say this, but when the inevitable attack on our country takes place, there might be a silver lining if the victims included members of the media and entertainment industries. The Left needs to wake up in a big way, and the national narrative they control needs to change.

@John the Econ- After three weeks of work I managed to sign up for my new health insurance policy last night- and it sucks eggs. 300,000 Texans like me lost their Blue Cross PPO plans and had to go back to the marketplace, only to discover that offerings and coverage had been slashed while prices only went up. And up.

I'll now have a $15k HMO plan which doesn't include our current doctors (who we will continue to see, back alley-style, paying cash for our visits) and doesn't allow us to see any specialists or receive any treatments unless the "gatekeeper" HMO doctor pre-approves it. And I'll note that many of these gatekeepers receive bonuses based entirely on how much medical treatment they deny to patients.

To find my plan, I worked with a professional (I could never have navigated the system on my own) who wasn't shy about sharing his opinion that the current madness amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire system will inevitably collapse, and soon - exactly as it was meant to do under Obamacare.

Geoff King said...

If there is to be an inevitable Paris-like attack in our country, I seriously doubt that it will happen in my neck of the woods. Arizona - and more specifically - Northern Arizona has some of the most liberal gun laws and attitudes in the nation, if not the world. In the small community in which I live, dogs outnumber people about three to one, and guns outnumber dogs about five to one.
Any terrorist wishing to get the most mileage out of his or her insane act of violence would best heed the supposed words of warning of Admiral Yamamoto: "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Take it to a "safe" gun free city such as the ever peaceful Chicago.

John the Econ said...

Meanwhile, back on topic: Obama vows to veto the refugee vetting bill the GOP is sending his way, but it looks as though they may be enough Democrat votes to override a veto. Current polling has the "against" running at nearly 60%, while the "send them on over" sentiment is around 40%. And I suspect that half of that 40% is probably really 20%, as half of those people probably only answered as they did because they were afraid of being called a "racist".

It's funny how Democrats hate "democracy" when the majority don't see things their way.

Give much of the credit to the Internet. Yeah, like you I've had to endure no shortage of poorly thought out or completely factitious memes on social media that the utterly ignorant have been passing around as is they're making an actual argument. (I love the comparison to the Jews, who unlike Muslims weren't particularly known for fighting back, which was a large part of their problem)

Not surprisingly, during this debate there's been a near-complete news blackout by our domestic media on the situation in Europe; crime out of control, fences going up, citizens in fear. Fortunately today, we have easy, real-time access to foreign media that gives an entirely different perspective.

So while the left here deploys their non-sequitur memes, alert Americans should be reading about what's really going on abroad. The more you do, the sillier and more ignorant the memes look.

BTW: I am not against accepting refugees. I think America does have a tradition of opening our doors to those in need, and represents the best of what this country is, or at least was. But without borders, we're not a country. And we haven't effectively had borders for years now.

Colby Muenster said...

@John the Econ,
We all know that O'Liar's wonderful health plan was designed from the start to fail and force single payer, but I had not thought before of something you just posted. O'liar's crowd (which does NOT include Billary) will most likely get the extreme joy of watching the entire mess get dumped in the Republican's laps come January. The Republicans are so divided right now, the chances of them actually repealing it and replacing it with something better are slim. Or, if Billary actually (shudder) WINS, O'Liar will get nearly the same pleasure watching her deal with the heaping, stinking mess. Unfortunately, good folks like Stilton are already dealing with it.

@Geoff King,
Yup! these animals are ruthless, but they're not stupid. You can bet any domestic attacks will occur in the areas of the country with the most ridiculous gun laws. Illinois, New York, Mexifornia... I'm guessing ISIS could waltz straight into San Fran in broad daylight wearing their cute little black outfits and carrying weapons, and no one would take a second glance.

Sad but true, I think it will come to a major attack before people wake the hell up. I pray not, but the writing is on the wall.

Judi King said...

Pete (Detroit) said...

@ John the Econ - " And we haven't effectively had borders for years now."
Precisely why I don't really see the point in blocking the refugees - w/ 1000's / day of unknowns walking over the border, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

John the Econ said...

@Colby Muenster, the damage that ObamaCare was intended to inflict is done. Simply repealing ObamaCare now is pointless. The insurance I liked ($500/month and paid 100% at deductible) is long gone and is not coming back. The crappy insurance we have now would evaporate, and in fact, people like Jarlsberg and Econ families that are squarely in the 2nd half of their lives would now be considered uninsurable, even though we're all relatively healthy.

And just what would the GOP replace ObamaCare with? I've yet to see anything viable.

In a completely ironic twist, Hillary (who's plan from the '90s was even more draconian than ObamaCare was) and no doubt supports "single payer" is now taking shots at Bernie's "single payer" plan as too expensive. Seriously! At least Bernie is honest about the true plan for ObamaCare:

"While Sanders has supported the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, he has described the legislation as merely a first step toward guaranteeing that every American has health insurance. He has said that creating a single-payer system, similar to the schemes that now operate in countries such as France and Taiwan, would achieve that goal."

Hillary doesn't want to tax the "middle class" to pay for her plan, but frankly, there aren't enough 1%-ers to carry the $15-trillion or so over the next decade that any "single payer" scheme is likely to cost.

I can't imagine what the GOP is going to propose. Quite frankly, I'll probably throw my support after Bernie's plan. At least it's transparently honest in what it's about. Yeah, he's going to impose a $15-trillion dollar payroll tax to pay for it. But at that point, I'm just going to retire, or at least cut my income back to a point to where the tax has minimal impact. It will be the raise I've been denied for the last decade, and I'm more than happy to let the ignorant middle-class kids who voted for this nonsense pay for my care from this point on. It's the least we both deserve.

bart simpsonson said...

OK, I did not think of this but I will repeat it. Teh Won says the Republcrats are afraid of widows and orphans, but the DemocRats are afraid of CO2 and their fellow countrymen.......

Wahoo said...

Would Hillary throwing a lamp at Bill in the White House be considered "workplace violence"?