As Muslim Jihadi Strikes OSU, Media Drives the Deception Operation

Source: Understanding the Threat – As Muslim Jihadi Strikes OSU, Media Drives the Deception Operation

UTT readers know, this war in which we are engaged with the Islamic Movement in the United States is primarily an Information War.

A Muslim refugee from Somalia named Abdul Razak Ali Artan is “scared” to pray so he tries to kill non-Muslims on the Ohio State University (OSU) campus with his vehicle and a knife before being shot dead by an OSU police officer.

What he did was legal under sharia (Islamic Law).  Its all about sharia.

American mainstream media pushes the narrative that we simply cannot know what drove this poor young man.

CNN’s headline reads “Searching for a Reason.”

Fox News says “The motive behind the attack is still unclear.”

NBC news writes “Officials cautioned that they have not determined a motive for the ambush.”

Where are the credible journalists?

For the media to say they do not know the motive is for the media to be waging an information campaign for the enemies of the United States.

mccaul

In come the political elite:  House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) said “we do not yet have confirmation of terrorist connections” to the attack, but he added “this is the type of indiscriminate violence our enemies are urging their followers to use against us.”

Sorry Congressman, this is not “indiscriminate violence.”  This is jihad being waged for the purpose of establishing a caliphate under sharia.  More specifically, this is jihad waged to cause fear to get Americans to further submit to Islam.  Abdul Artan was “scared” to pray because Americans were not providing an environment with more room for sharia.  Therefore, we get violence.

Perhaps if Mr. McCaul were not so busy supporting the jihadis by pushing the CVE program, getting it funded, and doing the business of our enemies, he might have more time to study our enemy and do his duty.

Congressman Adam Schiff, (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Artan “may have been self-radicalized.”  What does that even mean?  “Self-radicalized?”  Abdul Artan was following the sharia which comes from the Koran and the example of the Muslim prophet Mohammad. And Adam Schiff serves on the “Intelligence Committee” for the United States House of Representatives.

And of course, in comes Hamas – doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – and no one in the mainstream media mentions they are a Hamas organization.  No one mentions they are terrorists.

CNN finished their piece by promoting CAIR as a soft and cuddly organization that just wants peace:       “As Ohioans, as Americans and as Muslims, we’re shocked by today’s senseless attack,” said Roula Allouch, national board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations…Jennifer Nimer, legal director for CAIR’s Ohio chapter, urged the public not to jump to conclusions about Artan’s motive.

Good news is Hamas (dba CAIR) now has 3 offices in Ohio – Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus.

Americans elected Mr. Trump because there was some realization our leaders, media, and system has been utterly corrupted.  What will happen when they realize their leaders and media are working with our enemies against them with no response from federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies which have also been catastrophically corrupted?

Who can we thank for these continuing and increasing attacks?  Who can we thank for a disintegrating security in American hometowns?  President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, Congressman McCaul, Governor Chris Christie, Governor John Kasich, Senator John McCain, Senator Marco Rubio, and all of the other treasonous officials in the American government who continue to provide aid and comfort for our enemies while denigrating people speaking truth about a clear and present danger to the American people and our communities.

It is time, citizens, to understand the threat.  Join UTT to educate, train, and prepare America for this growing cancer, so it can be defeated.  No matter who is President, this war will be won or lost at the local level.

Obama fast-tracks secretive plan to import 1,800 Muslims rejected by Australia

no-refugees-demonstration

If the reported number is 1,800, expect a much larger number with many more to follow. Don’t expect big media to investigate (i.e., do their job). Source: Obama fast-tracks plan to take Muslim migrants rejected by Australia

by Leo Hohmann

The chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees are demanding the Obama administration provide details of a secret resettlement deal in which the U.S. has agreed to take up to 1,800 mostly Muslim asylum seekers who have been rejected by Australia as illegal aliens.

Congress only learned of the deal through media reports two weeks ago and, according to a letter sent to administration officials by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the deal is not only a matter of grave national security concern, but it could be illegal.

That’s because it amounts to an international treaty that Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated without consulting or notifying Congress according to Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, according to the letter, sent by the two lawmakers Nov. 22 to Kerry and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.

Grassley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Goodlatte chairs the same committee in the House.

The rejected aliens come from terror-infested countries including Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan.

Nearly 2,500 of them were interdicted off the coast of Australia in 2013 in accordance with that country’s policy of not accepting any of the wave of “refugees” streaming out of the Middle East. Unlike Europe, Australia effectively said “no” to the United Nations’ plan to open up Western democracies for millions of refugees fleeing not only the Syrian civil war but conflicts in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and even countries like Pakistan that are not at war. Germany alone has accepted 1.5 million Muslim refugees and subjected itself to thousands of sexual assaults on its women and girls.

But migrants who tried to get to Australia did not find a welcome mat. They were rescued by the Australian coast guard from their unsafe vessels and taken to off-shore camps on the Islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, where they have remained ever since. The United Nations stepped in and is looking for countries that will take the asylum seekers.

The U.N. found a taker in the Obama administration. Kerry confirmed he had reached a deal to take an undetermined number of the 2,465 aliens for permanent resettlement in the United States. Goodlatte and Grassley said they have since found out that up to 1,800 of the boat people could end up being distributed to U.S. cities and towns. But very little information has been released about the aliens or how many will end up in which American cities.

“This situation is concerning for many reasons,” the letter states. “First, your department s negotiated an international agreement regarding refugees without consulting or notifying Congress. Such information was not disclosed to Congress during the annual refugee consultation that occurred on September 13, 2016, even though your staff confirmed that the agreement had, at the time, been negotiated ‘for months.’ Second, the agreement and the number of refugees to be resettled has been deemed by your departments as classified, thus the American people are left in the dark as to the rationale for this agreement. Third, the individuals who will be resettled are coming from countries of national security concern. In fact, two of the countries are officially designated by the State Department to be State Sponsors of Terrorism. Finally, it begs the question why Australia and other countries refuse to admit these individuals, what other countries are doing to help alleviate the situation, what kind of precedent this sets for future refugees interdicted at sea by Australian forces and prevented from entering Australia, and how a similar situation will be prevented in the future.” Read the entire letter from Grassley and Goodlatte.

They came from the following countries:

Iran
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Somalia
Iraq
Sudan
Stateless

No details have been released as to how many from each country would be considered for resettlement in the U.S., what cities or states they would be sent to, the breakdown of men, women and children, or the state of their health. The U.S. sent teams to begin screening the aliens almost immediately after the deal was brokered by Kerry, according to the letter.


Read it all and this previous Hohmann piece: Leaked memo: Refugees vet themselves.

Update: Further destroying America towns and cities: 

Obama Ships 6,051 Illegal Invader Kids to American Communities in October

 

The Muslim Registry that Wasn’t (updated)

fake-news

Source: Muslim Registry — Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy Proposal Has Precedent | National Review

The first thing to know about Donald Trump’s alleged proposal for a Muslim registry is that it isn’t a Muslim registry.

This has been lost in a freak-out that has some brave souls already promising acts of civil disobedience to disrupt and overwhelm the prospective registry. The controversy tells us much more about how the media will cover the Trump administration — i.e., through the lens of a fact-free hysteria — than about the administration’s immigration-enforcement agenda.

The source of the fracas is a comment from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Trump immigration adviser and (excellent) candidate for Homeland Security director, to Reuters. Kobach noted that the administration might reinstate a Bush-era program tracking visitors to the U.S. from countries with active terrorist threats. This suggestion was spun into a first step toward herding our Muslim neighbors into internment camps.

Kobach was referring to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which placed special requirements on adult male visitors from countries like Saudi Arabia. Implemented after September 11 — when, you might recall, adult male visitors from Saudi Arabia toppled the World Trade Center — it collected fingerprints and photographs when visitors from the select countries arrived and required them to check in periodically to confirm that they were abiding by the terms of their visas.

It also required that certain individuals from these countries who were already here go through a process of “special registration,” including an interview with immigration officials.

This is a far cry from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order 9066 setting in motion the Japanese internment of World War II.

It is true, as the critics point out, that the selected countries all were, with the exception of North Korea, majority Muslim. But any program concerned with international terrorism will, inevitably, focus largely on Muslim countries (although European countries like France and Belgium have developed an indigenous terror threat). The 9/11 hijackers, notably, all came from majority Muslim countries. It is said that the Bush program didn’t lead to the prosecution of any terrorists. According to the Migration Policy Institute, “The New York Times reported in 2003 that, out of roughly 85,000 individuals registered through the NSEERS program in 2002 and 2003, just 11 were found to have ties to terrorism.”

Although tracking down anyone here who has ties to terrorism isn’t necessarily something to sniff at, the Bush program proved best-suited to identifying visa overstayers. Of the 85,000 initial registrants, nearly 14,000 were put into removal proceedings. For the critics, this is an indictment. Liberal website Vox complains that the program “made it easier to deport someone who then overstayed his visa than it would have been to deport him if he’d refused to register at all.”

But why shouldn’t it be easier to deport visa-overstayers, who constitute about half of the population of illegal immigrants? If we are serious about our immigration rules, our approach to visa-overstayers from all countries should be much more restrictive and hardheaded.


Read it all at the virulently anti-Trump National Review of all places. And more via: NBC Blasted, Bias Reporting on Priebus’ Muslim Registry Rejection

NBC News was blasted Sunday for tweeting out a half-quote from President-elect Donald Trump’s chief of staff that made it seem the new administration was leaving the door open to a Muslim registry.

During an interview with Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus, Trump’s newly named chief of staff, on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” moderator Chuck Todd asked if he could “rule out a registry for Muslims.”

Priebus replied: “Look, I’m not going to rule out anything. But, we are not going to have a registry based on religion.”

The network’s public relations department, however, posted only the first sentence in a pair of tweets to promote the segment.

“This quote is in fact opposite of what PR tweet indicates,” New York Times political correspondent Maggie Haberman noted in her own tweet of the exchange.

A senior technology writer for BuzzFeed, Charlie Warzel, lashed out at the tweet as an “irresponsible half-quote w/o even a link for context.”


The Washington Post reminds folks, possibly inadvertently, that the entire topic is a red herring to begin with:

trump-question

Almost exactly one year ago, on Nov. 19, 2015, Trump was asked by a Yahoo News reporter what measures he might take when it came to his stated proposal to increase surveillance of Muslims in the United States.

For some odd reason the Washington Post does not include the actual question that Yahoo asked Trump or his actual response, so here it is:

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”


But back to WAPO’s version of events:

“We’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” Trump said. Asked about registering Muslims in a database or noting their religion on IDs, Trump responded: “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

Asked the following day again whether he supported a Muslim database, Trump was again oblique: “There should be a lot of systems — beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems.” Trump then began talking about a border wall.

Asked by ABC News if he would rule out a database on all Muslims, he said no, but then shifted to talking about a database just of refugees.

“No, not at all,” he said. “I want a database for the refugees that — if they come into the country. We have no idea who these people are. When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan horse.


And just for good measure, WAPO reports: The government already has a list of Muslims in the U.S.

That’s Barrack Obama’s government.

Let us also not forget that Obama kept a registry of sorts for Muslims who wanted jobs in his administration…while non-Muslims were excluded.

But, it’s more important to keep false premises and fake news flowing.


Update: Another Muslim database leveraged, and dramatically expanded, by Barrack Hussein Obama.

Oh the hypocrisy, via the very left-leaning Atlantic: How Obama’s Gun-Control Push Inverted the Politics of the No-Fly List

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “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 semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

Over the late 2000s, pressure grew, and the no-fly list actually shrank significantly, to about 4,000. But after the failed Christmas Day “underwear bomber” attack in December 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and significantly ramped up the list. By 2013, according to documents obtained by The Intercept, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list, topping the Bush administration’s high. Obama’s decision was driven in part by national-security hawks in his own party, including California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called for a more aggressive list after the failed attack.

 

WTF! Obama to import 1,800 Muslim illegals from Australia

They are not refugees, they are illegals invaders whom Australia banned.  US to take mostly Muslim refugees from Australia, report says – The Standard  h/t TROP

The United States and Australia are close to announcing a deal in which the U.S. would resettle hundreds of asylum seekers banished by Australia to Pacific island camps, a newspaper reported today.

The U.S. had agreed to accept up to 1,800 refugees held for up to three years at Australia’s expense in camps on the impoverished island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, The Australian newspaper reported.

Most of the asylum seekers are Muslims from the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull declined to comment on negotiations with the United States.

Rebecca Gardner, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Australia, would not comment on the newspaper report, saying the State Department did not “comment on or discuss diplomatic negotiations.”

Senior government minister Christopher Pyne praised the prospect of such an agreement being finalized before the Obama administration ends.

“There certainly is time _ two and a half months is plenty of time _ and if that’s the case, it will be a great achievement for the Turnbull government,” Pyne told Nine Network television.

Senior opposition lawmaker Anthony Albanese said “if this occurs, that will be a good thing.”

The opposition center-left Labor Party criticized a previous deal struck between Australia and the United States in 2007 to swap refugees, arguing that the prospect of U.S. resettlement would attract more asylum seekers to Australian shores.

Under that deal, up to 200 refugees a year held on Nauru could have been swapped for Cubans and Haitians intercepted at sea while trying to get to the U.S. and held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But no refugee was ever traded under that deal.
Turnbull announced at Obama’s Leaders’ Summit on Refugees in September that Australia would participate in the U.S.-led program to resettle Central American refugees from a camp in Costa Rica. Australia would also increase its refugee intake by 5,000 to 18,750 a year.

Turnbull said at the time that the agreement to resettle Central Americans was “not linked to any other resettlement discussions” involving Australia’s refugees.

Immigration Department Secretary Chief Michael Pezzullo told a parliamentary committee today that “today we are closer than we were yesterday” to resettling asylum seekers from Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

YUUUUUUUGE! TRUMP WINS!!

nyt-head-trump

The most extraordinary Presidential campaign in modern history ends in utter humiliation for Hillary, the pollsters, and elites of business, media and show business as the voters America forgot sweep Donald to a stunning victory.


To the corrupt media who did their best to deceive Americans: (nsf work or kids):

 

With that out of the way, Trump’s victory speech.

endobama

Governor to Obama: Maine will stop cooperating with federal refugee resettlement

Source: LePage to Obama: Maine will stop cooperating with federal refugee resettlement — Politics — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

PORTLAND, Maine — Just days before the presidential election, Gov. Paul LePage has announced that Maine state government will no longer cooperate with the federal Refugee Resettlement Program.

In a letter addressed to President Barack Obama, LePage cited concerns about how refugees coming to the state are screened.

“I have lost confidence in the federal government’s ability to safely and responsibly run the refugee program and no longer want the state of Maine associated with that shortcoming,” wrote the governor.

Dated Nov. 4, four days before Election Day, the governor’s letter may score political points with anti-immigration voters, but it is unlikely to affect whether refugees continue to come to Maine.

Republican nominee Donald Trump — whom LePage has endorsed — has made curtailing immigration to the United States a signature issue in his run for the White House, calling at various points for a wall along the Mexican border and a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Trump is seeking to capture at least one of Maine’s four Electoral College votes by winning the more conservative, less diverse 2nd Congressional District.

The letter came nearly a year after LePage announced he would “take every lawful measure in my power to prevent” the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Maine.

But immigration is the purview of the federal government, and states cannot bar people from crossing their borders. This is why private organizations such as Catholic Charities have been able to work with the federal government to resettle Syrian refugees in Maine, despite the governor’s outspoken opposition.

LePage’s letter articulates acute anxieties about terrorism that are shared by many of his political bent, and in part driving support for Trump. The governor in the letter points to Adnan Fazeli, an Iranian refugee, who left Maine to fight for the Islamic State, as an example of the failure in how refugees are screened. However, evidence gathered by the FBI in the Fazeli case suggests that he was radicalized while living in the United States.

Refugees go through a multi-phase screening administered by the United Nations, U.S. State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and several other government agencies before they are admitted to the country. The process includes lengthy interviews with trained Homeland Security officials and usually takes between 18 and 24 months, according to the State Department.

The governor also claimed that refugees have become a burden on Maine’s social services. His administration has sought to end General Assistance benefits for refugees and asylum seekers, a move that triggered a lawsuit by Portland, Westbrook and advocates for new Americans

Abdullahi Ahmed, a Somali refugee and an assistant principal at Portland’s Deering High School, said that the governor is out of step with the “very welcoming people” of Maine. And he took exception to the suggestion that refugees drain, rather than contribute to, the state.

“We are a nation of immigrants and people who came here,” said Ahmed. “What he’s doing is picking on the poor and unfortunate and the weakest among us.”

LePage is far from alone in his concerns with refugees coming to the country. Texas recently severed its ties with the federal refugee resettlement program. Kansas and New Jersey previously did so, but refugees have continued to arrive in those states.

Documented: Obama’s ‘Traditional Muslim Bias’ against Christians

Source: Documented: Obama’s ‘Traditional Muslim Bias’ against Christians – Raymond Ibrahim

Almost a year ago, President Barack Hussein Obama described the suggestion that the U.S. give preference to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees as “shameful.” “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” he loftily added.

Now, WikiLeaks has released a 2008 email discussing who should fill top staff positions should Obama win the presidency.  It clearly proves that the Obama administration is the one that has long used “religious tests”—but to discriminate against Christians in favor of Muslims.

The email was sent from Former New York Solicitor General Preeta D. Bansal to Michael Froman, a classmate of Obama’s at Harvard and a member of the 12-person advisory board for the Obama campaign’s transition team.  The key passage reads:

In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).

In other words, those Arabs from nations with large Christian populations or with obviously Christian names need not apply, for they fail the “religious test.”

But the discrimination is not limited to hiring for top jobs.  Even in life and death scenarios, the Obama administration massively favors Muslims over Christians.  Despite the U.S. government’s acknowledgement that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians in Syria—meaning that Christians, not Sunni Muslims, are being targeted for torture, slavery, death and worse due solely to their religious identity—statistics repeatedly show that the Obama administration has taken in vastly disproportionate numbers of Sunni Muslims into the U.S.

When war erupted in Syria in 2011, approximately 75 percent of the population was Sunni and 10 percent Christian. Accordingly, if the U.S. were to admit Christian refugees in proportion to their population in Syria, about 1,260 Christians would by now have been resettled in America—when in fact only 68 were.  Similarly, that Sunni Muslims are 75 percent of Syria’s population yet 99 percent of those received by the U.S. indicates that they are overrepresented.

Even the 1951 Refugee Convention lists five criteria that qualify applicants for refugee status: persecution for reasons of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Christians very clearly fit one of the criteria—religious persecution—whereas the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims entering America do not.  That’s because ISIS is a Sunni organization and does not target fellow Sunnis who mind their own business.

The discrepancy is no secret.  Most recently, in an FOIA lawsuit filed by a federal appellate court against the Department of Homeland Security, Judge Daniel Manion expressed his “concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country….  Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one‐half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian….To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.”

Far from being an aberration, the WikiLeak revelation is simply the latest indicator that the Obama administration clearly favors Muslims over Christians:

  • When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department has been called out at least twice for denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the lion’s den to be possibly enslaved, raped, or murdered.
  • When the Nigerian government went on the offense and killed some terrorists from Boko Haram—another Islamic group like ISIS that regularly slaughters and rapes Christians and burns their churches—Secretary of State John Kerry fumed and called for the “human rights” of the jihadis, even though he says little about their countless Christian victims.
  • When Egypt’s persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution back in 2013, the U.S. said no.
  • When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS,C. refused.
  • When the UN Security Council held a meeting to discuss the genocide against Christians and other minorities, “many high level delegations from UN member states addressed the Security Council meeting, some at the Foreign Minister level, [however] the United States failed to send … a high ranking member of the State Department.”

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of all this is that the Obama government’s bias against Mideast Christians closely resembles the traditional bias Christian minorities experience at the hands of Muslim governments.  This is understood in the context of active and passive persecutors of Christians in the Muslim world.  Muslim criminals, mobs, and terrorists actively persecute Christians, while Muslim governments passively enable them.  Muslims kidnap, rape, rob, and/or kill Christians precisely because they know Muslim authorities will rarely if ever do anything about it (it is against Islamic law to side with “infidels” against Muslims).  Christian minorities in nations such as Egypt and Pakistan know this well.  Similarly, Muslim governments seldom if ever hire Christians to positions of authority (Islamic law bans the intentional placement of an “infidel” over Muslims).

Whether by discriminating against Christians and favoring Muslims for positions of authority, or whether by welcoming into America a disproportionately large number of Sunni Muslims, while barring the true victims of genocide, Christians—the Obama government’s bias is a tradition that Christian minorities living in the Muslim world have long been familiar with.

To use the president’s own words spoken last year, it is the Obama administration’s discriminatory policies and “religious tests” that are “shameful,” “not American,” and not “who we are.”

%d bloggers like this: