Which Doesn't Belong?

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a quiz for those who believe that they understand geo-political reality.
Which of these three is not like the others?


1. December 14th, 1999 at 6:00 PM, Ahmed Ressam attempted to enter the US from Victoria, British
Columbia. US Customs Inspector Diana Dean became suspicious, and found 118 pounds of Urea crystals, 14 pounds of sulfate powder, and 48 ounces of nitroglycerin. There are
301 ports of entry into the US.



2. "U.S. missed "red flags" with San Bernardino shooter
...a report about Malik's comments on social media before she moved to the U.S. is raising questions about how thoroughly she was vetted.
Law enforcement sources confirmed to CBS News that Malik made radical postings on Facebook as far back as 2012 -- the year before she married Farook and moved to the U.S., reports CBS News correspondent Carter Evans. According to a report in the New York Times, Malik spoke openly on social media about her support for violent jihad and said she wanted to be a part of it. But none of these postings were discovered when Malik applied for a U.S. K-1 fiancé visa.
"This is a case where, in retrospect, we know that this is a person that had lots of red lights and red flags. How come they didn't stand out as a high risk traveler? That's a really, really good question," Carafano said."
San Bernardino shooter posted support for violent jihad on Facebook



3. Obama still plans to take in refugees: No worries, ‘we have very robust vetting procedures’
Obama still plans to take in refugees: No worries, 'we have very robust vetting procedures' | BizPac Review

a. "Immigraton To Swell Muslim Population to 6.2 Million
According to U.S. Census Data, the United States admits roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants legally each year, representing the fastest growing block of immigration into the United States. Tennessee, in fact, is home to one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the country, causing thePresident to give a recent speech there in favor of expansive immigration.

This demographic change is entirely the product of legal admissions–that is, it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.

Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees.Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The importation of Middle Eastern immigrants through the nation’s refugee program hasled to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States." Immigration to Swell U.S. Muslim Population to 6.2 Million - Breitbart

 

[gipper]

We must learn to ignore the fact that government can't or won't vette, due to it's well known incompetence. We must beleive dear leader and ignore reality.

 

[BlindBoo]

The discovery of the old social media posts has exposed a significant — and perhaps inevitable — shortcoming in how foreigners are screened when they enter the United States, particularly as people everywhere disclose more about themselves online. Tens of millions of people are cleared each year to come to this country to work, visit or live. It is impossible to conduct an exhaustive investigation and scour the social media accounts of each of them, law enforcement officials say.

The Obama administration is trying to determine whether those background checks can be expanded without causing major delays in the popular program. In an attempt to ensure they did not miss threats from men and women who entered the country the same way Ms. Malik did, immigration officials are also reviewing all of about 90,000 K-1 visas issued in the past two years and are considering a moratorium on new ones while they determine whether changes should be made.

In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel.

“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”

Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

 

[PoliticalChic]

We must learn to ignore the fact that government can't or won't vette, due to it's well known incompetence. We must beleive dear leader and ignore reality.

It may very well be incompetence....but I fear that there is something else afoot....

See item 3a. above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discovery of the old social media posts has exposed a significant — and perhaps inevitable — shortcoming in how foreigners are screened when they enter the United States, particularly as people everywhere disclose more about themselves online. Tens of millions of people are cleared each year to come to this country to work, visit or live. It is impossible to conduct an exhaustive investigation and scour the social media accounts of each of them, law enforcement officials say.

The Obama administration is trying to determine whether those background checks can be expanded without causing major delays in the popular program. In an attempt to ensure they did not miss threats from men and women who entered the country the same way Ms. Malik did, immigration officials are also reviewing all of about 90,000 K-1 visas issued in the past two years and are considering a moratorium on new ones while they determine whether changes should be made.

In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel.

“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”

Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

"Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings."

See....the problem with Liberals.

The NYTimes lies, and you buy it like it was on sale.


Proof? Sure....it's been reported that she gave a false address on her applications.
This could have been ascertained using a google search alone.



There is no "extensive screening" nor is there any 'robust vetting process."

Now conjecture what Obama's real motive is.

3a in the OP tells all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It appears that the United States in incapable of reliably performing a basic level of functioning when it comes to vetting foreigners who want to come here. Case in point: When jihadist Tashfeen Malik filled out her K-1 visa application to come to the United States, she listed a fictitious address. Yet she was given a visa to come here. And in so doing, we helped her fulfill yet one more step that brought her closer to murdering and maiming Americans in the name of Allah, as she did this past Wednesday.

Shouldn’t we be able to corroborate something as basic as an address on a visa application? I mean, we are the nation that put a man on the Moon, yet we appear unable or unwilling to make sure all the information on a visa application is accurate. Not that that is a deal-breaker to protect us from the Tashfeen Maliks of the world. But in this case, it might have been a red flag."
Blog: So much for our vetting process
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



Obama has a purpose.

Time to acknowledge that, and what that purpose is.


"....one more step that brought her closer to murdering and maiming Americans..."



If this isn't a high crime and/or misdemeanor I don't know what is.

 

[BlindBoo]

The discovery of the old social media posts has exposed a significant — and perhaps inevitable — shortcoming in how foreigners are screened when they enter the United States, particularly as people everywhere disclose more about themselves online. Tens of millions of people are cleared each year to come to this country to work, visit or live. It is impossible to conduct an exhaustive investigation and scour the social media accounts of each of them, law enforcement officials say.

The Obama administration is trying to determine whether those background checks can be expanded without causing major delays in the popular program. In an attempt to ensure they did not miss threats from men and women who entered the country the same way Ms. Malik did, immigration officials are also reviewing all of about 90,000 K-1 visas issued in the past two years and are considering a moratorium on new ones while they determine whether changes should be made.

In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel.

“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”

Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

"Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings."

See....the problem with Liberals.

The NYTimes lies, and you buy it like it was on sale.


Proof? Sure....it's been reported that she gave a false address on her applications.
This could have been ascertained using a google search alone.



There is no "extensive screening" nor is there any 'robust vetting process."

Now conjecture what Obama's real motive is.

3a in the OP tells all.

The information in the CBS report you linked to was gleaned from this NYT article.

I dare say they have a better reputation for truth than you do.

 

[Timmy]

If her radical plans pre date ISIS caliphate, is this considered an ISIS attack !?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discovery of the old social media posts has exposed a significant — and perhaps inevitable — shortcoming in how foreigners are screened when they enter the United States, particularly as people everywhere disclose more about themselves online. Tens of millions of people are cleared each year to come to this country to work, visit or live. It is impossible to conduct an exhaustive investigation and scour the social media accounts of each of them, law enforcement officials say.

The Obama administration is trying to determine whether those background checks can be expanded without causing major delays in the popular program. In an attempt to ensure they did not miss threats from men and women who entered the country the same way Ms. Malik did, immigration officials are also reviewing all of about 90,000 K-1 visas issued in the past two years and are considering a moratorium on new ones while they determine whether changes should be made.

In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel.

“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”

Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

"Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings."

See....the problem with Liberals.

The NYTimes lies, and you buy it like it was on sale.


Proof? Sure....it's been reported that she gave a false address on her applications.
This could have been ascertained using a google search alone.



There is no "extensive screening" nor is there any 'robust vetting process."

Now conjecture what Obama's real motive is.

3a in the OP tells all.

The information in the CBS report you linked to was gleaned from this NYT article.

I dare say they have a better reputation for truth than you do.

Oooo......look at your response my slapping you around!
Slander.

To prove same, I challenge you to find anything in my posts that is untrue.

You, on the other hand, have been caught lying with metronomic regularity.
Example...you denied that Obama chanted this socialist fable:

 

[PoliticalChic]

If her radical plans pre date ISIS caliphate, is this considered an ISIS attack !?

I'm perfectly copacetic calling it an Islamic attack.

OK with you?

 

[BlindBoo]

I challenge you to find anything in my posts that is untrue.

Obama has a purpose.

Time to acknowledge that, and what that purpose is.


"....one more step that brought her closer to murdering and maiming Americans..."

Easy Peasy, as you lie in nearly every post. You just can't help yourself it seems.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I challenge you to find anything in my posts that is untrue.

Obama has a purpose.

Time to acknowledge that, and what that purpose is.


"....one more step that brought her closer to murdering and maiming Americans..."

Easy Peasy, as you lie in nearly every post. You just can't help yourself it seems.

".... you lie in nearly every post. You just can't help yourself it seems."

So......where is the lie?

Inadvertently you're verifying my motto: I never lie.....unlike Liberals, I never have to.

 

[BlindBoo]

The discovery of the old social media posts has exposed a significant — and perhaps inevitable — shortcoming in how foreigners are screened when they enter the United States, particularly as people everywhere disclose more about themselves online. Tens of millions of people are cleared each year to come to this country to work, visit or live. It is impossible to conduct an exhaustive investigation and scour the social media accounts of each of them, law enforcement officials say.

The Obama administration is trying to determine whether those background checks can be expanded without causing major delays in the popular program. In an attempt to ensure they did not miss threats from men and women who entered the country the same way Ms. Malik did, immigration officials are also reviewing all of about 90,000 K-1 visas issued in the past two years and are considering a moratorium on new ones while they determine whether changes should be made.

In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel.

“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”

Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

"Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings."

See....the problem with Liberals.

The NYTimes lies, and you buy it like it was on sale.


Proof? Sure....it's been reported that she gave a false address on her applications.
This could have been ascertained using a google search alone.



There is no "extensive screening" nor is there any 'robust vetting process."

Now conjecture what Obama's real motive is.

3a in the OP tells all.

The information in the CBS report you linked to was gleaned from this NYT article.

I dare say they have a better reputation for truth than you do.

Oooo......look at your response my slapping you around!
Slander.

To prove same, I challenge you to find anything in my posts that is untrue.

You, on the other hand, have been caught lying with metronomic regularity.
Example...you denied that Obama chanted this socialist fable:

The only group to chant that were the Republicans who made those few words, which were taken completely out of context btw, into a series of campaign ads for the loser in 2012.

: to say (a word or phrase) many times in a rhythmic way usually loudly and with other people

Definition of CHANT

Like I said, a liar like you just can't help themselves.

 

[BlindBoo]

I never lie..

A whopper of a lie.

That's three.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never lie..

A whopper of a lie.

That's three.

"The only group to chant that were the Republicans who made those few words, which were taken completely out of context blah blah blah....."




Let's reveal you as a serial liar, and teach you English at the same time.

1. Obama is an inveterate socialist/communist. His statement "you didn't build that" is the socialist/communist mantra designed to establish that no one can be successful without big government.

2.Context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
Google

3. Clearly I have provided both the statement and it's meaning, in context.
QED....I never lie.

Now, stop lying, and get off your knees and stop licking his boots.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives' love/hate relationship with Big Brother is fascinating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If her radical plans pre date ISIS caliphate, is this considered an ISIS attack !?

I'm perfectly copacetic calling it an Islamic attack.

OK with you?

It was an ISIS counterrattack. You wanted a war with ISIS, now you have it, this is how it will go.

 

[Old Rocks]

If PC cannot cover it in a half lie, she will make up an outright lie, then try to cover it in so much cut and paste blather that no one will read it, in any case.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If PC cannot cover it in a half lie, she will make up an outright lie, then try to cover it in so much cut and paste blather that no one will read it, in any case.

Another moron who claims a lie but can't provide any.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP gave three items and asked which didn't belong with the others.

No takers?



OK....here's a hint:

"MANDAN, N.D. – Retired U.S Customs inspector Diana Dean has been called a hero for helping foil a major terrorist attack...."
Customs official honored for work - The Spokesman-Review