Defying Obama edict, FBI says Portland plot inspired by 'jihad'

By David Paulin

Has the FBI jumped off the Obama administration's political correctness bandwagon? Well, the FBI's Portland office apparently has.

Under the Obama administration, certain words that help us describe our enemies are verboten. For instance, the State Department and Department of Homeland Security are banned from using "jihad" and "mujahideen" with reference to Islamic terrorism. It's all part of an effort to avoid offending the Muslim world.

Yet in a press release about the aborted Portland terror attack, the FBI repeatedly uses the "J" word (jihad) to describe what inspired Somali-born Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. Citizen who was arrested in the plot. Mohamud, 19, allegedly wanted to blow up an explosives-packed van near a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square. Mohamud was on the receiving end of a sting operation, so nobody was ever in any danger.

What set him off?

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to use the term "radical Islam" to describe the ideology of Muslims who want to kill Westerners and destroy the West. Yet in its press release, the FBI is clear about what motivated Mohamud. It uses the verboten "J" word four times to describe what motivated Mohamud to set out to murder American moms, dads, and their children enjoying Portland's Christmas festivities.

"Cognitive dissonance" describes what's happening here -- the peculiar state of holding two conflicting concepts in one's mind at the same time. Obviously, the FBI couldn't avoid the politically incorrect "J" word when Mohamud himself used it to describe what was motivating him. Or as the FBI says: "Mohamud allegedly told undercover FBI operatives he had been thinking of committing violent jihad since the age of 15."

Not only that, the FBI noted that Mohamud had "written articles that were published in Jihad Recollections, an online magazine that advocated violent jihad."

What must Eric Holder think of all this? (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)

In case you missed it, here is a YouTube video of Holder explaining why he refuses to use the term “radical Islam":

Originally published at The American Thinker.

A Colorado Resident Blasts President Obama with a Craigslist Ad:

Democrat Bear Problem (Denver)

---

Date: 2010-11-24, 11:03AM MST

---

A disturbing trend was noted this past summer by National Park Rangers as Democrat Bears invaded public picnic areas and demanded to be fed. They also wanted the government to assure they had adequate caves to sleep in this winter, stocked with hibernation supplies and a guarantee that there would be free food when they woke up in the Spring. The AFL-CIO have begun talks on the Bear's behalf for the Summer 2011 season . . . .

• Location: Denver
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

HAT TIP: Vegasviper1

\

The Liberal Obsession: Spread the Wealth Around

By David Paulin

Liberal Democrats have a singular obsession: the gap between rich and poor. Close it with Robin Hood-style soak-the-rich policies, and America will be a better place, they believe. “Spread the wealth around,” presidential candidate Barack Obama told “Joe the Plumber.”

It's an obsession, of course, that's also found in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba: places where such policies have not created innovation, investment and wealth -- but instead created poverty.

Last night on the PBS Newshour, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an influential Illinois Democrat, again raised the Democrat's spread-the-wealth banner – putting forth the usual liberal crackpot theories about how to reduce the federal deficit – namely, she explained, by utilizing massive soak-the-rich tax polices and huge cuts in defense spending. But what underpinned Rep. Jan Schakowsky deficit-reduction plan was her obsession with closing the gap between rich and poor -- a goal she's obviously unwilling to address with business-friendly policies, entrepreneurship, and a free market. She explained:

Well, you know, we have right now the greatest disparity in income from the rich to the poor and middle class than we have had since 1925, right before the Great Depression.

And this kind of income inequality is not good for our economy. And it's certainly not good for people who have seen their incomes stagnant or falling over the last couple decades. In fact, all of the growth in wealth went during the Bush years to the top -- wealthiest people in our economy.

It is not a good situation for us to be, as Nicholas Kristof has called, like a banana republic.

In Britain during Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative pro-growth policies in the 1980s (now making a comeback in Britian and Europe), left-wing Members of Parliament had the same obsession: closing the gap between rich and poor -- even though Britain's economy was humming and rich and poor alike benefited from that prosperity. Here is the prime minister's famous response to one of those left-wing MP's during "Question Time" in Britain’s Parliament -- a lesson from "Economic's 101" that Democrats like Rep. Schakowsky would do well to learn:

(Originally published at The American Thinker.)

Obama's Hand in Your Crotch




By David Paulin

At long last, a newspaper editorial hits the nail on the head regarding the TSA's new crotch-fondling polices: Stop humiliating innocent airline passengers and do what Israel's security-conscious El Al does -- profiling.

The Washington Times makes this point in an editorial aptly titled "Obama's Hand in Your Crotch."

The Transportation Security Administration's demeaning new "enhanced pat-down" procedures are a direct result of the Obama administration's willful blindness to the threat from Islamic radicals. While better tools are available to keep air travelers safe, they would involve recognizing the threat for what it is, which is something the White House will never do.

El Al, Israel's national airline, employs a smarter approach. Any airline representing the state of Israel is a natural - some might say preeminent - target for terrorist attacks. Yet El Al has one of the best security records in the world and doesn't resort to wide-scale use of methods that would under other circumstances constitute sexual assault. The Israelis have achieved this track record of safety by employing sophisticated intelligence analysis which allows them to predict which travelers constitute a possible threat and which do not. Resources are then focused on the more probable threats with minimal intrusion on those who are likely not to be terrorists.

Interestingly, growing public outrage over the TSA's excesses and political correctness may end up benefiting the GOP. Writing in the Washington Examiner, political correspondent Byron York notes that Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican, is zeroing in on the TSA. The agency, Mica contends, has become a "a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy" -- its security checks all but useless against would-be terrorists. Mica will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, notes the Examiner's piece, "Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening."

York, based on an interview with Mica, writes that the "TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what (its) critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," Mica tells him. "It's a big Kabuki dance."
Interestingly, the TSA has in fact created security checks in some airports inspired by El Al-style profiling, writes York. They're part of a system called SPOT: "Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques." "The problem is, they're doing it all wrong," writes York, citing a recent study from the Government Accountability Office.

"It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," he quotes Mica as saying.

Indeed, York explains:

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists...have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

Ultimately, it probably won't be TSA agents who stop the next would-be terrorist from blowing up an airliner. It will be passengers themselves. After all, it was passengers who thwarted shoe-bomber Richard Reid and underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In other cases, passengers were the first to alert flight attendants to the presence of fellow passengers (young men of Middle Eastern origin) who were acting suspiciously -- roaming about the cabin and changing seats for no apparent reason.

Among other things, Rep. Mica says private contractors working under federal supervision may do a better job than the TSA. One thing is certain: The Congressman has much work to do. (Originally published at The American Thinker.)