Chris Wallace Sets Record Straight On Terrorists Illegally Crossing From Mexico

A major talking point of the Trump Administration has been that the border wall is vital to national security. As part of their argument, President Trump has made the claim that terrorists have been apprehended crossing the southern border with Mexico. This and similar claims became the focal point of a heated discussion between White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Chris Wallace of Fox News yesterday.

On Fox News Sunday, Wallace cited Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s statement that CBP had stopped more than 3,000 special interest aliens at the southern border and explained that “special interest aliens” are “people who come from countries that have ever produced a terrorist.” Wallace added, “They aren’t terrorists themselves” and noted that the State Department said that there was “no credible evidence of any terrorist coming across the border from Mexico.”

Sanders responded, “We know that there are nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists [that] come into our country illegally and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border.”

Wallace interrupted, “I know that statistic. I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. You know where those 4,000 people come from, where they are captured? Airports!”

“Not always,” Sanders retorted.

“The State Department says there hasn’t been any terrorist that they’ve found coming across the southern border,” Wallace fired back.

“It’s by air, it’s by land, it’s by sea, it’s all of the above,” Sanders answered.

“But they’re not coming across the southern border, Sarah,” Wallace said, ‘They’re coming and they’re being stopped at airports.”

I had also heard the Homeland Security statistics and Trump’s claims about terrorists coming from Mexico. They didn’t ring true. Think about how the Trump Administration reacts when an illegal alien commits a violent. Both perpetrator and victim are featured prominently in talking points and the president’s tweets. Over the past few years, we have seen this pattern with Kate Steinle, Mollie Tibbets, and the recent murder of police Corporal Ronil Singh in California.

But when it comes to terrorists crossing the Mexican border, the Trump Administration has been astonishingly silent. If terrorists were being captured as they crossed the border from Mexico, it seems likely that the Trump Administration would be marching them before the media to make the case for the border wall. They haven’t.

Instead, we have a bait-and-switch. Trump surrogates like Sanders make two separate claims and link them together. On one hand, Sanders makes the verifiable claim that “there are nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists [that] come into our country illegally.” On the other, she offers an opinion that “our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border.” Sanders dishonestly leads the viewer to make the erroneous connection that the 4,000 terrorists were apprehended at the Mexican border, when, in fact, they were apprehended at airports.

Border security is a legitimate concern, both at the Mexican border and at airports, but the revelation that the Trump Administration has been purposely misleading the country about how terrorists enter the country undercuts the already shaky case for a border wall.

In fact, current security at the Mexican border seems to be working pretty well. The migrant caravan, which was pitched as an “invasion” in October, is still sitting in Tijuana where its members are waiting to legally apply for asylum. Illegal border crossings have already been declining for years, hitting a 46-year low in 2017. For more than a decade now, most illegal aliens have entered the country legally and overstayed visas rather than sneaking across the Mexican border. By 2014, two-thirds of new illegals were visa overstays.

While it certainly isn’t impossible that terrorists could sneak across the Mexican border, possibly through one of the innumerable tunnels that run underneath current physical barriers, there is no evidence that they are doing so. If conservatives want to make dispassionate policy decisions and use taxpayer money to the greatest advantage for the country, facts support the idea that border security money should be focused toward tracking aliens who enter the country legally on visas and then drop out of sight.

The Trump Administration loses more of its credibility, which is already in short supply, when they make false claims such as advancing the idea that terrorists are streaming across the Mexican border. Kudos to Chris Wallace and Fox News for setting the record straight.


Feminist, Terrorist; Potato, Potahto: Day Without a Woman Organizer Rasmea Yousef Odeh Deported

The feminist movement (and a good bit of the transsexual wing of the LGBT movement) has been thoroughly hijacked by terrorists, criminals and virulent Jew-haters. The only difference between the Charlottesville Nazis and Rasmea Yousef Odeh’s marchers is in their haircuts and addition of a vagina hat.

From the Washington Times back in March:

Convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Yousef Odeh, an organizer of a Day Without a Woman, has agreed to leave the country in exchange for no jail time for failing to disclose the conviction on her U.S. visa application.

And the day of her departure finally came Tuesday.

She’s been stripped of her citizenship and put on a plane out of O’Hare for Jordan, where she’ll join convicted terrorist murderer Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind of the Sbarro Pizzeria Massacre.

(Legal Insurrection)

I won’t include the disgustingly fond farewells and loving sendoff Odeh received from her fellow Jew-hating and Israel-bashing contingent, but you can see it in the link above.

The disgusting Chicago Tribune referred to Odeh as a “Palestinian activist.” I guess their brand of activism includes murder (unless they can pin it on a conservative).

As a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group, Odeh was involved in the bombing of a Jerusalem supermarket in 1969, in which the 21-year-old Leon Kanner and 22-year-old Edward Joffe were killed and nine others were injured. She was sentenced to life in prison by an Israeli court in 1970, but served 10 years, being released in 1980 as part of a prisoner exchange. 

Life in prison, but got out because other terrorists kidnapped Israelis to bargain for her. But all’s fair in “activism,” huh?

Odeh is headed to her new home, Jordan, which straddles the line between harboring known terrorists and friendly cooperation with Israel. The Hashemite King Abdullah II has few friends in the Middle East and runs a fairly westernized country (Saudi Arabia fears the Hashemite throne the al-Sauds overthrew nearly a century ago, Iraq is under Iran’s spell, Syria is a mess). All that to say that Odeh will live a nice life there, compared to, say, Riyadh or Gaza.

Feminism isn’t on the top of the list of freedoms in Muslim countries however, so her “Day Without a Woman” efforts likely won’t be repeated in her new environs.

If only Linda Sarsour could be deported next (won’t happen). But maybe feminists will begin to wake up to their commitment to “intersectional” causes and how they’re being played by evil forces who have nothing invested in actual women’s rights.

As for Odeh: Good riddance!

Iraq Suicide Bomber Was Former Gitmo Detainee

Ronald Fiddler blew himself up at an Iraqi army base near Mosul this week. Fiddler, a British citizen who changed his name to Jamal al-Harith after converting to Islam in the 1990s, was also a former detainee at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

According to the report in the Times of London and USA Today, al-Harith was captured by Coalition Forces in a Taliban prison in Afghanistan in 2001. When it was discovered that he had links to Osama bin Laden, he served two years in the Gitmo facility until being released in 2004 at the request of the government of Tony Blair. He was later paid compensation of 1 million pounds, about $1.25 million, for his detention.

In a statement, Blair, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, said, “It is correct that Jamal al-Harith was released from Guantanamo Bay at the request of the British Government in 2004. He was not paid compensation by my Government. The compensation was agreed in 2010 by the Conservative Government [of David Cameron].”

Blair continued, “The fact is that this was always a very difficult situation where any Government would have to balance proper concern for civil liberties with desire to protect our security, and we were likely to be attacked whatever course we took.”

Al-Harith was not the first Gitmo detainee to return to terror after being released. According to, a report released last year showed that, of 161 prisoners released by the Obama Administration, at least nine were confirmed to be “directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities.” The Bush Administration released 532 Gitmo prisoners and 113 of these were reported to have rejoined terrorist groups.

Al-Harith, who was 50, traveled to Syria to join ISIS is 2014 where he went by the name Abu-Zakariya al-Britani. It is not known whether al-Harith gave the compensation received from the British government to ISIS.

ISIS announced al-Harith as a suicide bomber and released a picture of him, apparently taken just before his death, sitting in a four-wheel-drive truck with a big smile on his face. The terrorist group claimed that his attack caused multiple casualties, but the exact number is not known.

“It is him, I can tell by his smile,” al-Harith’s brother, Leon Jameson, told the Times. “If it is true then I’ve lost a brother, so another family [member is] gone.” Jameson added that his brother had “wasted his life.”

CIA Gets Political With Muslim Brotherhood

The Trump administration is considering officially designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  CIA analysts are warning, however, that doing so may drive some supporters into more violent terrorist organizations (such as al-Qaeda) and hurt relationships with certain U.S. allies, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey.

However, looked at within the larger context of events since Trump’s inauguration, this is part of a wider re-alignment of U.S. interests in the Middle East and a divergence from Obama-era policies.

During the Obama administration, the U.S. supported and helped the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt, and Syria (still on-going).  Into the vacuum created by the collapse of the governments of these countries, various various militant Islamic groups moved in, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and their affiliated groups (Hamas is now partnering with ISIS and training with them in Egypt).

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood briefly gained power in 2012 after democratic parliamentary elections were held.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated president (Mohamed Morsi) soon began to implement Islamic practices through fiat.  This led to mass protests and the removal of Morsi and his government by the Egyptian military in 2013.  The military then sought to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, arresting many within the organization and outlawing it.

So, just what and who is the “Muslim Brotherhood?”

It was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, but greatly influenced by Egyptian author and writer Sayyid Qutd.  It is transnational, with members throughout the Middle East.  It’s stated ultimate goal is to establish a theocratic government which rules according to Sharia law.  Keep this in mind when people try to characterize the organization as “moderate.”  It is moderate in relation to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda, by the way, is moderate in relation to ISIS), but it still seeks a similar end goal as do the other radical Islamic groups.  The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”  The current leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, has also called for the destruction of Israel and for the death of Jews.

Due to its destabilizing influence, radical rhetoric, and violent actions, the Muslim Brotherhood has already been labeled a terrorist organization by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates.  The United States, under Trump’s leadership, is now considering doing the same.  This is where the wider context and re-alignment of U.S. interests comes into play.

The first two countries in that list, Russia and Saudi Arabia, are most interesting.  The U.S. and Russia, as has been widely reported and debated, are in the midst of a delicate dance of detente, seeking to work together on matters of mutual concern.  Saudi Arabia has been fighting radical Islamic rebels in Yemen, trying to keep the turmoil there from spreading into its own country.  The U.S. has launched many missile strikes against terrorists in Yemen, in support of Saudi Arabia.  After the recent U.S. special forces raid in Yemen, however, Yemen has said that they will no longer grant permission for U.S. ground raids (allowing, though, unmanned strikes to continue).  In response, the U.S. has indicated that it will proceed with weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain which were blocked by the Obama administration.  These weapons will allow both countries to continue the fight in Yemen as U.S. proxies.

Thus, as I mentioned above, the Trump administration’s willingness to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization is part of a larger picture.  The Obama administration’s actions (including overthrowing governments and pulling most U.S. forces out of Iraq), whether intended or not, had the effect of strengthening radical Islamic groups who poured in to fill the void (granted that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 eventually helped lead to this as well).  The U.S. then tangled with Russia in Syria, stopped weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and signed a nuclear deal with Iran.  This left the majority of the Arab states fearful for their own security, with terrorists and rebels on their doorsteps, and Iran rising in power and threatening the Gulf states.

Trump seems to want to reverse this trend by aligning the U.S. with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others with similar interests in order to counter radical Islam in the Middle East and check Iran’s influence.  The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood is therefore just a piece in the larger puzzle of what to do in the Middle East.

Victim Blaming is Bad…Except When it Defends Terrorists…

In a pretty shocking example of forcing the facts to fit a narrative, ABC News “reported” that last year’s San Bernardino terror attack may have been triggered by Christmas decorations…

Today marks the 1 year anniversary of the terror attacks that resulted in 14 dead and 22 wounded. Apparently ABC needed to blame the victims before the 1 year mark hit, so they released this crock yesterday.

Let’s get this out of the way at the start: there is no excuse for murdering civilians. Yet this article takes two small pieces of evidence and construes them as the entire motive for the attack. The logical conclusion of that line is that the victims are to blame for the terrorism. A Muslim man was forced to attend a job training event, at which there was a Christmas tree…so blame the guy who brought the tree and tinsel, not the terrorist with guns and bombs…

Beyond the blatant victim-blaming, what I find disturbing about the article is how far the author had to stretch the facts to arrive at their conclusion!

Police evidence has shown that this attack was in planning long before the Christmas party was scheduled or the offending tree harvested. Straw purchases of firearms were executed, training was carried out, they made bombs, etc. On it’s face, the idea that the Christmas party was what catalyzed the attack is ridiculous.

The article points to an email where the female attacker expressed that, “she didn’t think that a Muslim should have to participate in a non-Muslim holiday or event.” The more reasonable conclusion from this piece of evidence, when taken with everything else we know, is that these guys hated a bunch of stuff about America and this was one thing, among many, that they hated.

ABC’s supposed reinforcement of the victim-blaming is that they assert the terrorist couple didn’t actually have ties to ISIS or a terror organization, so they must have been acting alone. Therefore adding weight to their theory that the Christmas tree, not Islamic Radicalism catalyzed the attack…

Evidence to refute their ties with ISIS is a google search for the name of the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Their speculation is that if the terrorists were googling the name of their supposed leader then they probably weren’t really affiliated that closely.

Little enough information is shared about this evidence that I will limit my own interpolation of the data. However, I will tell you that I’ve used google to figure out how to spell more than a few difficult words. It seems possible that a couple terrorists might want to double check the spelling of their leader’s name before getting themselves killed.

It’s possible that we will never know the level to which the terrorists were tied in with ISIS but the degree to which they were self-radicalized or worked with an official terrorist organization doesn’t change the culpability of some freaking Christmas tree or the victims of this horrific attack.

Our thoughts and prayers should be with the victims of these monsters as  they’re mourning great loss and horrific pain. Blaming them for this atrocity as they deal with its first anniversary is unconscionable.