Header Image (book)


Monday, June 1, 2015

The Jihad Caucus

Click directly on the graphic below to enlarge it:

From the DC Independent Examiner (hat tip to Gulag Bound):
...[A] group of 14 U.S. senators, led by the indefatigable Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, have written a letter to Obama urging him to allow 65,000 Syrians in as refugees. This would require a dramatic expansion of the refugee program, and virtually guarantee that a sizable number of ISIS fighters would slip in among them. Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy has given them the moniker “Jihad Caucus” because practically speaking, Jihad is what this request will bring.

The 14 senators demanding this massive influx of Syrians are:

Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Al Franken (D-MN)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-MA)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)...
Read the entire article HERE.

The FBI has previously warned that there is no reliable way to determine whether or not ISIS embeds might be among the Syrian refugees.


  1. "Our nation’s founders came to our shores to escape religious persecution and the United States has a long tradition of providing safe haven to refugees."

    I'm a little confused. Does "religious persecution" mean that these "refugees" are Christians being persecuted by Islamists or are they, themselves, Islamists caught-up in some internal conflict? We sure don't need any more Muslims here!

  2. Wow ... all D’s. Imagine that. Durbin’s 65,000 is in addition to the 300,000 Mohammedan immigrants arriving here since 2010. Still, if nothing else, the Durbin letter offers us a clear view of how the leftist mind works.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. That should tip us all off that this idea stinks, as if the 'demerits' of it didn't already? America is acting like there's no problem whatsoever and no care needs to be taken....over-the-top care, perhaps, to keep us safe, which doesn't seem to be a goal anymore!?

    3. Mustang, It is clear that democrats would import residents of hell if they thought it would add to their vote totals. Some of them probably are them self. hilrod surely is.

    4. Kid,
      It is clear that democrats would import residents of hell if they thought it would add to their vote totals.

      Of course!

      Is the GOP any better?

      I'm getting very soured on politics these days.

    5. AOW, GOP any better? Not much if at all. I think we saw the final sell out last election. They used to rely on intelligent people and now maybe realize there simply aren't enough of them left.

  3. The graphic bears little resemblance to the territory that ISIL actually holds; it appears designed to frame the threat in a particular manner. That said, I believe it is both naive and counter-productive to allow a carte blanche of immigrants from any region, much less the Levant.

    1. CI,
      Do you have access to a graphic which is more accurate? If so, please provide the link.

    2. This one is a bit more accurate. ISIL controls several key Lines of Communications [major highways], but only scattered pockets aside from that [in Iraq].


    3. CI,
      Graphic for this blog post changed.

    4. It is sizable, but it's by virtue of interior lines. Take away a few key points, and it quickly shrinks. Sadly, we are likely to only see this in the northern areas, where ISIL faces the Kurdish Peshmerga.

    5. CI,
      Do the Kurish Pershmerga feel betrayed by the United States?

    6. AOW, I'm certain that some do, but they're also cognizant that it's the Baghdad regime that has siphoned off material and monetary support, that should have gone to the Pesh.

    7. CI,
      At a social event a few months ago, I had occasion to meet with some Kurds. They didn't seem angry, but they did talk about betrayal going back to World War 1.

  4. There is only ONE sensible solution to ALL of this bothersome barrage of bothersome BS, and that is a UTILITARIAN solution:




    Those who would be kind to the cruel are sure to be cruel to the kind."

    "Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

    ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)


    However illegal, impolitic, inadvisable, unconstitutional, un-American, immoral or impracticable others claim it to be I will maintain that position till my dying day.

    When the Handwriting on the Wall sends a clear, uncompromising message, and STILL we fail to heed its stern warning, we DESERVE to be ECLIPSED.

    FACE IT: Either it's DIDADIN or BE DAMNED.

    1. According to the Court opinion, delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia , “an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision” to show the employment decision violated Title VII. Based on the court opinion, an employer seeking to avoid accommodation violates Title VII “even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.”

      Wow, done in by an activist judge.

    2. FT. They don't look like 'filthy swine' to me, those 2 women. I agree with Abercrombie; they should maintain their 'look,' which is their 'brand,' but it's clear that nobody can discriminate based on religious apparel.
      The hijab is not a great look with the style of Abercrombie clothing, and I feel badly for their whole brand, but this girl is no terrorist and maybe she'll make it work, stylewise.

      I do find it so interesting that we saw hijabs rarely before 9/11 and we surely had muslims in our schools who didn't demand troughs for washing so they could study and pray with cleaner feet. And, trust me, we here in L.A. have had thousands of muslims since the Shah was toppled. No burkas, no hijabs. That's always my curiosity. There can be no denying some of this is a push for agenda, but not much we can do about that. Too bad so many acts of sheer terror have made AMericans leery; but totally understandable by most thinking Americans.
      This case has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the law.

      I'm sitting here wondering how a reputable law firm would feel if one of their partners, or even a junior partner, suddenly became a Hari Krishna follower and wanted to wear saffron robes to the office and to court. Particularly if the client that partner worked for was understandably miffed?

    3. Z,
      nobody can discriminate based on religious apparel


      When I taught in a Christian school from 1978-1996, uniforms were required. Muslims and other groups not Christians complied.

      I do find it so interesting that we saw hijabs rarely before 9/11 and we surely had muslims in our schools who didn't demand troughs for washing so they could study and pray with cleaner feet.

      I find it more than interesting. In my view, those hijabs, burkas, and niqabs are often statements of Islamic supremacism or, at least, a setting apart. Just my two cents, some of which I decided based on a conversation which I had with Nonie Darwish.

    4. Z,
      I remember a time that nuns in the Northern Virginia suburbs wore habits -- full habits -- and the priests wore collars. Even into doctors' offices, which is where, my not being Roman Catholic, I most frequently saw these nuns and priests.

      So, why did that garb disappear? I no longer see nuns in habits or priests in collars in my doctors' offices.

    5. You should read the ruling more carefully.

      This is not about the hijab explicitly but application of employment law. This ruling would have been identical if Abercrombie had failed to offer accomadation in the case of another religious symbol.

    6. Duck,
      Let's see if you're right down the line. I simply cannot imagine that all employers will offer accommodations for all religious symbols. Why should employers do so, anyway?

      Abercrombie apparently had some kind of dress code; many employers do. In fact, the homeschool group for which I work has some dress-code rules. I don't violate them in the workplace. Elsewhere? Yes, I do violate those dress-code rules: my little black dress being a case-in-point.

    7. AOW, Little black dress? Picture ? ;-)

      And yes, companies can impose dress codes, Especially when employees are in contact with the public, but that's not even required.
      This is nothing more than islamic bullying.
      I fully support reverse bullying at maximum levels. Lets fire this thing up.

    8. FT, Obviously, I'm down with that. I want them all out. They have no business here as their 'religion' is diametrically opposed to a free society.

    9. Yes, AOW, I do believe there's an agenda behind this, as I said above....Still wondering what a law firm who suddenly had a lawyer walk in wearing Hari Krishna robes would do. Well, I know what they'd do, but..... would it fly?

      You see, we celebrate the tiny minority now and companies can't represent themselves in the manner in which they feel best gets and keeps them business without being called names and taken to court. These are very tough times, thanks to leftwing silly 'kindness' that's anything but kind to anybody with more than $20.

      The disappearance of habits for nuns has nothing to do with work place dress rules!! You're not implying that, are you?

    10. Be aware Z, that this was an 8-1 decision with Thomas still in considerable agreement in his dissent. Some agenda.

      The interview never mentioned the woman's scarf and the fact it would violate an appearence code. Other violations were mentioned and the court decided this was discrimination because the company made no attempt to offer her an accommodation for religious practice.
      The ruling would have been the same for other religions.

      "“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench."

      This is a matter of case law not an agenda.

    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    12. Ducky, what are you talking about?
      I'm not talking about agenda of the court. I'm talking about agendas of people who push the limits.
      My comments above explain my point.

    13. Z,
      The disappearance of habits for nuns has nothing to do with work place dress rules!! You're not implying that, are you?

      I'm asking why nuns rarely wear habits now -- in the places I frequent, anyway. I never see nuns in habits here in Northern Virginia, and I used to see nuns in habits with some frequency.

    14. Ducky, what you are missing is that in the view of some, simply asserting your rights can be seen as trying to advance an agenda.

      To some, it is better to take the go slow approach and let the rights flow back to you in a more sequenced method, rather than asking the court to step in and make the decision "before its time has come."

      I don't agree with that, but I think that's a reasonable interpretation of that view, as I've heard it over the years.

  5. I'm a broken record by now, but I'll repeat myself anyway:

    Where the hell are the GOOPer politicians on this? Why aren't they using their control of the House and Senate to hold hearings, and more importantly, to halt the importation of Muslims from unstable lands?

    1. We can't say this enough, SF. You're so right.

      Hearings, I am coming to realize, only waste money and puff up the politicians during their five minutes on camera.

      I believe behind-the-door meetings should be held more often. I think that smoke filled rooms get a very bad rap.
      Oh, gee, SF...."muslims from unstable lands" halted from importation? Imagine the leftwingers? :-) There IS no safety cover for our country anymore....it's all open game lest we appear like we feel America is great and deserves only those who feel the same way or want to make it even greater under the auspices of our Constitution and traditions.

    2. They're all lining up donors for their presidential campaign except that South Carolina ambulance chaser who heads the Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi committee.
      He's looking for Boner's job.

      That said, there are quite a few Syrians locally and they are industrious and peaceful.

      Although you have a point, Silverfiddle. Our "intelligence"(LMAO) agencies can't find their collective arse with both hands. They need more data.

    3. Well Ducky, since you're tendered your assessment of US Intelligence Agencies, you must certainly have a solution, no?

      How can our agencies "find their collective arse with both hands"?

  6. syrian refugees are either ISIS or Al Queerda.
    Furthermore, since islam has jack Nothing in common with a free society, especially one that guards human rights, there is NO SUCH THING as an islamic refugee, asylum seeker or immigrant. They are All Invaders.

    Any that do arrive should be given housing next door to duck.

  7. It would seem that the best relocation and reintegration system would involve the stable Muslim-majority nations. Oh, wait! Minus those functioning as police states, they are practically non-existent. Islam works on a micro-governance level. But on national scale, the failures are immense.

    The gestalt just does not work.

    Democracy works. All other models provide for failed models of unhealthy governance.

    1. Last English Prince,
      Islam works on a micro-governance level. But on national scale, the failures are immense.

      A fact which the West refuses to recognize. All the best intentions on the part of the West haven't changed that fact, have they?

      Democracy has to come from within -- not imposed by another nation state.

  8. About the SCOTUS ruling mentioned above...

    I saw this comment at another site and some here may find the following of interest:

    So does this mean if a Muslim woman works as a stripper and she decides she no longer wants to dance nude, but instead wants to wear her burqa, that the strip club has to employ her?

    Abercrombie and Fitch attained the success they attained by hiring good looking beach types.

    And this comment, too:

    Doesn't an employer, corporation, retailer, etc. decide what the look of their company is? So if someone comes up all covered in tatoos and the company considers the individual does not represent the image of their company, it will be sued for violating the rights of that individual? Same is true with exceedingly overweight people, or weird looking people, etc. We no longer have the ability to select who we hire???

    ...My daughter decided not to look for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch precisely because of the ultra thin, model looking appearance of their sales people.

    1. As I've written many times in the past, I can't wait for the day when the Supreme Court hands down a decision demanding that all American ballet companies MUST hire at least ONE 300-lb BLACK BALLERINA per troupe to dance leading roles in such classical ballets as Swan Lake, Giselle or Coppelia.

      Leave it to the forces of GOVERNMENT to transform high ART into TRAVESTY all in the name of Equality Before the Law.

      Other anomalies soon to come down the pike:

      1. ALL major league Basketball Teams MUST hire at least THREE players under FIVE-FEET in HEIGHT.

      2. ALL major league baseball teams must hire a least ONE EACH of armless, legless, blind, wheelchair-bound or mentally retarded individuals of either sex as full-fedged team members.

      3. Expect soon too to see ONE-HANDED, or even ARMLESS pianists WIN international Piano competitions, because The World Court has declared that "in the interests of fairness," they MUST.

      4. VOICELESS or TONE DEAF SINGERS may soon appear in leading roles at Covent Garden, La Scala and the Met, because of the new International Standards of Fairness and Decency.

      5. Certified MORONS, IDIOTS and IMBECILES will soon be able to graduate from leading medical schools. Imagine the thrill of facing brain surgery or a mastectomy at the hands of a cretin with an IQ below room temperature!

      6. Imagine the enlightenment and broader sense of perspective bound to come once you are forced by government edict to work in close quarters with those who proudly exhibit chronic halitosis, five-day-old underarm odor and the unmistakable scent of festering smegma, dried urine and caked fecal matter.

      Imagine too the added excitement and zest for living you're bound to acquire once you realize that at any moment a sweet, smiling, wholesome-looking young women in a hijab might take it into her head to reach under her robe pull out a knife, grab you from behind, and slit your throat as you stand together in a checkout line, because you had the unmitigated gall to wear (GASP!) a CROSS around your neck.

      Look for these and myriad other gruesome and grotesque attractions coming your way soon courtesy of the SCOTUS PC-DC FOLLIES –– your National Theater of Depravity, Insanity, Absurdity, Lechery, Debauchery, Cruelty, Destruction, and Death.

    2. You have truly outdone even yourself.

      "Hyperbole" is inadequate.

    3. FT,
      You should have posted a spew alert with that.

    4. Hyperbole, eh?

      An application clear logic and inescapable truth would be more like it, Ducks. The conclusions drawn may sound like Fantasies from La La Land, but such would –– and eventually WILL –– be the result of continued kowtowing to the Left.

      Only yesterday word got out that in New York City males are no longer permitted to sit with their knees more than six inches apart on public transportation. They are subject to ARREST for violation of this latest in the never-ending series of absurd "laws" conjured up and hastily passed against imaginary "crimes" by power-mad leftists.

      Several men and boys already have been ARRESTED and taken before a magistrate for disobeying this grotesque abuse of power and government overreach.

      What next? A new "law" making it a "crime" to keep our hands in our pockets for fear we might be playing pocket pool?


  9. Something to consider in this discussion of the recent SCOTUS ruling:

    Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn’t she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn’t she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab?

    Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.

    Hamas-linked CAIR was also involved — a clear sign that this was not about religious freedom but about Islamic supremacist strongarming for special privileges for Muslims. The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR alone indicates that this is not analogous to refusing a job to a Jew wearing a kippah — this is part of a larger program.

    1. "The real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms."

      Exactly! This woman did not step out of a time bubble in 1892 into a conservative, staid store environment. She knew full well (as did her 'handlers') the attire and look generally expected in the modern, sexually aggressive tone of the store. If she were willing to dress accordingly, there is no case. If she weren't, she had no business applying. I haven't followed the details, and don't have time this morning, but if the NY Times got it right, I'd say 'they' got it wrong. The 10th Circuit sounds right.

  10. AOW,

    While I agree with the Supreme Court decision, the information you provide is critical to understand what is going on in this country.

    America has become the great whore who has thrown her doors (and her legs) wide open to anybody and everybody. We are the stage for every agenda, every clamoring mob, and the serious ones are chipping away at us, using our laws and our liberties against us.

    The malefactors in the District of Criminals have sold our nation out from under us. They will import who they want, how many they want, when and where they want them. Period. Nothing Joe or Jane Citizen can do about it.

    They sell permits (H-1B "visas") allowing Mark Zuckerberg and the other billionaire political contributors to ship in human slaves, but the feds will gun you down over environmental or tax violations.

    It's sick.

    1. SF,
      We are the stage for every agenda, every clamoring mob, and the serious ones are chipping away at us, using our laws and our liberties against us.?

      Well said!

      Several years ago -- almost 10 years ago now -- I heard Brigitte say, "Islamists are using our freedoms against us."

      Regardless of what one might think of Ms. Gabriel, she was spot on with that statement.

      And the problem isn't limited to Islamists -- not by a long shot.

    2. SF,
      Nothing Joe or Jane Citizen can do about it.

      It surely does appear that way, doesn't it?

      I'm glad that I'm as old as I am.

    3. How are they being used against us?

      Bridgitte is a bit of a self promoter.

    4. Duck,
      Bridgitte is a bit of a self promoter.

      So is Caitlyn Jenner. And the media el al are delighted.

      PS: Couldn't resist adding this little barb.

    5. Too early to tell about the Caitlyn Jenner product rollout.
      It's been an effective campaign as you'd expect from someone associated with the Kardashians.

  11. To Z from far, far, far above regarding "filthy swine," et al. ;-)

    "Things are seldom what they seem."

    ~ W.S. Gilbert

    "Looks can be deceiving."

    ~ Anonymous

    And then there is that business in the Bible warning us against being taken in by "wolves in sheep's clothing."

    I'm sure you and AOW remember the chapter and verse, since both of you are probably better acquainted with the Bible than I, who got most of my Christian Education from singing, hearing and studying a great many anthems, cantatas and oratorios from the great classical tradition since the age of eight.

  12. Duck,
    Seems to be related to the "social media" ISIS candidate who went off this morning.

    There seems to be more to the story -- well, the two stories now, I guess:

    Ibrahim Rahim, an imam at the Lighthouse Mosque in Oakland, California, earlier posted about his brother's death on social media.

    Ibrahim Rahim wrote on Facebook that his brother was shot while at a bus stop on his way to work.


    The FBI noted a recent change in the suspect's behavior, including social media threats against police, which prompted them to try to approach him Tuesday, according to the official.

    Evans said the shooting occurred at about 7 a.m. after officers and FBI agents confronted Rahim, who suddenly turned around with a large black knife and lunged at officers and federal agents. The officers had not drawn their weapons at that point.

    The officers retreated and ordered the man to put down the weapon before they opened fire, Evans said. The shooting was captured by surveillance video and observed by witnesses.

    "Unfortunately, he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life," Evans said.

  13. Ibrahim can tie a can on that crap.
    They have his brother on tape drawing a K-bar on police, approaching police and being shot.
    Cops were moving away from him as he kept coming and shot.

    This guy was under 24 hour surveillance.

    They just announcd a related arrest in Everett and they're also in Warwick R.I. No real news yet.

    I believe there was some problem with Ibrahim that caused his mosque to toss him out.

  14. I'd guess it went something like this, AOW.

    Tsarnaev's friend was sentenced to 7 years today and that set off the perp in Roslindale.

    Police decided it was time to reel in a few who had "friended" him on Facebook.

    Broadcasting your intent all over social media is going to get you quite a bit of attention.

  15. The Last Word said

    Christ is the Answer, the only answer.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.