Jesus, will we ever learn enough about Islamic ideology and it's patrons and actually pull our collective heads from out of our arses?

It is akin to willfuly importing cavity-ridden teeth to our mouths, with their eventual extraction...inevitable.

Posted by: awake at September 22, 2007 2:04 AM

One of the provisions of the "immigration reform bill" that failed earlier this summer, one of the few that I would actually term a reform, was to eliminate the DV program.

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 22, 2007 2:19 AM

Gee thanks bush. I wonder how many of those 10,000 will have Sudden Jihad Syndrome? I want my taxes back, can I sue?

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at September 22, 2007 4:39 AM

A "Diversity" Visa!? Ooh, look, we're scurrilously short of suicide bombers. Our diversity is suffering!

Posted by: Brett_McS at September 22, 2007 4:41 AM

Id say that number is significantly under inflated

October 23, 2005
Over 10,000 Saudi Students bound for the United States
How else should we reward our certified ally in the war on terror? From Asharq Al-Awsat:

More than 10,000 Saudi students will travel to the US to attend university as part of a government-sponsored program following the adoption of new measures by the Ministry of Higher Education aimed at facilitating travel procedures for Saudis. In total, 21,000 Saudis are expected to take part in the program in the next four years.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008674.php

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 22, 2007 6:00 AM

Didn't the USA change its immigration policy from favouring people from places such as Europe to more ethnically diverse areas so as to enrich their culture more?

Posted by: Celsius at September 22, 2007 6:23 AM

Don't forget the 6,000 being admitted from Iraq.

Celsius- That would be Ted Kennedy, - who hates his white bread world, and himself.

Posted by: Borg at September 22, 2007 7:47 AM

Just here to do the jobs ordinary Americans won't do....

Posted by: americanmadestrat at September 22, 2007 8:44 AM

For those who haven't seen it, here's a link to a brilliant anti-jihad music video. It refers to jihadwatch.com at the end, and features Wafa Sultan, Walid Shoebat, and video footage from the Middle East. Set to the excellent anti-Jihad song "Open Season" by Stuck Mojo.

Warning to anyone with a low tolerance for obscenity: twice the mf word is used and toward the end the f word is used. Great video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9oX5Q2ftmA&NR=1

Posted by: traeh at September 22, 2007 9:36 AM

Cleaned. Sighted. Accessible. Prepared.

Posted by: tsarbomba29 at September 22, 2007 9:47 AM

"Just here to do the jobs ordinary Americans won't do....

Posted by: americanmadestrat"

.....hmmmmm, like honor killings, amputations because some stupid Shar'ia law mandates it, beating your wife because she showed a little bit too much of the ankle or because she went to the market by herself, executing some cartoonist who happened to draw a cartoon depicting Mo in some fashion that the Muslims disagree with, executing some film maker who made a short film depicting Muslim behavior, executing some editor for printing a not so positive editorial regarding Islam, executing the rape victim and/or pardoning the rapist because the rape could not provide 4 witnesses, executing children for watching soccer games on tv, chaining the doors of a school , thereby allowing the female students to burn to death because they were not wear the "proper" Islamic clothing, forcing photographers, authors, journalists, teachers and others into hiding in fear for their lives because they have a different opinion of Islam, .......well, you may begin to get the idea there many jobs the Muslims will do that the Americans won't......but the best solution is to Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 22, 2007 9:48 AM

(PLEASE POST THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AT OTHER WEBSITES)

The U.S. Senate Project (an initiative to increase congressional awareness of the nature and goals of jihad) currently has 91 volunteers in 41 states.

WE ARE STILL SEEKING ADDITIONAL CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FROM ALL 50 STATES, ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWING 10:

Connecticut
Delaware
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

THE PROJECT: We're looking for people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase, from Amazon or any other source, a copy of Robert Spencer's new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't and mail it, on an agreed upon date, to one of the senators in your state. We want to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the U.S. House of Representatives.

If you'd like to participate (or you just have questions), please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading "Senate," and tell me the state your senator represents, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.

And visit jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.

Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.

Right before each of us mails the book, we’ll issue a press release to media outlets in as many states as possible, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.

One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the Anti-Jihad Caucus in Congress. When we reach the goal of having all 100 senators covered, I'll call Rep. Myrick's office and see if she can help. I've called several congressional offices to get advice on how best to proceed.

Posted by: traeh at September 22, 2007 10:01 AM

"We found no documented evidence of ... immigrants from state sponsors of terrorism committing any terrorist acts," said the GAO, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress."

That is one of the guidlines? --Never mind what the source of this kind of thinking comes from and is so aptly present in the Islamic mind if he is a good fundamental practicing Muslim.

Posted by: Mackie at September 22, 2007 10:24 AM

....I suspect they immigration officials did their usual woeful background checks ....translated as non exixtent.....

....I doubt they were photographed, fingerprinted and I am sure they did not give DNA samples...

...many people say Israels Olhmert is creating absolute suicide for the Israeli people.....I get a sense our government is creating absolute suicide for the American people...

....surely, I am residing in the TwiLight Zone....

.....somewhere in the future I see I may have a need for my stockpile of weapons and ammo....get yours ready....

....after lunch...I will send yet another letter to my Congressmen and Senators and I will make another useless plea for a Muslim Immigration Ban...I have never received a reply....I feel I am represented by closet moveon.org politicians....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 22, 2007 10:55 AM

I’m soliciting investors to help purchase a parcel of land in Crawford, Texas. I have a plan to build a large Section Eight-focused apartment complex. From what I understand, Texas has very loose land use planning restrictions.

Posted by: pez at September 22, 2007 10:56 AM

If we can't ban muslim immigration then we need to at least make sure that they are inetegrated into American society.

How can we do it?!

Posted by: pvb at September 22, 2007 11:10 AM

and I suppose that those who've come in on this program are now eligible to bring in their extended families making the number exponentially higher.

UUUGGGHHH

Who in the State Dept is/are responsible for this program and others like them????

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at September 22, 2007 11:48 AM

"Suicidal idiocy"

Unless the 3,703 from Sudan were Christians and Animists from the south, but almost certainly no such distinction is/was being made.

Unless the 3,164 from Iran were oppressed minorities or regime dissidents, but almost certainly no such distinction is/was being made.

Unless the 2,763 from Cuba were anti-Castro dissidents, but almost certainly no such distinction is/was being made.

Unless the 162 from Syria were anti-Baathist dissidents, but almost certainly no such distinction is/was being made.

Actually I'm surprised it's not even worse than this. I figured the list would be chock full of Yemenis, Saudis, Algerians, Egyptians, Lebanese (you know, Hizbollah supporters like 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Jihad' in Dearborn), etc.

Posted by: alexon at September 22, 2007 12:41 PM

pvb,

You cant force them. They have to want to.

Posted by: Elric66 at September 22, 2007 12:42 PM

"I’m soliciting investors to help purchase a parcel of land in Crawford, Texas. I have a plan to build a large Section Eight-focused apartment complex. From what I understand, Texas has very loose land use planning restrictions.

Posted by: pez"

....you ain't buying Cindys old place? are ya?...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 22, 2007 1:04 PM

I'm nt so sure we should be worried.

My understanding is that the majority of Arabs in this country are Christians.

I suspect that might be true of these immigrants to: Perhaps they are Christians and other religious minorities who are fleeing persecution from sharia states? Do we have a religious breakdown of these immigrants?

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at September 22, 2007 1:52 PM

Does the report give a religious break up of the immigrants from terrorist countries? I agree that it is suicide to admit Muslim immigrants, but is it possible that some proportion of immigrants were actually christians or other persecuted minorities escaping muslim oppression?

Posted by: karyakarta92 at September 22, 2007 2:00 PM

zorkots family are heavily involved in supporting hezbullah. zorkot's web site which promotes terror is still up and running. the web site is registered by a sam zorkot who also runs an import carpet factory, he imports from the lebanon. i sent my information to a well known anti terror org. their reply to me was sarcastic and bloody rude. i fear that no one gives a damn as to who is coming in. "fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them here". bollocks, they are here and our governments do not want us to know. a nuke will go off in a major US city. maybe 2 or 3. the bomb will be smuggled in via syria or iran, built in north korea. our open borders and ports will make it easy to have this imported.

who will we trust once this bomb/blackmail happens?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at September 22, 2007 2:33 PM

From the article:

The GAO said the State Department expressed disappointment with the report's findings and rejected recommendations that the department compile more comprehensive data on fraud activity and formulate a new strategy for combating it.

......

So, my question is, how does the State Department get away with blowing off a GAO recommendation concerning national security ... unless the Bush administration is tacitly endorsing this ludicrous Diversity Visa Program, or is not willing to contradict the entrenched mulitulturalists running the State Department? Either way, this is totally unacceptable.

This administration's suicidal border policy is guaranteeing that we will indeed, someday soon, have to "Fight them over here."

Check out this website to see how the State Department is enabling the global jihad with our tax dollars:

http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Paleologos at September 22, 2007 2:59 PM

A simple way for curtailment would be to require an exchange program. For every "refugee" the state department admits, one of their bureaucrats must go live at the former residence of the "refugee". And lose their citizenship too... watch how fast the denial forms fly out of the copier.

Posted by: senor doeboy at September 22, 2007 3:50 PM

Celsius

They changed our immigration policy so that a few congressmen could tell themselves how tolerant and wonderful they are.

I wonder how many of these congressmen live in all white gated communities? They never seem to have to carry the burden of their own decisions, and that's the problem with our politicians.

Posted by: GuitarBob at September 22, 2007 4:02 PM

posted by pvb: If we can't ban muslim immigration then we need to at least make sure that they are inetegrated into American society.

How can we do it?!

--------------------------

Simple. Accept the invitation to Islam that OBL sent us all.

Posted by: DP111 at September 22, 2007 4:42 PM

Actually, Catholic Charities is the main importer of moslems from third world terrorist domains. Mostly from Somalia. And the funny part is that they are moving them into the New England area.

Remember the ham sandwich of blasphemy? It happened in a very small town in sleepy Maine.

Posted by: Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis at September 22, 2007 5:18 PM

zorkot zorkot zorkot!!! does anyone else care about this more than me? does anyone give a crap that hezbullah are being arrested within the US and not being charged with a terror offence.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at September 22, 2007 5:24 PM

Hey, hey, hey....you heard the Prez. Islam is a RoP®

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 22, 2007 5:34 PM

Iraq was premature. Afghanistan was premature too. Taking the fight abroad when the enemy is on the home field is premature by nature.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 22, 2007 6:34 PM

"zorkot zorkot zorkot!!! does anyone else care about this more than me? does anyone give a crap that hezbullah are being arrested within the US and not being charged with a terror offence.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer"

Yes, I certainly care. But too many people around me get all of their news from either CNN or NPR and think President Bush is a bigger threat than the Islamists. It is hard to even be taken seriously. When I talk about Zorkot and the USF students and the Arabs at the Orlando airport discovered with explosive related equipment in their bags, I just get a blank uncomfortable stare before they change the subject.

I've had to take days off from reading JW and other blogs because the events transpiring are too disturbing and I have trouble sleeping some nights (which I've never had before).

At some point I have to believe that the Americans who will care, will wake up. Unfortunately I fear that by that time a true solution will be too costly.

Posted by: cumulusnine at September 22, 2007 6:38 PM

"That would be Ted Kennedy, - who hates his white bread world, and himself."

-posted by Borg

No, this would be Ted Kennedy- who was recently photographed sunning himself on the California coast, surrounded by aides and admirers:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-whale15sep15,1,4125655.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

Posted by: november1981 at September 22, 2007 6:42 PM

In our government, the left hand doesn't know there even is a right hand,

Posted by: tanstaafl at September 22, 2007 8:13 PM

Yes, in the late 60's and early 70's, immigration policy was changed to favor people from third world, non-European countries. People from Western Europe are at the back of the line.

I think it was done to get economic deals concerning natural resources and etc. Not to mention make the US a "global village."

Posted by: Itachi at September 22, 2007 9:37 PM

We found no documented evidence of ... immigrants from state sponsors of terrorism committing any terrorist acts," said the GAO, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress.

So.... what does that mean?
You will only ban these people if it turns out they, God forbid, manage to commit another 9/11 style atrocity.

None of them should be in any Western country.
The door should have closed a long time ago.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at September 22, 2007 10:25 PM

Meanwhile.. a glimpse of GOOD NEWS.. a small village of 339 souls in South England is FIGHTING BACK.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2492732.ece

Read it all:

September 20, 2007
Villagers get the only vote on EU
Simon de Bruxelles

DORSET An EU referendum will take place today, but only in the tiny parish of East Stoke.

The village, population 339, will have its say thanks to a little used clause in the Local Government Act 1972 which permits a parish poll on any subject if at least ten people are in favour. Residents of East Stoke in the Isle of Purbeck put the matter to a show of hands at a parish meeting last month.

The mini-referendum was arranged by the UK Independence Party, which is campaigning for similar local votes elsewhere. Today’s vote is not on the reform treaty itself, but on whether there should be a national referendum.

Darren Patterson, a local activist, said: “We are hoping for a good turnout and hope about 100 people will vote.” However, Barry Quinn, a Conservative Purbeck district councillor, said that it was a waste of money that would be better spent on refurbishing the war memorial.

After East Stoke, the 865 residents of Lanteglos, near Fowey, in Cornwall will stage a parish poll on the same subject.

* Have your say

A loophole, really an error, in local government law allows a very small number of citizens of a parish to force a district council to hold a referendum. Clearly, our right to protest against government policy is important and the initiative shown by the activists in this case is praiseworthy.

However, the democratic instrument ("parish poll") regulated in the Act of 1972 is defective and the regulations should be revised, preferably as part of a reform which entrenches our democratic rights of citizen-initiated referendum at all levels of governance.

For instance, only a substantial number of electors, not a handful, should be needed in order to trigger a referendum. A sliding scale, currently used in The Netherlands, offers a guide to proportion of "signatures" needed, depending on size of the political unit (village, town, city etc.).

More detail about "citizens' democracy" is at
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
http://www.iniref.org/

Rgds
Dr. Michael Macpherson

Michael Macpherson, Guildford, Surrey

Good for UKIP ! Lets have one organised in every Parish in the country, the results collated and the facts given to Gordon Brown.

Steve, London, UK

Yes a vote on the EU

warren knight, st.albans, England

Notice the "Dr" replying top this news. He is obviously irked that these people are exercising what he considers a "loophole".. those "uneducated rubes" have no business voting on importantr things like EUSSR membership or super-mosk-building in England.. OH NO! Can't have that!!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 22, 2007 11:51 PM

We found no documented evidence of ... immigrants from state sponsors of terrorism committing any terrorist acts," said the GAO, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress.

Non-partisan really means... united against us all. Kind of like a bunch of EUSSR Komissars.. unelected powerhungry self-important perk-sucking taxmoney-wastrels who look down on you and me.

They know better than us voting sheeples.....

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 22, 2007 11:54 PM

Diversity visas.. there's NO diversity in terrorism. And no, ONE Timothy McVeigh just doesn't cut it as a counter aqrgument. Sorry moFoes.

Jihadwatch is a kitman-free zone.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 22, 2007 11:57 PM

@exsgtbrown

"....I suspect they immigration officials did their usual woeful background checks ....translated as non exixtent.....

....I doubt they were photographed, fingerprinted and I am sure they did not give DNA samples..."

Anybody getting an immigrant visa is photographed, fingerprinted, as well as having to pass a physical examination.

You might want to actually do a little online research about this (I'd recommend starting at www.dhs.gov) before making yourself appear ignorant with your pronouncements.

Respectully,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 12:38 AM

@ KAOSKTRL

"Id say that number is significantly under inflated

October 23, 2005
Over 10,000 Saudi Students bound for the United States
How else should we reward our certified ally in the war on terror? From Asharq Al-Awsat:

More than 10,000 Saudi students will travel to the US to attend university as part of a government-sponsored program following the adoption of new measures by the Ministry of Higher Education aimed at facilitating travel procedures for Saudis. In total, 21,000 Saudis are expected to take part in the program in the next four years.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008674.php"

Bear in mind that student visas are a class of Non-Immigrant Visas (NIV) whereas the Diversity Visa (DV) program is part of the Immigrant Visa category.

Two different things, although I take your point as to the student's origins.

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 12:42 AM

@ eve_anne_gelical

"and I suppose that those who've come in on this program are now eligible to bring in their extended families making the number exponentially higher.

UUUGGGHHH

Who in the State Dept is/are responsible for this program and others like them????"

You raise two points. In order:

1. When the DV lottery winner immigrates, they can bring their spouse and minor children with them as derivative beneficiaries.

a. Once receiving an I-551 (i.e., a "green card"), a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR; that is, the former DV immigrant) may petition to sponsor certain classes of relatives. Some of those categories of relatives are numerically-limited each year. It's kind of a technical subject.

b. Once an LPR naturalizes and becomes a U.S. citizen, their ability to petition to sponsor relatives increases somewhat. Again, kind of a technical subject as to which relatives and how quickly it can actually happen.

c. Petitioning to sponsor an immigrant visa, as LPRs and Amcits can do, isn't at all automatically successful process. A number of factors come into play, such as gaining medical clearances, overcoming the "public charge" ineligibility, paying the increasingly high DHS and State Dept. processing and application fees, &tc. Not that there isn't plenty of opportunity to attempt fraud.

2. The responsible entities/agencies are, in order, the U.S. Congress(es) (those which passed the Immigration and Nationalities Act, as amended), the U.S. President(s) (who signed the bill into law, plus those who've signed amendments thereto), the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (successor agency to INS), and the U.S. Department of State (specifically the Bureau of Consular Affairs or "CA").

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 12:56 AM

@ Paleologos

"So, my question is, how does the State Department get away with blowing off a GAO recommendation concerning national security ... unless the Bush administration is tacitly endorsing this ludicrous Diversity Visa Program, or is not willing to contradict the entrenched mulitulturalists running the State Department? Either way, this is totally unacceptable."

The State Department didn't invent the DV program. The DV program is part and parcel of the Immigration and Nationalities Act (INA) passed by Congress. The Department doesn't have the luxury of deciding which parts of which laws passed by Congress it will implement, when said laws direct the Department to do so.

I'm sure with just a little bit of inquisitiveness you can find out who precisely in our Congress gave the country the Diversity Visa program.

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 1:03 AM

@ senor doeboy

"A simple way for curtailment would be to require an exchange program. For every "refugee" the state department admits, one of their bureaucrats must go live at the former residence of the "refugee". And lose their citizenship too... watch how fast the denial forms fly out of the copier."

That's really funny but you're missing the point.

The State Department doesn't get to invent these programs out of thin air. They are required to implement them by Act of Congress. So rather than make this a punitive action (by act of congress?) against those who are fulfilling their sworn duties and oaths of office (i.e., foreign service officers), get Congress to change the law to something more to your liking.

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 1:08 AM

Consul-At-Arms

With just a little bit of analysis you could tell that my point was that the State Department was blowing off GAO's security recommendations,

...rejected recommendations that the department compile more comprehensive data on fraud activity and formulate a new strategy for combating it.

and making it easier for potential terrorists to enter the country.

I never said the State Department invented the DV program. That doesn't change the fact that this is stupid and dangerous policy. GAO is noting that the way State is administering DV increases the risk to this country. Therefore, the State department, if you will, is making this an even more stupid and more dangerous policy than our bright lights in congress originally crafted.

Posted by: Paleologos at September 23, 2007 2:18 AM

Oh great, nowI need to buy 10,000 MORE rounds of ammo!!!!

Posted by: ooddballz at September 23, 2007 5:34 AM

@ Paleologos,

Sorry if my "inquisitiveness" remark sounded snarkier than I intended. I only meant to steer you towards answering just who in Congress (and still serving!) saddled the U.S. with the DV program.

The Department already does put quite a bit of effort into fraud prevention. The Reuters article is a bit opaque in that it reports what GAO apparently says about the State Department's response to a GAO report rather than the Department's own response. Why do you suppose that is?

Recall that the GAO is a creature of Congress.

As I noted in my first comment above (2nd in the thread), one of the provisions in the failed immigration reform bill this past summer (reportedly) would have abolished the DV program.

While I would happily cheer such a development (apart from the huge problems other parts of the reform bill would have enacted), my own preference would be to refine the criteria by which participating DV countries are chosen to 1.) NATO countries; 2.) Coalition (of the Willing, i.e., those helping in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa) partners; and 3.) Japan, Australia, and (probably) New Zealand.

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 7:50 PM

@ Paleologos,

Sorry if my "inquisitiveness" remark sounded snarkier than I intended. I only meant to steer you towards answering just who in Congress (and still serving!) saddled the U.S. with the DV program.

The Department already does put quite a bit of effort into fraud prevention. The Reuters article is a bit opaque in that it reports what GAO apparently says about the State Department's response to a GAO report rather than the Department's own response. Why do you suppose that is?

Recall that the GAO is a creature of Congress.

As I noted in my first comment above (2nd in the thread), one of the provisions in the failed immigration reform bill this past summer (reportedly) would have abolished the DV program.

While I would happily cheer such a development (apart from the huge problems other parts of the reform bill would have enacted), my own preference would be to refine the criteria by which participating DV countries are chosen to 1.) NATO countries; 2.) Coalition (of the Willing, i.e., those helping in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa) partners; and 3.) Japan, Australia, and (probably) New Zealand.

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 23, 2007 7:57 PM

Consul-At-Arms,

I appreciate the niceties of your position, and I grant you that the lawmakers are more culpable here. However, I am not willing to give either Bush (who I voted for) or the State Department a clean bill of health on the Diversity Program, and certainly not Congress. My general point is that our government, in total, is dropping the ball in its most important function which is security.

This quote from the Steve Emerson interview referenced at the JW site today, is telling:

The new book and documentary film I'm working on -The Grand Deception - is about how the US government, the media and the intelligentsia are witting and unwitting enablers of radical Islam, by accepting front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood or for Hamas as credible and legitimate. This is particularly egregious at the highest levels of the government - such as the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and the FBI - who meet and greet groups they should be investigating, not embracing. This sends a terrible signal to genuine Muslim moderates and the Muslim rank-and-file, reinforcing their sense that it is the radical groups who are respected by the government.

*********
Would you agree that improper vetting of immigrants under the DV Program is another avenue whereby our government branches are acting as "witting and unwitting enablers of radical Islam" as Emerson has noted?

Posted by: Paleologos at September 24, 2007 12:39 AM

@ Paleologos,

"Would you agree that improper vetting of immigrants under the DV Program is another avenue whereby our government branches are acting as "witting and unwitting enablers of radical Islam" as Emerson has noted?"

DV applicants are vetted in several stages. First by DHS, to establish their eligibility, and then again by State. State's piece, implemented by overseas personnel of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, acts to prevent fraud as well as verifying that the individual immigrants do indeed qualify, and that they're not otherwise ineligible.

Consular officers are limited in their discretion as far finding someone ineligible; we have to apply the law as it's written, not as we'd like it to be.

Mr. Emerson has done great work in the past and I look forward to reading his new book when it comes out. I'd recommend any of his previous writings, going all the way back to Secret Warriors.

"accepting front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood or for Hamas as credible and legitimate. This is particularly egregious at the highest levels of the government"

Sadly, Mr. Emerson has a valid point there. This goes right to the top of the executive, however, and doesn't have a lot to do with rank-and-file State Department carying out congressionally-mandated programs. Since approximately 9/12/2001, the president has consistently taken the approach that we are not in a civilizational conflict, that there are moderate (majority) elements in the Islamic world, and consistently acted to engage friendly and/or not-actively-hostile regimes there. Even in terms of this approach, some of our "outreach" is misguided and uneven in application, as witness just about any engagement with CAIR not involving incarceration.

v/r,

CAA

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 24, 2007 1:42 AM

@ DominvsVobiscvm. You wrote:

"I'm not so sure we should be worried.
My understanding is that the majority of Arabs in this country are Christians."

You are referring to Sudan? Then no, there aren't many Arab Christians in Sudan. The Christians in the south of the country are Black African Christians and Animists.

Posted by: alexon at September 24, 2007 2:43 AM

Bringing in more of those who believe that it is their religious duty to overthrow the U.S.

Suicide, thy name is Tolerance.

Posted by: profitsbeard at September 25, 2007 1:40 AM