Last week an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal that gave me pause even as it evoked outrage. It proved that India has more backbone than America does where it concerns portraying Islamic terror in films.

The article was penned by Arun Venugopal. The writer is a young Indian-born, American-raised reporter who has knocked about in both Bollywood and the American film communities, and his piece is an eye opener.

Venugopal’s piece should enrage anyone who comes to realize that India’s Bollywood film industry is able to portray Muslims as the evil villain of its films while America’s Hollywood shrinks from such common sense portrayals. And if you’ll forgive the somewhat mixed metaphor of my title, it’s all because the cowboys of the American west don’t have the spine to buck PCism while the Indians of the east don’t seem to have the slightest qualms about telling it like it is.

Venugopal notes that the Indian film industry does not shy away from a “full throttle” portrayal of Islamic terror in its films.

…terrorism narratives are pursued full throttle, and where Islamic radicalism and the suffering it causes come together in extravagant form. Whereas Hollywood focuses on bumptious American bureaucrats and politicians (”Syriana,” “Lions for Lambs”), troubled soldiers (”Stop-Loss”) and ruthlessly efficient superagents, India makes movies about actual terrorists, based on its long, painful history of domestic extremism.

And what of America? Have we not lost countless soldiers to Islamic terror and thousands of our civilians as well? Certainly we haven’t lost as many as India, nor have we suffered from Islamic terror for the many decades that they have, but have we not been bled?

Of course we have. But it isn’t for lack of harm that our film industry is so reticent to portray Muslims as terrorists. No, it is because we suffer from the west’s penchant to political correctness, a foolish, self-destructive tendency from which the Indian people do not suffer.

Sadly, India’s film traditions are so alien to America that few of their films will ever gain much notice in America and the lesson that they could teach us in the case of Islamic terror will go unseen by most Americans. It’s a shame, too, because it is a lesson we need to inculcate.

Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but in this day and age, most terrorists are Muslim. It really is just that simple and it is a simplicity that our PC attitudes prevent us from learning at our own peril.

The Indians understand this lesson well. Unfortunately, the America under Barack Obama is hiding her head in the sand and pretending not to see the truth that stares her in the face.

If it takes a few seemingly silly movies with weird dance numbers and kisses implied but always unseen on screen to bring that lesson home, then crank up the sitars, will you?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged in the Fort Hood shootings, was too fat and “chronically” unprofessional during his psychiatric training, according to internal e-mails exchanged by his superiors.

The communications are the latest in a series of early signs that showed officers had reason to suspend Maj. Hasan’s training, and perhaps re-evaluate his suitability as a military physician, but failed to do so.

Yet, his bosses at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington allowed him to complete his residency in 2007, enter an advanced fellowship program, win promotion to major and transfer to Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009.

It was there on Nov. 5, while shouting “God is great,” Maj. Hasan fatally shot 13 Army colleagues, according to witnesses.

Hasan’s other shortcomings include his enthusiasm for Islam:

The e-mails highlight another point at which the U.S. military government could have intervened to stop Maj. Hasan’s career before the shooting. The FBI and other intelligence agencies learned that Maj. Hasan had sent e-mail messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda-affiliated radical imam in Yemen who urged followers to join the terrorist group and kill Americans.

Hasan hadn’t put in sufficient months in a psychiatric clinic to complete his residency. But Army bureaucrats — no doubt terrified of being accused of “racism” against a Muslim — pushed him through anyway.

Then came Maj. Hasan’s research project that was required for completing the residency. Walter Reed calls the practice, “Psychiatry Scholarly Activity Oral Presentation at the Psychiatry Regularly Scheduled Conference.” Maj. Hasan chose not a psychiatric topic, per se, but one titled, “Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” The slide presentation promoted Islamic law over the U.S. Constitution.

That is, the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Army brass had found just the guy to serve as a psychiatrist, counseling soldiers returning from battle with terrorists who share Hasan’s ideology.

Predictably, the Affirmative Action mentality that led to Hasan being shuffled forward as if he were qualified didn’t turn out so well. Even Army Chief of Staff General George Casey was alarmed at the outcome:

“It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”

Not to worry, liberals: the Army resolved to double down on the head-in-the-sand political correctness that put Hasan in a position to pull off his terrorist killing spree.

On a tip from Edward. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see”–
Alice of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Clearly the left are Aliceites. They are aficionados of Alice viewing the world through the looking glass. They want a world of nonsense, a world devoid of meaning so that everything can be molded and morphed at will into anything that appeals to temporary desires. It is called situational ethics, which are, of course, no ethics at all.

Today we have two examples of this, one in America and one in England. We’ll focus on England first.

The UK Telegraph is reporting about the new it, the new thing assuming a status of “personhood,” a genderless human. That’s right the Telegraph is purporting that a British citizen is “officially” a genderless human, neither male nor female.

Norrie May-Welby, we are told, was born a man but had a sex change operation in 1990. For a time this “person” lived as a woman. But now she-he-it has decided that, “The concepts of man or woman don’t fit me. The simplest solution is not to have any sex identification.”

And so, the Aliceites in British government decided to comply and make May-Welby an “official” person of “no specific gender.”

Just as the Brits claimed to have the first man to have a baby back in 2008, now the Brits claim to have the first genderless person. But true to their Aliceite tendencies, neither is true and both “would be what it isn’t.”

You see, the “first man to have a baby” was never a man — born a woman, period — and the first “genderless person” was born a man and is still despite the cosmetic veneer carved into his flesh.

My second story is in Washington D.C. where President Obama and his minions in Congress are trying to pass a bill that no one has voted for using the so-called process of “deeming” and the “Slaughter rule.”

Democrats can’t get enough votes for their socialist takeover of America’s healthcare system so, instead of applying the centuries old process of campaigning for a law, writing a law, and then seeing that law voted up or down by our duly elected representatives, the Democrats are peering through the looking glass to find the Aliceite way to pass a bill into law without anyone voting at all.

Just like the left in the west is making murderous Islam a protected class, just as it imagines it can create an economy by stifling business, just as these illogical nits imagine that they can destroy all history and make the world new merely by saying so, they’ve created a world where “nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t.”

As the Wall Street Journal says, “We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are.” But the WSJ is only focused on U.S. politics. A wider view would find that we are all Aliceites now.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

True to its fealty to left-wing, western pop psychology, the Associated Press thinks it knows one of the principle reasons why roving gangs of Muslims are hacking Christians to death and burning their villages to the ground in Nigeria: It’s “poverty.”

Liberals that struggle to understand why man is often so cruel to his fellows seem always to have assumed that poverty is a key factor in violence and crime, but rarely it is the factor that liberals assume it to be. Poverty is no picnic, but it is not the cause of crime and violence. It is more likely a symptom itself rather than a catalyst.

It’s a chicken and egg question, of course. What came first, the poverty or the crime? But the simple fact of the matter is that poverty is seen in every corner of the Earth, yet crime rates vary wildly from area to area and era to era. So, if poverty is constant and is the catalyst for crime, why doesn’t crime hold at a fairly constant rate? It seems pretty obvious that crime is not directly caused by poverty.

Poverty is caused by a myriad of factors. A lack of education, racism, government oppression, social factors and the like all create poverty. But these same factors also mitigate crime in some parts of the world.

Typically, however, the AP has decided that “poverty” has caused the religious-based violence in Nigeria. While poverty most certainly is a problem in Nigeria, it has changed so little for generations that I find it hard to believe that it could be a cause of this newest wave of violence.

The real cause is both religious and cultural. That poverty abounds in the region is of little difference to the cause of the violence. The clash is between Muslims from the north and Christians in the south. It’s a fight for cultural supremacy. Poverty doesn’t figure into it very much, when all is said and done.

Yet here is the AP presenting “poverty” as a “cause” of the violence as if it is fact. The truth is that “poverty” being a catalyst for crime is a pop psychology trope, not a fact.

It is not fact.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For the Independent Weekly of Durham, North Carolina, writer Sam Wardle proves that he hasn’t a clue how the phrase “religious extremist” is properly defined. But, I’d suggest that his confusion is endemic in the far left and proves to show why so many in the west don’t understand how to face and defeat the real religious extremism of radical Islam.

In a story about Representative Sue Myrick (R, NC) and her association with The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools as juxtaposed with her condemnation of radical Islam, Wardle sees no difference between a radical Islamist that might blow himself up with a suicide vest or cut off the head of a helpless captive and a Christian American that wants to use properly constituted law to have the Holy Bible used in the classroom.

Certainly you can disagree with having the Bible used as a text in the classroom, but to say that a person that does want the Bible in the classroom is no better than a terrorist is, well, just plain stupid. It is also intellectually vapid. Unfortunately, Mr. Wardle is all too representative of the vapidity of the left that so often comes to this intellectually dishonest conclusion.

Wardle reveals his hatred of all things Christian in his IndyWeek piece titled, “For Rep. Sue Myrick, Islamic moderates are extreme, Christian extremists are moderate,” wherein he equates Rep. Myrick to a religious extremist.

Wardle starts his piece straight on with an attack on Rep. Myrick:

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) is one of North Carolina’s staunchest defenders from Islamic extremism. When it comes to Christian extremism, though, the record is more mixed.

Wardle says that Myrick’s “defense against Islamic extremism” itself borders on the extreme.

Those are pretty serious charges, of course. So what does Wardle show as his proof to bear out the finger wagging at Myrick? One of the first of Wardle’s accusations would take an Olympic gymnast’s back-bending performance to agree with. In short it is weak as heck.

However, Myrick’s concern over religious extremism seems relegated to practitioners of one religion. At the forum, she pointedly avoided applying the label of “terrorist” to Joseph Stack, the 53-year-old Texan who flew his airplane into an IRS building in Austin in February.

Whether Stack should have been termed a terrorist by Myrick or not is one question, but what it has to do with the subject of religion is anyone’s guess. Austin IRS building attacker Joe Stack had no connection to any religion whatever. He did not perpetrate his act of terror in the name of religion so Wardle’s usage of Stack as his religious foil for Myrick is insensible. But such is Wardle’s hatred for both Myrick and Christianity that any stretch is excused, apparently.

Then Wardle goes on the attack against The NCBCPS, a “right-wing evangelical group” in Wardle’s terminology. Wardle reports that the NCBCPS’ goal is to “bring a state certified (sic) Bible course (elective) into the public high schools nationwide.” He says that the group claims that it has gotten its curriculum in 532 schools in 38 states.

Wardle counters that success by revealing that this group’s school texts have been criticized as containing “shoddy research, factual errors and plagiarism.” Wardle also lays out all the other groups and Media outlets that have attacked the veracity of the NCBCPS’ offerings.

But one thing is completely missing from Wardle’s piece. Any actual “extremism.” Apparently just the fact that the NCBCPS wants to get its curriculum in a school is enough to be classified just as extreme as al Qaeda to one such as Wardle.

But implicit in the whole discussion (but only implied because Wardle does not say it) is the fact that if the NCBCPS did get its curriculum in schools in 38 states it must have done so through the legitimate process of appealing to school boards and having those schools agree to accept the program. In other words, the NCBCPS followed the same legal procedure that every other education advocate has followed.

Notice how the NCBCPS didn’t win over those schools by cutting off administrator’s heads, bombing public buildings, or killing students thereby using intimidation and violence to get its way. So, while this Christian group is certainly seriously active, to act as if they are somehow just as extreme as Islamic Radicals is idiotic.

But this is the empty logic that befalls the far left in this country. Any religion, all religion is classified as “extreme” to these people. No logic need apply.

(Originally posted at BigJournalism.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

LEAN, MEAN & “GREEN”: The Smoking Gun

Part One – By Sharon Sebastian – Website: DarwinsRacists.com

LEAN being the times Americans will face, MEAN is the method of implementation of great hardship on America, and GREEN is the radical environmental agenda sold to the world as the shill to implement the aforementioned two. Green also relates to the vast billions that a hierarchy of global elites plans to pocket specifically from Americans. So, why is President Barack Obama so obstinately determined to get his versions of Health Care and Cap-and-Trade into law over the overwhelming objection of Americans?

President Obama insists that America must be “transformed.” The President’s educational mentor, Saul Alinsky, writes that in order to gain true power to make those “transformational changes,” you must first “destroy the middle class.” That includes small businesses, farmers, elimination of individual rights and property rights, nationalizing land to protect the environment and nature, abandoning a Constitution that protects the people from tyranny, and retaining power at any cost. There also must be mass redistribution of wealth. Legislation must be enacted to bend the people to the will of government, specifically through “mandates” in Health Care and Cap-and-Trade, all of which will be enforced by fines and penalties of imprisonment. Heavy regulations are to be enforced on corporations and people alike to reduce carbon emissions. This all-too-familiar formula to regulate and control populations, pointedly Americans, appears right out of Barack Obama’s playbook. It summarizes the Progressive ideology that originated with the President — Obama’s transformation of America by his own design, right?

Wrong. It is also the blueprint set out in the “Green Charter” of the United Nations whose goal is to redistribute global wealth in order to control energy, population and power. Is it mere coincidence that Obama appears in lockstep with the U.N.’s agenda to subjugate Americans to international law and global mandates? Congress knows the plan. Members of both parties have signed on to it. A courageous few members of Congress are rising to stand against it. They rise up only because the people of this great nation are themselves rising up. This war began before most Americans knew we were engaged in it. Under attack is the sovereignty of America as a Constitution based, free market society that imbues both personal and property rights to its citizens. Forces against the American Republic have increasingly gained power over the course of the last 80+ years and now stand ready to strike a lethal blow.

Clearly, for the U.N.’s Green Charter to work (under U.N. Agenda 21), Americans must come under the jack-boot regulations of Health Care and Cap-and-Trade legislation that, when enacted, will destroy the American economy. The U.N.’s goal is for Americans to use less energy, water, food supply and other natural resources that can be shifted to the third world. That the President’s agenda appears aligned with the U.N. indicates a higher calling for the President beyond America’s best interest. For the most part, the U.N. is supported politically primarily by third world dictators, Arab nations, and international players, such as George Soros, who know if you can control energy and health, you control everything.

This socialist-globalist agenda also explains a great deal about the people with whom the President surrounds himself. Obama’s handpicked appointments include his initial “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, a self-described communist who held powerful oversight as “green jobs” advisor to the President. A 9/11 Truther, Jones advocated redistribution of wealth and accused “white polluters” of steering poison into minority communities. Obama’s Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom states, “We agree with [Communist Dictator] Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of the gun” and “We know that the free market is nonsense.” Obama chose Diversity/Media Czar Mark Lloyd who openly admired Hugo Chavez’ socialist revolution in Venezuela. Czar Cass Sunstein wrote a radical environmental view that “animals could be plaintiffs and sue humans in court,” Science Czar John Holdren wrote of putting steralents in drinking water to control human population, political strategist Anita Dunne claims irony when she stated Communist Dictator Mao (who killed millions to stay in power) was “one of her favorite political philosophers.” There is globalist Harold Koh, Obama’s Chief Council at the State Department who represents the U.S. in matters of international law. Koh has reportedly stated a preference for the international rule of law over the U.S. Constitution, whereby Americans and the American military would be tried in international court for violations. Koh, meanwhile, entertained the possibility of Shariah (Islamic) Law’s place in America’s legal system. Then, there is the President’s political ally and Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who has said on-camera that he considers the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion “to be highly over rated.” The list goes on. Putting people in power with communist, socialist and globalist backgrounds indicates to Americans that maybe this President’s motives are not pure.

From average citizens to news analysts, Americans are puzzled by the inexplicable. Americans are perplexed at how the Obama administration finds unprecedented ways to drain the U.S. treasury, while on-camera the President declares straight-faced, “We have to finds ways to cut spending.” Unable to contain the waste and corruption erupting out of his own current TARP and Stimulus plans, how can Obama be trusted to track down half a trillion dollars in Medicare fraud? If he turns a blind-eye to reports that TARP money, that was to be returned to tax payers, is reportedly being used as campaign slush funds to elect members of his own party – can he be taken at face value? This president, in reality, is not a chameleon though he seemingly changes at will. He has a goal. Is Obama’s desired legacy to be the President, the consequential historical figure that “changed America,” unhinged it from its founding…no matter the consequences? In the face of this “change,” Americans need to do a lot more than “hope.”

Part Two: LEAN, MEAN & “GREEN”: Takedown of America by Sharon Sebastian follows.

Also see: Previous article OBAMA & THE UN: Agenda: 21

Sharon Sebastian (http://www.DarwinsRacists.com) is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington. Website: DarwinsRacists.com

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

We send our young adults to university to be educated in the ways of the world, we all know. Following that well-worn path, young James Schackleford decided on the publicly funded Florida Atlantic University for his edification and boy did he learn a lesson about modern education last week. Mr. Schackleford learned that the FAU administration prefers on its campus Islamic terrorist supporters over representatives of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom organization. He also learned that it’s open season on all conservatives at our American universities.

At the Boca Raton campus Mr. Schackleford determined that his school needed a chapter of YAF, a 40-year-old conservative student organization, and so gathered a few like-minded students to meet with YAF State Director Daniel P. Diaz to discuss how they should proceed on organizing a chapter in the school.

As the few gathered were meeting, university administrator *David Blank burst into the room and demanded that they cease their meeting and vacate the room. According to the YAF press release, Mr. Diaz asked for an additional 15 minutes to finish and Blank acquiesced to the request. But the 15-minute grant was short lived.

Upon hearing Diaz address the liberal bias on the FAU campus, Blank stopped the meeting again and boorishly ordered the students to vacate the meeting room. Blank the shut off the room lights, tore down the group’s promotional posters, and called the campus police.

It didn’t end there. According to YAF, the campus police arrived and began to harass the students and Mr. Diaz outside as they were in the process of leaving the campus. The police demanded to see student IDs and then menacingly followed YAF rep. Diaz to his car.

Police told Diaz that they were investigating a “possible trespassing charge,” and then loudly joked that Diaz “probably had tea bags hanging out the back of his car” as Diaz prepared to leave.

Diaz says that the whole incident is proof positive of why a conservative group is needed at Florida Atlantic University.

“If we were a Marxist, Socialist or Liberal group they would have let us finish our meeting, but the university officials and police harassed us because we are conservatives. This was the exact liberal bias on campus that I was discussing in the meeting that these future YAFers experienced firsthand. The university is no longer a place of open discussion and freedom of expression, but a breeding ground of intolerance for conservative beliefs.”

One question immediately comes to mind over this incident: did student organizer Schackleford and YAF representative Diaz officially reserve a room at FAU for their informal meeting? I asked Diaz this very question.

Diaz told me that since it was an informal meeting that should have been over rather quickly, Mr. Schackleford did not think that he needed to officially reserve a room through the university staff. In fact, according to Diaz, himself a former FAU student, such unscheduled meetings occur all the time.

No we did not reserve a room. When I was a student at the university when a room wasn’t being occupied one could go in and meet or study, and as long they left before the next scheduled group arrived they would be ok. After asking around that is how it still is.

In retrospect it was an obvious lapse in judgment not to officially reserve a room. Or perhaps they should have met off campus.

However, that small lapse in judgment does not absolve this oppressive, over-the-top reaction that university administrator David Blank exhibited. After all, not long ago Florida Atlantic University hosted a whole slew of Islamic terror supporters on campus. In 2006, for instance, the Muslim students group at FAU hosted an event at which appeared Hamas and Hezbollah supporter, Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan; alleged Neo-Nazi, William Baker; and potential co-conspirator of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Siraj Wahhaj.

Apparently it’s perfectly O.K., as far as the FAU administration is concerned, to have Islamofascist terror given full-throated support on its campus but it is a serious no-no to talk about organizing a patriotic American conservative student’s organization there.

Perhaps Mr. Diaz is right in his contention that a YAF chapter is sorely needed at Florida Atlantic University?

*David Blank appears to be the Event Planning Specialist for the Student Union at FAU. He can be reached at dblank@fau.edu.

(Updated to correct that it was Mr. Diaz that asked for the additional 15 minutes to finish the meeting. Originally I had Mr. Schackleford asking for the time extenuation.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Nicholas Kristof rightly celebrates a new book highlighting the evils of the forced marriages of pre-teen girls to older men. Kristof is also right to reveal the sordid truths about the practice of marrying off pre-teen girls and the abuse they invariably seem to suffer in the arrangement. But one word was conspicuously missing from Kristof’s NYT article, that was the word Islam.

Amazingly, Kristof spent over 800 words telling the world of this monstrous practice, even saying, “Societies that repress women tend to be prone to violence.” But in all those words, in all that castigation of such “societies” Kristof somehow forgot to mention that these practices are endemic in Islamic cultures. Not one time did the word Islam or Muslim show up among these 800 some words.

The book, “I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced,” tells the tale of a 10-year-old Yemeni girl that was in her Islamic homeland forced into a marriage with an abusive deliveryman in his 30s. Once in third grade, this poor child was yanked from school — a married woman, they told her, should not go to school — and forced into to bed of this stranger who as much as purchased her like meat from her parents.

The story has a happy ending, however. The plucky Nujood had enough good sense about herself to understand that Yemeni law might grant her a divorce for the abuse she suffered at the hands of her “husband.” So she went to a local court and demanded to be heard. She was heard in court and was granted a needed divorce.

That isn’t all. Nujood also helped write the book about her experiences that Kristof reviewed, a book that has helped other young Muslim girls out of the predicament they face, a book that also sheds light on this barbaric practice from which so many young children suffer.

Unfortunately, Nujood is poorly served by Nicholas Kristof and The New York Times. Her case is presented as if it is some strange anomaly untethered to any time or culture, unconnected to any particular society, or religion. The reader is left with only a partial story and is forced to read between the lines to answer the key questions of how, why, and where this happens.

Kristof does leave clues. He tells us that Nujood is from Yemen, he mentions that another young girl that has made news for a similar plight is from Saudi Arabia, and also quotes Nujood as being excited to see her book translated into Arabic, “her own native language.” He also says that her book may help in the fight against terrorism.

But what culture produces this terrorism, what culture has endemic abuse and suppression of its women, what culture routinely marries off children to old men? Reading between the lines evokes the mysteriously absent word “Islam” which answers to those questions.

If Nicholas Kristof had the courage to speak clearly instead of hiding behind rhetorical tricks, the reader would have come away with a more direct understanding of the evils that young Nujood faced. Kristof could have used his piece also to help westerners better understand the culture that has cast itself as the west’s enemy. Kristof could have served to better explain why western society is superior to these debased, oppressive Muslim practices. But he didn’t. He left it all unsaid. Islam is the elephant in the room that too many in the west don’t have the backbone to face head on.

And more’s the shame for it because this weak-willed inability to stand up for our own culture in the face of such barbarities will only give power to the barbarians at our gates.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Prime Minister Rudd, above, is a committed Christian, and, unlike Mr. Obama, is not known to believe that the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset”

THE Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, will today try to regain political momentum with the release of the Counter-Terrorism White Paper which warns of an increased threat from people born or raised in Australia who have become influenced by a “violent jihadist message”. The paper, commissioned after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008, finds successes in fighting terrorism, such as the diminution of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and other groups in South-East Asia, have been offset by the rise of movements in Yemen and Somalia.

Mr Rudd will accompany the launch by pledging to spend $69 million over the next four years for the introduction of biometric checks on visa applicants from the 10 top suspect countries. Anyone applying for a visa will have to present in person to be fingerprinted and photographed. The information will be used to prove the applicant’s identity, in part by matching it against information held in the databases of other nations. Mr Rudd will not reveal the identity of the 10 countries until the measures in each are implemented over the next year….

The paper found terrorism had “emerged as a persistent and permanent feature of Australia’s security environment”. “The main threat to Australia’s security comes from a global jihadist movement, including al-Qaeda and those inspired by a similar world view,” it says.

The new white paper says the threat has evolved to incorporate one that is more home-grown in nature. “There has been an increase in the threat from people born or raised in Australia who have become influenced by the violent jihadist message,” it says.

More here

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post