7 Jan

All 3 Major Domestic Terror Attacks of 2009 Were Directly Enabled by Obama’s Reverse-Profiling Orders, Exempting Muslims from Scrutiny [Reader Post]

                                       

An anonymous State Department employee, talking to The American Spectator about Flight 253 and underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab:

This employee says that despite statements from the Obama Administration, such information [that Abdulmutallab had been banned from Britain] was flagged and given higher priority during the Bush Administration, but that since the changeover “we are encouraged to not create the appearance that we are profiling or targeting Muslims.”

If this statement is accurate, it makes Obama directly responsible for Abdulmutallab’s success in spiriting a bomb aboard Flight 253, and the statement is easily believable, given STRATFOR’s report last June about intelligence agencies being ordered to stop investigating Black Muslims:

Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts.

This was just before 23 year old Black Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot two soldiers at an Army recruiting station in Little Rock. The FBI had opened an investigation of Muhammad after he returned from Yemen with a phony Yemeni passport, yet he was apparently off the radar screen when he murdered one soldier and critically wounded another. Obama’s “back off” order may well have contributed to Muhammad having a free hand.

In the Fort Hood case, our intelligence agencies intercepted Major Nidal Hasan’s discussions with top al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki about killing American soldiers, then they stopped investigating on the grounds that mere discussion is protected free speech:

U.S. officials now confirm Hasan sent as many as 20 e-mails to Awlaki. Authorities intercepted the e-mails but later deemed them innocent or protected by the first amendment.

Innocent OR protected. i.e. Not entirely innocent. Sorta like:

Dear Osama bin Laden:

What do you think of the merits of a bomb attack on Fort Hood vs. a small arms attack? Killing the infidels one at a time affords more opportunities to shout “Allahu akbar,” and did you know that since President Clinton, military bases in the United States are gun-free zones? Very useful information.

Don’t worry about them reading your reply. Obama promises not to pay attention.

Your biggest admirer,

Major Nidal Hasan
Fort Hood Texas

The Hasan case was dropped at roughly the same time as the order to back off of Black Muslims (sometime in mid-09) suggesting that the order not to investigate Muslims might have extended to Muslims in general. This fits with Obama’s promise that he would:

…stand with [Muslim Americans] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Barack and his wife think America has ALWAYS been ugly, “downright mean,” etcetera, towards blacks, Muslims and other “minorities.” So on this promise at least Obama is being true to his word. He is siding with the Muslims. He’s not being neutral. He is not asking our intelligence agencies to follow the evidence wherever it leads. He is specifically asking them to exempt from scrutiny the only people who are attacking us.

Obama is enabling suicide-killers, but draws the line at political suicide

As the consequences of exempting Muslims from scrutiny break into the open, Obama is having to backtrack. Having opened the gates to jihad at one end, he now has no choice but to try to slam them shut at the other by actually singling out people from Muslim countries (and Cuba) for airline searches. Apparently it dawned on him that allowing waves of repatriated Yemeni terrorists to murder planeloads of Americans was political suicide.

Assuming that Obama is still ordering our intelligence agencies not to investigate Muslims, we are now operating under a bizarre combination of profiling and reverse-profiling. At the fundamental level, we are giving Muslims a pass, then trying to contain the disaster by profiling at the palliative Transportation Safety level.

President Bush did just the opposite. He was politically correct in his own way, letting Norman Mineta, an anti-profiling ideologue, set his transportation safety policies. But political reality will only tolerate so much failure in protecting the American people from Muslim terrorists. Thus Bush had to compensate for his failure to use the most efficient tools by being very diligent.

Obama has chosen to be the opposite of diligent, actually giving Muslims a pass even when they are implicated, with the ironic result that he is unable to eschew profiling at the street level the way Bush did.

If this breaks the taboo on profiling, it may ironically turn out to be a silver lining. By taking political correctness to its the most perverse extreme, Obama may have inadvertently shattered its facade of reasonableness.

This entry was posted in American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Fanatical Islam, Middle East, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, January 7th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
| 2,781 views

23 Responses to All 3 Major Domestic Terror Attacks of 2009 Were Directly Enabled by Obama’s Reverse-Profiling Orders, Exempting Muslims from Scrutiny [Reader Post]

  1. bill-tb says: 1

    BamBam lies a lot doesn’t he … BamBam’s self-esteem program for terror bombers is working. Recruiting is up, and now everybody knows the worst that will happen to you is a years long trail and prison, maybe.

    Talking about recruitment tool.

    ReplyReply
  2. Taqiyyotomist says: 2

    On this administration: If they were trying to get us all killed, I honestly can’t think of how they’d do anything differently.

    On a good note: Andrew Brietbart has just started bigjournalism.com, sure to be a hit.

    ReplyReply
  3. Flyovercountry says: 3

    The entire recruitment tool argument is, looking for the most diplomatic descriptor possible, assinine. We were attacked many times before any of these, “recruiting tools.” Even if they are recruiting tools, what should the answer be, all of us convert to Islam to appease these savage monsters. I guess I am also angry at those entertaining these idiotic arguments. This is a major problem with the conservative movement. There is a complete lack of fighting spirit when confronted with the liberal blasts, of straw-men, fabrications, and insanity. Letting the Alinsky types to dictate terms of debate is almost as offensive as their arguments themselves. That is how we end up with a GOP Presidential candidate spouting crap about limiting executive pay, and stopping global warming, and passing nationalized healthcare.

    Back to my rant on this recruitment tool meme. Imagine if after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had stated, defending ourselves against the Japenese would only encourage young Japenese men to enlist in their armed forces and want to kill us even more. We would all be speaking German or Japenese today. If you had told me in my youth that these types of arguments would be spouted by anyone other than a few braindead hippies, I would have called you crazy, as would most of America. That this argument is given any weight makes me glad to be on the back 9 of my life. The future is looking bleak right now.

    ReplyReply
  4. Taqiyyotomist says: 4

    I still think things will get bad enough that America, en masse, will demand that the government protect us (instead of demanding that this administration be taken out of power, the wiser demand), and the administration will say “Okey dokey! You asked for it!” and we’ll be analogous to East Germany, circa sometime before 1980, overnight.

    Because we asked for it, begged for it, and demanded it.

    Also, I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that the attacks at Ft. Hood and by FruitoftheBoom were allowed (and more will be), in order to get America to demand that “protection” be given. The screeching is already beginning for this administration to begin making our “security” better. You’ll see – it’s not going to be fun. That anyone, at this stage, would trust this current government to “make us safe”, and not also turn us into the United Gulag of America, is an amazing thing to witness. Yet that’s what we’re going to do, right and left together: demand that this government “do something”, just as they are basically programming us to do. Watch and wait and we’ll see.

    ReplyReply
  5. Buckeye says: 5

    The military, intelligent agencies and both state and local law enforcement are trying to protect us but with one or both arms tied behind their backs.

    ReplyReply
  6. Pingback: Pali Muslim yelling “I want to kill all the Jews” taken off Miami flight — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  7. Red 73 says: 6

    I’ve heard recently that Obama signed an Executive Order giving Interpol, international police organization, personnel legal authority to conduct their investigations within the United States exempt from the constitutional restraints placed on US law enforcement.

    Since I also heard that Regan would not sign such an order I’m concerned.

    While trying to track this down I came across a government agency that I’ve never heard of before: (USNCB) U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, serves as the United States’ representative to INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization. Website: http://www.justice.gov/usncb/

    Now that is a mighty big handle to have slipped by my radar unnoticed before.

    Browsing their website I found an interesting tidbit that indicates additional lies by Obama and his cohorts: The U.S. Attorney General exempted the records of the USNCB from sections of the Privacy Act providing for access to certain records (28 C.F.R. §16.103). Therefore, the USNCB does not process requests for information under the Privacy Act.

    What the hell is going on??

    ReplyReply
  8. @TealNinja:

    They only lauched 3 attacks last year, and all 3 failed.

    All three failed? Really?

    Ever hear of a place called Fort Hood and a person named Nidal Hasan?

    Not exactly a failure, eh?

    Furthermore, what role did the gov’t play in the failure of the Bloomer Bomber’s plan?

    None, you say? Yeah, that’s right. Only by the grace of God and a failed detonator did those 300 people make to the ground safely.

    Then there’s this:

    2009 saw an unprecedented surge in terror “events” on U.S. soil. When analysts tally these events, they refer to anything from a disrupted plot to U.S. citizens traveling abroad to seek terror training or a lone gunman running amok in the U.S…

    “There appears to be an increase in [terrorist] activity in the U.S.,” warns Jenkins, who calculates that there have been 32 terror-related “events” on these shores since 9/11, and that 12 of those occurred in 2009.

    And this.

    Brennan et al dialed back the tripwire terror detection mechanisms, thus allowing Hasan and the Bloomer Bomber to go forward with their plans undected:

    Q: You know that one big debate about FISA is the question of balancing security and privacy and civil liberties. Speaking as someone who has spent your life in counterterrorism, what do the terms “privacy” and “civil liberties” mean to you, and what is that balance?

    To me, I think the government does have the right and the obligation to ensure the security and safety of its citizens. If there is probable cause, reasonable suspicion, about the involvement of a U.S. person in something, the government needs to have the ability to understand what the nature of that involvement is. The threshold for that type of government access can be high or can be low, and it [the probable cause threshold] needs to be somewhere in the middle.

    You don’t want to just troll and with a large net just pull up everything. There are technologies available to pulse the data set and pull back only that which has some type of correlation to your predicate [the probable cause threshold].

    I would argue the government needs to have access to only those nuggets of information that have some kind of predicate. That way the government can touch it and pull back only that which is related. It’s like a magnet, set to a certain calibration. That’s what I think we need to go to.

    In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the threshold, quite frankly, was low, because we didn’t know the nature of the threat we faced here in the U.S.

    Finally, this tidbit from a career State Department source:

    This employee says that despite statements from the Obama Administration, such information was flagged and given higher priority during the Bush Administration, but that since the changeover “we are encouraged to not create the appearance that we are profiling or targeting Muslims. I think career employees were uncomfortable with the Bush procedures and policies and were relieved to not have to live under them any longer.”

    So, what was your point again?

    ReplyReply
  9. Tom in CA says: 8

    It is amazing what a tripwire reaction Obama’s news conferences bring. Seems his supporters sense really dumb actions by Mr. Obama and spring to action at a moment’s notice to prop the guy up.

    Also, does anyone else notice how he always wants to ‘break down’ simple questions? It’s always a two pronged answer – as if between shaved ice and waffles he is carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Then – after thought-full contemplation, way above any of us mere mortals, he breaks it down in simple terms for us. My whole family cracks up when he is answering questions.

    ReplyReply
  10. Pingback: Tweets that mention All 3 Major Domestic Terror Attacks of 2009 Were Directly Enabled by Obama’s Reverse-Profiling Orders, Exempting Muslims from Scrutiny [Reader Post] -- Topsy.com

  11. Alec Rawls says: 9

    A.J. Strata has been poring over the White House report and lists several alarming points, including this one that is relevant to the issue of reverse-profiling:

    Another surprise in the report released by the White House was that reaching out to AQ and radical Islamists is NOT sufficient for concern.

    We saw this in the Hasan case and apparently it also played a role in the Flight 253 case, where a key failure was to follow up on Abdulmutallab’s conversations with al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki (the same guy Hasan was talking to).

    Even AFTER Hasan went on his murder spree at Fort Hood, U.S. intelligence didn’t learn the lesson, but kept regarding mere conversations with an al Qaeda recruiter as innocuous (if not “protected”).

    This certainly looks like Muslim favoritism. Surely if we were talking about anti-abortion bombers, emails between an abortion-clinic bomber recruiter and people who want to talk about bombing abortion clinics would not be exempted from scrutiny.

    ReplyReply
  12. Pingback: Random Must-Reads » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  13. Pingback: Right Truth

  14. Skookum says: 10

    Obama prefers to interrupt non-Muslim Fanatics and non-Black Terrorists, although there are very few non-Muslim Fanatic Terrorists and non-Black Terrorists, it can be argued that Obama’s counter terrorism works. He has brought Terrorism by White Christians to a screeching halt! You can’t name one in the last ten years.

    Obama chooses his enemies very well. Black Muslim Homicidal Maniacs are not his enemy. If you Christian Fundamentalists will just give him time to “See how this plays out” and give his speech writers time to figure out a political advantage; he will try to convince us that it is for the good of the country to let foreign homicidal maniacs enjoy the rights of American citizens. After all, they are trying to kill Americans. With this Obama reasoning, it is logical that Terrorists of the future will never try killing any other people, except for Americans: other countries don’t give the amenities that America offers the failed terrorist.

    Obama’s ‘Socialist Realism’ can make any situation play in his political favor, it just takes time to figure out logical lies that the most gullible and stupid will believe. Obama and his teleprompter will have the answers, eventually.

    Forget Obama’s Birthday, we need to have a National Teleprompter Day. That way we will never forget that a man who can’t speak without a teleprompter is incapable of leading the Free World except down a mine shaft straight to Hell!

    ReplyReply
  15. SpideyTerry says: 12

    Sigh, I wish this was all surprising, but it’s not. Gee, thanks, 52% of America. Never thought I’d say it, but I think I’d feel safer in Israel. They may be a consistent target of terrorists, but at least their government is willing to fight and defend its people. Obama is a gutless moron whose pre-9/11 ideals spell trouble for every American. Eesh, November can’t come fast enough. Hopefully, the GOP will at least retake the House and restore some competency to this country’s leadership.

    ReplyReply
  16. Davey says: 13

    Obama is the best thing that ever came down the road as far as Islamic terrorists are concerned. Can you imagine FDR sending in Hawaii 5-0 the day after Pearl Harbor. Book ‘em Dano, but be sure you Marandize them first and stop and get them some Big Kahuna burgers on the way to the station.

    ReplyReply
  17. Spike says: 14

    Well he is a Muslim…what do we expect!

    ReplyReply
  18. Ralph Reinert says: 15

    @Spike:

    Spike, I assume your Muslim comment was meant as irony.

    ReplyReply
  19. Pingback: WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?…ISN"T ABOUT TIME THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMANDED OBAMA’S RESIGNATION…WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN HIS ABILITY TO PROTECT AMERICA | NwoDaily.com

  20. Pingback: » Links to Visit – 01/09/10 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

  21. John Byrnes says: 16

    We don’t need to profile!

    We don’t need to profile. At the Center for Aggression Management, we use easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.

    Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.

    The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” – all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.

    All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:

    1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!

    2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.

    3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh

    Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.

    The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.

    As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

    Visit our blog at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.

    ReplyReply
  22. Pingback: Steynist 404st « Free Canuckistan!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>