Let’s say for fun this is WW2. The plan for the British to defeat the Nazis is to import 23,000 Nazi soldiers- or two and a half divisions of trained warriors – and send them to all parts of the nation.
What could possibly go wrong?
Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday.
The scale of the challenge facing the police and security services was disclosed by Whitehall sources after criticism that multiple opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber had been missed.
About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorised as posing a “residual risk”.
A military division is around 10,000 soldiers. Britain has 2.5 divisions of potential fighters and support units of terrorists. This is why the leaders of Britain are afraid to tell the truth. They screwed this up with unrestricted liberal immigration and submitting to a culture that hated the West.
Now they have no solution. That is why they lie, why they say everybody has to get along and accept there will be violence and death to innocents. At some point the death in Britain will drive the leaders to stop their efforts in the Middle East, thus allowing for the victory of the Islamic extremists- or at least that is the bad guy’s plan.
Imagine how long ANY British government would last in WW2 if this was the visual walking down a London highway.
And yet, here we are. I expect Americans can learn from the mistake of Europe and Britain and not end up with divisions of terrorists among us.
But then again.
Yesterday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order that found President Trump’s second travel ban to be unconstitutional. This is one of those news stories that make me sad rather than angry.
The decision is ridiculous. The court’s majority relied heavily on candidate Donald Trump’s stump speeches in which he talked about a ban on all Muslim immigration. The court found that this “context” demonstrated a discriminatory intent. The decision’s implication is that a different president could have issued the same order, and it would have been constitutional. The ACLU’s lawyer made this explicit during his oral argument, saying that the order under attack may well have been constitutional if it had been issued by Hillary Clinton.
This is idiotic. For a court to say that a presidential order may or may not be constitutional depending on who the president is–constitutional if issued by a Democrat, unconstitutional if by a Republican–is the ultimate repudiation of the rule of law. Moreover, the president’s order didn’t ban all Muslim immigration. It is absurd to condemn the order the president issued by arguing that he really wanted to issue something different.
It is also worth noting that the idea that a president can’t “discriminate” with regard to travel to the U.S., or immigration, is ridiculous. Of course he can, and so can Congress. For most of our history, our immigration policy has been explicitly discriminatory. It arguably still is. Under federal law, the president has blanket authority to suspend immigration or travel, wholly or in part, from any country or group of countries, on the ground that it is in the national interest. The suggestion that a random Yemeni has a constitutional right to enter the United States is untenable, and flies in the face of all precedent.
Decisions like those we have seen on Trump’s travel orders can’t be viewed as legal rulings. As such, they are absurd. They can only be understood as part of the establishment’s war on the Trump administration. The Democrats (the 4th Circuit is now heavily Democrat) simply refuse to accept Trump’s authority as president.
We sadly do not lack for the same kind of idiocy in our leadership. We are a big, but soft, nation. If a few thousand organized attacks we’d be seeing carnage unlike since the Civil War. The question would be what would McCain, Pelosi, Schumer and the judges say then?
Update: Seems the FBI warned the Brits of the bomber’s intent MONTHS earlier. The Brits investigated (also having their own intelligence about the guy) and then didn’t do anything and pushed him lower down the threat list.
UK security chiefs were warned in January that Salman Abedi was planning an attack in Britain, it was claimed last night.
According to a security source, the FBI told MI5 that Abedi was part of a North African Islamic State cell plotting to strike a political target in the UK.
The information came from a US investigation into Abedi and his links to terrorist groups in Libya. The Mail on Sunday has also been told that US security services put him on a terror watch list – used by agents to identify key suspects – in 2016.
‘The information came from the interception of his communications by US federal agents, who had been investigating Abedi since the middle of 2016, and from information unearthed in Libya, where his family was linked to terrorist groups.
‘Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure.
‘But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets.’
Holy Boston Bomber Batman. Same scenario but we are the Russians and MI5 is the FBI! Even liberals have to see this right? (quick somebody check online CNN and see if it is even mentioned!)
Now this is exactly what we are talking about here. They have such a number of suspects and only so many police they cannot vet them all. The problem is they have TOO MANY potential troublemakers already in the country. Shades of the Trump travel ban. As the courts here want to make their SJW buddies happy by violating the law, we see what happens when you do not apply common sense to a problem. Literally the definition of government- power without common sense.