San Bernardino jihadist Syed Farook used two rifles in his murderous rampage that were purchased by a friend, Enrique Marquez. According to published reports, Marquez is expected to face charges in the ongoing investigation into last week’s terrorist attack. As it turns out, Farook and Marquez are related by marriage, and Marquez told investigators that he and Farook had discussed plans for a terrorist attack in 2012.
San Bernardino jihadist Syed Farook used two rifles in his murderous rampage that were purchased by a friend, Enrique Marquez. According to published reports, Marquez is expected to face charges in the ongoing investigation into last week’s terrorist attack.
As it turns out, Farook and Marquez are related by marriage, and Marquez told investigators that he and Farook had discussed plans for a terrorist attack in 2012.
Many in the media have asked how a native born Muslim like Farook could have become radicalized on his own. Much attention was initially focused on his foreign wife, Tashfeen Malik, as if she had radicalized him.
The FBI says that is not the case. Both were radicalized years ago (we know Farook was planning terror attacks in 2012) and Malik did not enter the country until last year. Even the front page of [yesterday’s] New York Times notes that serious questions are being raised about the thoroughness of our immigration vetting process.
And while we’re on the subject of Islamic jihadists, do you remember the stabbings at a California university last month? Local officials still won’t call the attack Islamic terrorism.
But Fox News is reporting that the attacker, Faisal Mohammad, had a photocopy of the ISIS flag and was described by his Muslim roommate as “an extreme Muslim.” He left behind a manifesto in which he wrote that he wanted to “cut someone’s head off” and repeatedly wrote “Praise Allah.”
Mohammad’s rampage was interrupted by a construction worker, Byron Price, who was also attacked when he confronted Mohammad. His father, John, is furious that authorities are being blinded by political correctness. The elder Price said:
“Why don’t we just call it what it is — domestic terrorism? Everyone is afraid to be politically incorrect… it seems like to me we aren’t getting the whole story. I just wonder how much of this is driven from way higher up…”
Muslims & Radicalism
Perhaps our political and media elites should take time out from denouncing Donald Trump and read the latest column by Byron York in the Washington Examiner. York summarizes the findings from the Pew Research Center’s latest polls regarding the level of support among American Muslims for violence in defense of Islam.
First, let me state the obvious: These results came from a poll, meaning Muslims had to acknowledge their support for violent jihad. The numbers are likely understated. But here are the key findings:
“In the United States, Pew found that 81 percent of U.S. Muslims say such violence is never justified, 5 percent say it is rarely justified, 7 percent say it is sometimes justified and 1 percent say it is often justified. Six percent say they don’t know.”
So, 12% of American Muslims say violence in the name of Islam could sometimes be justified. One percent says it is often justified. By Pew’s count there are roughly three million Muslims in America.
So let’s do the math.
About 2.5 million American Muslims reject violence in the name of Islam. That’s good.
But 12% of 3 million equals 360,000 Muslims who are willing to tell pollsters that violence might be justified.
And one percent, or 30,000 American Muslims, freely say that violence in the name of Islam is often justified.
Keep in mind, the poll does not ask Muslims questions like: Do you believe the Holocaust happened? What is your attitude toward Jews? What should happen to people who convert from Islam to another faith?
So, I go back to a question I have been repeatedly raising. American immigration law is supposed to advance or serve some needed public policy interest.
What public policy is served by allowing into the country hundreds of thousands of people who do not share the Judeo-Christian value system the country was founded upon? What interest is advanced by allowing in large numbers of individuals who may well harbor deep-seated hatreds of Christians and Jews?
About That Ban…
A new Rasmussen poll finds that 46% of Americans (including 30% of Democrats) support the idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, while 40% oppose the idea. Once again, our political and media elites appear to be completely out-of-sync with the American people.
Start a conversation using these share links: