Terror Prevention Means Keeping Likely Jihadists Out of the Country
December 06, 2015, 08:42 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Below is a photo of the 14 Americans who were murdered in the San Bernardino jihad:

SanBernardinoJihadVictims

From the top row left: Robert Adams, Isaac Amanios, Bennetta Betbadal, Harry Bowman and Sierra Clayborn. Second row from left: Juan Espinoza, Aurora Godoy, Shannon Johnson, Larry Daniel Kaufman and Damian Meins. Bottom row from left: Tin Nguyen, Nicholas Thalasinos, Yvette Velasco and Michael Wetzel.

Fox News’ early morning show invited Senator Ted Cruz to discuss the San Bernardino jihad attack, and Cruz piped up with common sense conservative responses.

However…

Note how Cruz was listing Obama failures to prevent earlier attacks in Boston and Fort Hood — true enough! — but Tucker Carlson moved conversation to where it should be, namely keeping out the bad guys in the first place through immigration enforcement. It’s unreasonable to expect local and federal agencies to keep track of an ever-growing population of Muslims that includes many hostiles. Real terror prevention consists of blocking immigration for the political tribe that worships jihad (the murder of non-Muslims): don’t invite the enemy inside the gates. How hard is that?

By comparison, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt didn’t protect enemies during WWII; as Commander in Chief, he killed them. He ordered the production of the atomic bomb, although he didn’t live to order dropping it. When German saboteurs slipped into America, FDR ordered a military tribunal to try them quickly and get to the execution. He didn’t worry about German feelings being hurt. There were no Nazi visas. The biggest knock against Roosevelt’s war leadership was his interning the Japanese — supposedly going too far in the protection of Americans.

President Obama shames the memories of patriotic Democrat war leaders Roosevelt and Truman. Even Democrats find the current administration perfidious. In early November, Pat Caddell, President Carter’s pollster, said Obama is “pro Muslim Brotherhood.” You can watch the Fox News video Political Insiders: Part 3, What are we doing in Syria?, where at around 2:00, Caddell says, “The president first of all will still screw Israel over before he leaves the UN. He hates, he really is anti Israel and pro Muslim Brotherhood.”

Such is the government we now have in Washington.

TUCKER CARLSON: Fears about terror in this country are now the primary concern of voters in this presidential election after the San Bernardino shooting was classified as terrorism by the FBI. So how would a Ted Cruz presidency be different from the one were living under now? On this question, let’s ask him. Joining us live from Iowa is 2016 presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Senator, great to see you this morning. So what do you make of the president and the New York Times and other organs that share that ideology pushing for gun control without explaining specifically how gun control would have prevented an attack like the one we just saw? What’s the real agenda?

TED CRUZ: Well, it’s an example of of the partisan blindness from the left in the face of an attack from radical Islamic terrorism. Their responses to try to take away the right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens. It’s entirely backwards. What we need, number one, is a commander-in-chief who will be clear-eyed. I’d be willing to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism, and who will lead the effort to utterly defeat and destroy radical Islamic terrorism and ISIS which I will do as president. Number two, we need a president who doesn’t go after our constitutional rights but protects our constitutional rights.

CLAYTON MORRIS: So, Senator the question this morning is about ISIS here at home, and the number one concern among Americans in a new Quinnipiac poll this morning is that homegrown terrorism sits at the top of that list. How would a President Ted Cruz combat homegrown Islamic radicalism?

CRUZ: Well, we need to define the enemy. I mean from the beginning Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have refused to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism and that has in turn poisoned every one of their efforts because you can’t target an enemy if you don’t define it. We know for example that the wife of one of the jihadists in San Bernardino came on a so-called fiancee visa. Well, the vetting that the administration did to her is the exact same vetting they’re proposing to do for the Syrian Muslim refugees and the vetting didn’t catch obvious errors, like she had on her application a made-up address, but apparently they didn’t catch that. And yet this president is telling us we can bring tens of thousands of refugees from Syria when we know ISIS wants to infiltrate those refugees and carry out acts of jihad here at home. It doesn’t make any sense at all. Instead we need a clear and single-focused effort to defeat radical Islamic terrorism and go after… let me get some examples of how the administration’s failed to do that.

The Boston bombing, the Tsarnaev brothers, we knew those brothers were radical islamic terrorists. The FBI interviewed them and then they dropped the ball. They failed to keep watching them. The elder Tsarnaev brother posted a call to jihad on YouTube; the Obama administration didn’t even see it. we should have prevented that Boston bombing. The same was true at Fort Hood, where we know that Nadal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamic cleric. We knew that he’d asked al-Awlaki about the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers, and yet again the Obama administration did nothing and it’s this political correctness that prevents them from being serious about keeping the Americans safe, and the world’s too dangerous for that.

CARLSON: Senator, isn’t it a lot to ask of our military, our intelligence services, our law enforcement to keep us safe when the first line of defense, wouldn’t that be our border? Keeping people who might hurt us from moving here in the first place?

CRUZ: That is absolutely right and border security is national security. That’s why in my time in the Senate I have led the fight to secure the border. If I’m elected president, we will secure the border. Existing federal law for example mandates 700 miles of double-layer fencing on the southern border. The Obama administration has only built 36. Existing federal law mandates a biometric exit-entry system on visas. The Obama administration refuses to comply with the law. If I’m elected president, we will build a wall that works. We will triple the Border Patrol, we will increase fourfold fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. We’ll put in place strong e-verify. We’ll end catch and release. We’ll deport criminal illegal aliens. All of that existing law provides for. What’s missing is the political will and we need a commander-in-chief who will put as his first priority keeping this country safe. . . This is a president who tragically acts as an apologist for radical islamic terrorists.