Remember the other day when it was revealed that the female San Bernardino jihadi terrorist bastard passed three background checks before being admitted to the US on a spousal visa? Remember when it looked like that at was at least partly due to her social media postings – where she’d expressed support for violent jihad, and indicated she wanted to be a part of same – not being screened during those investigations?
Well, that’s indeed the case. But now we know why such social media screening was never performed.
Doing that was against policy.
It seems that DHS investigators were forbidden by DHS policy from reviewing social media posts made by foreigners applying for a US visa.. Apparently DHS leadership was worried about about a possible “civil liberties backlash” and “bad public relations” – or some other similarly nebulous libidiot bullsh!t.
Concerns about “civil liberties” regarding someone (1) who is not a US citizen or resident; (2) who isn’t even physically located in the US; and (3) who is voluntarily asking permission to come to the US to live. Plus, worries over “bad public relations”. Yeah, letting those concerns outweigh conducting thorough background checks on foreigners seeking to enter the US during a period of high terrorist threat really passes the freaking common sense test.
But wait, it gets even better. Nearly two years ago, multiple senior DHS officials recommended to the DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, that the policy be changed. They recommended that DHS change policy to allow screening of social media posts made by visa applicants. Wanna guess what the decision was – and who made it?
No, the POTUS didn’t make the decision; reportedly DHS Secretary Johnson did. He turned down the recommendation – in early 2014.
The jihadi terrorist bastard in question entered the US in mid-2014. You do the math.
Yes, Mr. Secretary, I’d say you certainly “have some ‘splainin’ to do”” I only wish now you could end up doing it in a court of law, while on trial for dereliction of duty.
Comments
44 responses to “Did Someone Say, “YGBSM?!?!” Unfortunately . . . They’re Not.”
Jeh needs to be terminated, and Big Sis (who originated this PC decision) needs to be indicted. Hell, they both need to be indicted…
As for Jihadi Malik, may she by dyke-raped by 72 Helen Thomases for eternity…
I was thinking more along the lines of 72 randy billy goats.
If I had my way, Jeh Johnson (what the hell kind of name is “Jeh” anyway?) would have to be prosecuted by Trey Gowdy, then incarcerated for as long as it takes to get the stoopid out of his system. If I had my way.
Yeah; I was wondering about that Jeh name, too.
My initials are JEH. No kidding.
If this post makes you mad, then this will REALLY piss you off!
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/14/dhs-monitors-americans-social-media-accounts-but-not-visa-applicants/
This perplexes me. Do people really have an expectation of privacy on social media?
Employers have been known to shit-can employees for writing stupid stuff on their pages, so why is monitoring social media to find dangerous hadji’s any different?
In 60 years of life this administration is the biggest collection of stupid people I have ever had the displeasure of observing.
They push the stupid envelope every single day.
Every time I see something that I consider the stupidest thing another item pops up and shows its ugly mug…
I just wonder who in the hell reminds these people to breathe…
Truer words never written. I work in the fed govt. The stupid is very, very strong. I am working on retiring and it can’t come fast enough.
The administration is made up of this stupid of people just think about the intelligent quotient for the people that elected them!
Twice
If you think this is stupid, try working in a US Embassy overseas. Stupidity abounds in state.
I also still wonder if DHS has the resources to review these social media accounts. Mostly I’m thinking of the language barrier. I can’t imagine that most of these “fiancees” communicate solely (or al all) in English. Urdu, Arabic, Farsi, yes. English no.
I won’t cut them any slack on that score, MustangCryppie.
Immigrants and visa holders don’t stop communicating in their native language when they get here. And DHS has had since 2003 to develop the requisite expertise.
By my count, that’s over 12 years. If they don’t have the expertise now, well, shame on them.
Oh, you’re right. Shame on them if they haven’t developed those skills. Sadly, I suspect they haven’t.
Hell, they could copy and paste and use a Google or Bing translator and get an idea.
Can’t do that. They’d have to review the applicant’s social media postings to find, then cut/paste, them into a translation program. And the review part would be against policy.
it’s not like they have to worry about disclosing sources or whatever… can’t imagine there would be any national security issues with Facebook. Anyone who speaks the language could do the job; doesn’t have to be someone with a clearance. You want to come in, you disclose all your social media passwords…
IMHO, given the track record of this administration it makes NO sense to expect anything other than idiocy, incompetence, hypocrisy, imbecility and waste from B. Hussein 0bama & Company!
And a nod of approval from Jimmah Cahtah, as he relishes that he is no longer the worst president in history.
When someone says this stuff makes Carter look smart, it’s an understatement. He did a lot of stupid things. These people are miles ahead of him in the stupid category.
I am not a fan of letting the Government establish an Internet Enforcement Bureau. I concede to the merits of your argument. However, what form of means testing do we use to establish such an organization or the authority for any other branch of government to become such a thing.
Define “Social Media”. Is there a limit to what types of sites can be reviewed? If they post on TAH, is that considered Social Media? Define what parameters will be used as a risk assessment.
Will they only consider support of a particular faith based dogma as an at risk group? If so, which particular faith. I understand that ISIS is our enemy.
I was once in a public debate with an individual representing the Jehovah Witnesses. He said during that debate that he did not consider me his enemy. I responded with, “Then you sir, are a fool”. I am indeed his enemy. I am out on a deliberate mission to destroy that particular dogma. There are other forms of delusional religious dogma on that list as well.
I do not condone violence in support of that endeavor. How do you evaluate my “risk assessment” through social media? I believe, and can also make a substantial case in argument that Islam is a disease of the mind.
I will never stand silent while a man beats his wife, or a group of men beat a woman. The reason they were doing it would be irrelevant to me. I will and have reacted to that very thing many times in the past.
Does my profession that I will not allow Islamic men to practice their particular beliefs in my presence make me a risk to them? I would say it does. I am, admitting that fact.
I use that example to point out that from the perspective of Islam my posts on social media are a threat to them. They may not conduct themselves according to their dogma in my presence. That is exactly how they see most of western culture.
We ‘allow’ our women to dress as they choose, do their hair as they choose, speak as they choose, think as they choose. Our very existence is a threat to their way of life.
Can Muslim Americans demand that immigrants who share my position on their dogma be banned from entering the country? You are supporting the idea that we ban people for what they think and say with no action to judge the merit of the risk.
Again, I believe that some form of means testing should be done. My concern is, as it always is, the beast you create by doing such a thing could very easily turn on its master.
Thought police are particularly dangerous.
“Define “Social Media”. Is there a limit to what types of sites can be reviewed? If they post on TAH, is that considered Social Media? Define what parameters will be used as a risk assessment.”
Dave,
What we are discussing here is screening of foreign nationals for entry into the US. Most, if not all of us, already know that the DHS (et al) already screen, monitor, and snoop into the social media, emails, and cell phone calls of US citizens without warrant (meta data gathering, or some such idiotic name).
As for defining Social Media, that’s fluid. What was hot yesterday, is dead and buried tomorrow, replaced by half a dozen other new Social Media. WHo would have imagined, 5 years ago, the plethora of Social Media available today? Twitter, FB, Pinterest (and I can’t even remember all the rest I’ve seen and don’t participate in).
Posting on TAH might be considered Social Media. After all Teh Big Bad Gooberment already stretches multiple points of definition to snoop, invade and remove what few freedoms we have remaining.
As for what parameter might be considered a risk assessment, I think espousing belief in violent jihad, and wanting to participate in same ONCE THEY HAVE ARRIVED IN THE US, would be a pretty clear cut case of a VERY HIGH risk assessment.
Two observations, Dave:
1. Entry of a foreign national into the US – or any other nation – is not a “right”. Nations have the absolute authority to regulate who emigrates or visits, and under what conditions.
2. As Justice Goldberg put it in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963): “. . . . while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.”
It is entirely reasonable to subject a foreign national who has made public statements in favor of violent jihad (or any other type of unlawful organized violence) and has also expressed a desire to participate in same to much stricter scrutiny if and when they apply for permission to enter the US than someone who has not made such public statements. It is no different than subjecting someone with a significant criminal history to similar enhanced scrutiny.
Dave, I have no doubts that you are a smart guy, zero.
I say this in jest: I think you are right. Taken to it’s natural end, we will have folks snooping around on social media, looking into the military records of those citizens who claim they have served. Who knows, maybe we social media will be used to shame them and make jokes at their expense.
Hmmmm…great idea. Maybe that will catch on. Lets hope it becomes a mission.
Nah, it will never work. If the local VFW’s dont’t give a shit who will?
“It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.” – Robert Oppenheimer
I understand that immigration is not a right provided to the masses of the world. Of course the definition of social media is malleable.
Jihad is a requirement of Islam. The jerk knee definition of most people has very little to do with its actual application. We commonly see it as a “Holy War against infidels”. In Islam it is most commonly used in the context of “a struggle” or “vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.”
We banter around these terms with very little understanding of what they actually mean to the people who use them. The overwhelming majority of Muslims support the concept of Jihad. The use of violence in support of it is dependent upon a particular event.
If the daughter of a Muslim refuses to cover herself according to his understanding of his faith she is to be punished. If you interfere with that punishment then you are to be punished.
That is only one example, there are hundreds more easily made. The simple admission on social media that someone adheres to the Muslim religion is a threat.
How Muslim are they in reality is what we are asking. If they are kinda Muslim then they are less of a threat.
The same can be said of almost any religion. How Christian are they. The common Bible gives many mandates to its followers. The less they adhere to what the book says the more acceptable their behavior is.
Wives have no authority over their own body. They may not cut their hair. You must only pray in secret in the privacy of your own home. Children my be stoned, beaten, or sold under particular conditions. There are many more of these teachings in the New Testament of the Bible.
Are we going to ask exactly how ‘Christian’ someone is? What threat do they pose by making statements? I think people tend to minimize the risk. Living in North Ireland even today is problematic. People are still willing to kill each others children over what particular kind of Christian they happen to be.
What about Jews? The rest of us are just here on the planet. We are not Gods chosen people, they are and there is nothing you or I can do about it from birth. There are parts of New York City that have a string, a rope of sorts, that goes all around the neighborhood for several blocks. Jews that venture outside of that “roped off” area are subject to punishment.
5 infants died last year in New York City, killed by the Rabbi who sucked the blood from their penis with his mouth. He knew he was infected with the HERPES virus that killed those children. That practice of hacking off the end of a babies penis and sucking the blood from it is protected by law under the umbrella of freedom to worship.
You focus on Jihad, I agree we should ban these people from coming into this country. I do not trust anyone who believes in the Islamic dogma. They are delusional, what we are tying to determine is how delusional they actually are.
People who believe they have telepathic superpowers to communicate to an invisible being that will alter the laws of the physical universe in their favor by chanting some words are delusional.
How delusional is defined by their adherence to the written word of their particular faith. I am trying to point out that we accept violence or the threat of it from certain religious dogma and are rejecting other forms of it.
Islam is a disease of the mind. What exactly is it that can be said or posted online to deny entrance into this county? If they support Jihad? Almost all Muslims do in some form.
I’ve heard the Abrahamic religions referred to as the ‘violent desert religions.’ The bottom line is this: if you follow any of them, you are the slave of a jealous, violent god with a jealous, violent ideology.
HAHAHAHA, careful you are going to be accused of being a Marcionite. It was Marcion that is responsible for founding the separation of Christianity from Judaism.
He believed that the God of the Old Testament was evil and that Jesus was a spiritual being never on earth.
Many Biblical scholars believe he wrote many of the Pauline letters. He most certainly wrote fisrt and second Timothy, Titus, and Colossians.
Marcionism was the most popular form of Christian belief for the first thee hundred years and stayed in practice for nearly a thousand years.
There is creditable evidence that Polycarp may have written First Timothy. He is thought to have written the later part of Pauline letters.
Between the two of them, most of the writings of the New Testament can be attributed. But, there is always John. Gnostic as Marcion seemed to have been influenced. Probably a follower of Philo wrote it decades after his death.
I am familiar with the history you’ve mentioned. Authorship of the New Testament is a particularly interesting subject. As a matter of fact, it was the start of what follows below.
This makes for very poor timing considering the season, but in the interests of full disclosure to people I think of as friends … my spiritual angst turned into a crisis a few months ago, and I’ve gone through a de-conversion. I no longer call myself Christian. I now identify as pagan. And I’m not even sure about that, yet.
Good luck on your journey. I wish you well. In the end I came to my own conclusions as I am sure you will.
You don’t so much as become an atheist as find out that’s what you are. There’s no moment of conversion. You don’t suddenly think ‘I don’t believe this anymore.’ You essentially find you don’t believe it.
I would not trade that experience for anything in this world. For me, it was the most exhilarating thing I have ever experienced.
The only thing that would come close is if I busted a fake Admin Clerk claiming to be in the Air Force Reserves who is collecting disability for a staged paper cut.
I am reminded once again of Ramzi Yousef. From Wikipedia:
HTML fail… that last block is my dumbass commentary, not from wikipedia.
I’ve read elsewhere that ISIS managed to get their hands on a passport printer from Syria, and they could be issuing fake passports.
You don’t say. (smile)
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=63224
(Dang. Missed that one for some reason.)
Yet I’m reasonably certain most government agencies will look at a potential job applicant’s social media sites as do many private sector employers. I’m almost starting to miss Jimmy Carter.
None of this is a shock. Years ago the FBI got informed that they WOULD NOT do any surveillance on mosques in the US. That was profiling and against civil liberties, remember? And so here we are. No surprise in this at all.
[…] Conservative: Government Watchdog Says EPA Broke Law By Promoting Water Rule This Ain’t Hell: Did Someone Say “YGBSM”? Unfortunately, They’re Not Weasel Zippers: Obama Speaking Today To Battle “Hateful Talk” About Muslims Megan […]
what we need is common sense and some real leadership, and not a bunch of self entitled jack-ass’s it’s amazing that out of 320 million people here in Merica we not have anybody that can lead we the people and not a bunch of wal-street, and a bunch of special interests groups that if you not vote for there pile of crap then they will donate to the other party… what ever happened to putting country first ?????
America didn’t do a background check on Barack Obama either.
Ain’t that the truth… After watching a interview on fox the other day the repubs seem unwilling to fix issues instead they feel if the Dems can do it so can you they
total Fail !!!!!!
[Looks at all of the above posts. Twitches bald head repeatedly while saying…]
Processing… Processing… Processing… Processing… processing… Processing… [Ad infinitum]
Cheese,
Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier