Thursday, March 30, 2017

Statement Analysis: Jeurys Familia, Domestic Violence

Even with prepared statements, we can glean truth. 

In Domestic Violence we want to learn if the subject will take ownership, or personal responsibility  which is helpful in predicting future violence. 

For athletes, domestic violence is the continuation of acute competition that is not "shut off" but continues in the home.  The use of strong masculine presence, for example, may cause the children to behave better.  When the father turns to the mother and says, "why can't you control them like I do?", he is showing the competitive streak within in. 

Masculinity is described as "the sacrifice of strength for right purposes."  The above description is not "masculinity" according to this old school definition.  It is exploitation, instead.  

1.  Personal Responsibility 
2.  Empathy for the Victim 

In a statement of a penitent offender, we listen carefully to his words to learn:

a.  does he take responsibility for his own actions?
b.  does he understand masculinity sacrifices, rather than exploits?
c.  can he turn off competition appropriately?
d.  does he show human empathy for the victim?

We note any minimization or shifting of blame. Athletes compete and they must "turn off" the competition via self control.
This is why sportsmanship is vital.
Those who taunt or humiliate the already vanquished foe pose a risk of domestic violence.  

When a young boy is taught to compete in sports, which is natural masculine preparation for life (provision and protection), it is essential that with his increased testosterone, he is taught self control.  

Old school taught respectful behavior in both defeat and in victory, and where one has already "defeated" his sports enemy, the expectation was magnanimity.  Anything less was penalized by the referee or umpire and often sanctioned by society, via crowd reaction and negative press.  

Therefore, after scoring "the"  goal, the player's jubilance needed to be contained and specifically not directed towards, not intended to further humiliate,  the already defeated sports enemy. 

At the moment where his hormonal and emotional response is at its zenith, having overcome a deep struggle and battle on to victory, he was expected to control himself and be gracious towards the defeated. 

This is human empathy once prized as distinctly masculine.  This is where the strong protect the weak, stand up to bullies, and show respectful dignity towards the subordinated was a sign of a man's character.  Something as simple as shaking hands after a fight showed respect.  

In the early 1960's, demographic and social change took place in the United States where, in some cities, boys raised without fathers went from 30% to more than 70% today.  These young boys with their increasing testosterone during critically impressionable years, did not have fathers to teach them the definition of masculinity.  

Hence, not only the increase of violence, and violent crime, but the acceptance of behavior once distinctly penalized (socially and formally) as "unsportsmanlike behavior."

In hiring police officers, this is critical in finding those with both courage and self control.  

Those who, for example, enjoy the suffering of another, pose a high risk for fulfilling their personal "enjoyment."  We use statement analysis to reveal this weakness and exclude one from carrying a firearm while possessing authority over others.  The end result is the brave officer, who de-escalates well, of whom communities and fellow officers trust. Yet, if called upon, he will use force to protect life and property.  

It is, therefore, no surprise when you see a player known for his on field narcissistic celebrations that his lack of self control eventually finds its way into the home, and into the news papers when he is arrested for assaulting his wife, mother, or daughter. 

Jeurys Familia pitches for the New York Mets.  As a long term fan, one may note the behavior of his teammate, Jose Reyes when he does something positive on the field.  He has no self restraint to "show up" his opponent in his antics.  He waits for the camera to focus upon him, and begins his dance.  Just prior to first leaving the Mets, he robbed families who paid a great deal of money to see his talent on the field, on the last game of the season.  He had been leading the league in batting average, got a hit, and took himself out of the game lest he spoil his top average by not getting a hit.  Unacceptable a generation ago, this self - first attitude was praised by young fans, as they knew this single statistic would translate into dollars.  Those of us who watched him on the field and observed his behavior, were not surprised to see him arrested for assaulting his wife.  
The trait of self restraint,  not learned in early childhood, does not bode well later in life.  

For many, success dismisses the most egregious crimes.  A soccer player spends a few years in prison for having his wife murdered and eaten by dogs but is cheered on the field.  A pedophile is celebrated because of his music or acting talents.  The shift is cultural and it is profound.  

In spite of productivity, sports management frequently frets about how such behavior can set a poor example for younger players.  This includes other forms of narcissistic like behavior, including athletes who should be concentrating on their craft, rather than night life exploits, with managers ruing the day they allowed a drug dealer, for example, into he clubhouse.  
Mets pitcher Jeurys Familia was suspended Wednesday for the first 15 games of the 2017 season.

The reigning MLB saves leader will be eligible to return to the team on April 20, barring any postponed games on the Mets schedule. He forfeits 18 days of pay, worth more than $700,000.

Familia met with Commissioner Rob Manfred on Monday in New York to discuss the closer’s domestic violence incident, which was dismissed in court.

Familia was arrested Oct. 31 at his New Jersey home after his wife, Bianca, called 911 to report an altercation. The police report indicated Familia’s wife had a bruised cheek and scratches to her neck.

Consider the situation she was in, and the known cost of calling 911 for armed intervention for the sake of safety from her husband.  

Familia has accepted the suspension without protest. Compared to other suspensions, this is very short.  

Here is his statement.  

We look for two key elements:

1.  Personal Responsibility 
2.  Empathy for the victim 

“It is important that it be known that I never physically touched, harmed or threatened my wife that evening. I did, however, act in an unacceptable manner and am terribly disappointed in myself. I am alone to blame for the problems of that evening.
My wife and I cooperated fully with Major League Baseball’s investigation, and I’ve taken meaningful steps to assure that nothing like this will ever happen again. I have learned from this experience, and have grown as a husband, a father, and a man.
I apologize to the Mets’ organization, my teammates, and all my fans. I look forward to rejoining the Mets and being part of another World Series run. Out of respect for my teammates and my family, I will have no further comment."

Where one begins a statement is very important.  

"It is important that it be known that I never physically touched, harmed, or threatened my wife that evening." 

The statement analysis principle of priority is emphasized by the wording of the statement.  Here, the priority is that the public know he did not "physically" touch, harm or threaten his wife. 

Why, then, did she call 911 knowing the cost of such a call?

How did she receive her injuries?

The priority of the statement is to let us know what he did not do.  

The word "never" is unreliable in particular because this happened on a specific night that he, himself, identifies as "that evening."

We note also that not only is a priority for him but he must qualify what he did do:

"physically" touch.  

He did not "physically" touch her.  This is the type of technical language used often by attorneys to deceive. 

*Did an object "physically" touch her?

That his priority is to protect the image (in the negative), we must consider recidivism.  

Next, what does he call the mysterious action?

"unacceptable manner."  

"the problems" 

"this experience

This is minimization. 

To "confess" is to, in Greek, "say the same" or "agree" (homo-logeo), that is, to be truthful or agree with the facts.  

If he did not physically touch, harm or threaten, why is he even suspended?

The answer is within the statement, whether prepared for him, with him or by him:
My wife and I cooperated fully with Major League Baseball’s investigation, 

This is an unnecessary statement, but it does show something by what is missing:  he does not say that they cooperated with police. 

In fact, his wife has refused to disclose what happened and as such (victims often do), Major League baseball was left without the ability to prove how she suffered her injuries and why she called police. 

The cooperation is unnecessary, but it is made sensitive, further, by the word "fully."

Would we expect "My wife and I cooperated 70% with MLB"?  

When we see, in many statements, that one "fully" cooperated, we have found that the subject has a reason to qualify cooperation with "fully."  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The statement seeks to protect the subject's reputation while minimizing his behavior. 

As we look for the element of human empathy for the victim, we learn that it is absent

These are the two key elements we seek.  They are not in the statement.  

For training in deception detection, visit 

Monday, March 27, 2017

Father of Car Shooting Statements

Police in Ohio are hunting for up to three suspects after a driver who was allegedly speeding down a residential street was fatally shot for striking a 4-year-old boy.
Police said Jamie Urton, 44, was killed after he got out of his vehicle to check on the injured child and an argument erupted between him and onlookers Friday.
There was some type of confrontation that took place after the accident,” Cincinnati Police Department Lt. Steve Saunders told The Post. “I don’t know exactly what ensued, but as a result of that confrontation, there was gunfire that occurred and the victim was struck several times and was killed.”
No suspects had been identified as of Monday, Saunders said.
The boy’s father, Jamal Killings said that his son was released from the hospital with bleeding in his brain on Saturday — one day after the violence on Kenton Street, where police said the boy was hit by a car after crossing into the road.
We do not have a quote here but his son was released from the hospital with bleeding on the brain?
Killings, who was busy checking on his son’s condition, said he wasn’t aware that someone had targeted the man behind the wheel who struck him.
My job as a father was to get my son face first off the concrete and take him to see medical attention, and that’s what I did,” Killings told the station.
The car had been speeding at about 45 miles per hour just prior to the crash, he said.
“I initially stopped the car, you know, a lot of kids play on that street — that’s residential, 15-25. I initially stopped him. He slowed down a bit and then he kind of like swerved around me, hitting my other son. My son wasn’t hit in the middle of the street. He was hit on the curb.”
Killings apologized to Urton’s relatives, saying he didn’t agree with the apparent vigilante street justice.
“I apologize for your loss,” Killings said. “I don’t condone violence. I don’t teach my kids violence. That should never have happened … an unfortunate situation, unfortunate event, but I hope we can all learn from this.”
He does not teach his kids violence.  He repeats "violence" and calls the murder an "unfortunate situation" and an "unfortunate event."  This is minimizing language.  
Killings said the boy must be monitored closely for the next six weeks and could require surgery due to his injuries.
Witnesses told police that three people were involved in the shooting, WCPO reported.
“I pulled right into it,” witness George Gaines said of the crime scene. “He was parked in the middle of the street.
Gaines said he saw Urton slumped over into the car’s passenger seat as police responded to the shooting.
“The police pulled out from every place,” he said. “It was crazy.”
A passenger in Urton’s car was also injured by the suspects, but was not shot.  Police said it’s unclear whether the victims were dragged from the car or were attacked after they exited the vehicle.
Did the father's actions lead to this shooting?
We will likely learn more about this from the survivor.  
The race of the victim is not mentioned.  

Supremacist Ideology and Crime

The mother of the London Islamic killer said this:

"I wish to make it absolutely clear, so there can be no doubt, I do not condone his actions nor support the beliefs he held that led to him committing this atrocity."

It is a very sensitive defensive and weak statement. 

Yet, we must consider it by asking questions:

 Is it because she feels the weight of accusation due to her belief system?

Is she a non Muslim fearful of being politically incorrect?

Is she afraid of backlash from ISIS supporters?

Is it because she is deceptively using political correctness in public?

It is a very weak statement.  

The distancing language begins with her "wish."  We must also note that she does not say what he did was "wrong" in any form.  

She does not "condone" but she also does not "condemn."  
She does not say she is "sorry" for what her son did.  

Is she deceptively using tacquia?

Or, might there something else in play here?

If she is sensitive because of Islam, we should not discount the possibility that she fears violent repercussion if she condemns the jihadist action her son took. She, herself, could face the wrath of her local mosque.  

            Muslims are often the first victims of Islam.  

If she is not a Muslim, she could fear offending others.  

Why the need to "not condone" rather than "condemn"?

When Islam turns violent, Muslims who are not jihadists choose self preservation, no different than Germans who had to "join the Nazi party" just to hold a job, at first, and later to save their own lives.  


Bob had Thanksgiving dinner with his wife's extended family.  His brother-in-law insulted Bob's favorite football team, the New England Patriots with a Tom Brady joke.  Most everyone at the table roared with laughter.  

Bob did not find it funny. 

With plenty of wine in him, Bob slammed his fist on the table, cursed his brother-in-law, and stormed away from the table, knocking over some of the wine glasses and plates. 

The pleasant family dinner came to a screeching uncomfortable halt.  

In our culture, we believe that Bob lost his temper and is, therefore, in a weakened position where he should apologize for his inability to restrain himself. 

**************************************************** Any supremacist ideology, by its own nature, must survive on demonization of another.  This is the same with moral narcissism:  'my moral view is so high that you're failure to agree with it is a failure to acknowledge me; my very existence. 

In analyzing and interviewing supremacists, there are two basic categories:

1.  The Supremacist 
2.  The Supremacist Convert 

First, consider supremacist ideology separate from individuals.  A good example is National Socialism. 

If you read first person historical accounts of World War II, you will find intimate details that you may be read through the lens of whatever statement analysis training you've had.  Specifically with Nazi Germany:

There were many Germans who resisted the ideology of National Socialism. 
There were many Germans who joined the Nationalist Socialist party early on because they believed in its basic principles including socialism, where the government is responsible for the "social security" of citizens, who later resisted the party's evil, while being members. 
There were many German Nazis who were coerced into National Socialism's crimes.
There were many Germans who feared resigning from the party.  

There were "good" and moral Nazis.  

This is why in criminal analysis we deal with ideology; not with individuals personal experiences and feelings.  We then note the ideology's impact in general. 

If you argue National Socialism is either "good" or it is "bad" by presenting persons, you will fail to see the ideology and fail to respond to it. For each "bad" person you present, someone else will find a "good" person. This is the illogical haze of emotionalism. 

 It will come down to your emotion and personal experience.  You met a "good" Nazi, so Nazism is not evil.  This says more about you, who has elevated your emotion and personal experience above truth.  This is an example  moral narcissism:  how I feel about something is superior to the truth.  

It is popular today and it is leads to illogic, supremacist ideology, and it leads to anger, rage, tyranny, shout downs,  and eventually, violence.  

Principle is built on a general, not upon exceptions. 

Supremacy ideology always leads to violence.  It begins with the demonization of the others.  

The Nazi Party blamed Jews for the Treaty of Versailles and this became not only epidemic, but it became cultural, in just two decades of time because it targeted all aspects of society, including children.  They grew up believing that they were superior.  

Because life is unequal, no matter what belief we may hold, supremacist ideology must demonize and this eventually led to violence.  

I.  The Supremacist 

The Supremacist has a culture of supremacy.  National Socialism taught that Jewish blood was different than German blood, microscopes and science be damned.  The Jews were railed against privately, and then publicly, and then with the complicit press, which lead to protests. 

With emotion enflamed, eventually small skirmishes broke out.  As anger grew, violence grew where Jews were eventually considered less human.  (This is the same argument that was used by slave holders and today by abortionists).  

Islam is a criminal supremacist ideology, whether or not individual Muslims believe or adhere to this.  Inherent in its teaching is violent coercion.  It specifically teaches violent conquest and does so not only by declaring its own supremacy (the death penalty is ascribed to anyone criticizing Islam, which is why it has been immune to reformation), but by demonizing others, beginning with Jews.  This is where you read about Jews being "descendants from pigs" and other insults.  What Canada calls "Islamophobia", Islam calls the Sharia blasphemy laws; calling for death for anyone who criticizes Islam.  

What the political elite call "Radical Islam", is actually "Islam."  What the political elite call "Moderate Muslims" (Muslims who do not want violence), Islam calls "apostates" and assigns to them, as well, the death penalty.  

A jihadist is a "devout" or "obedient" follower of Islam.  In nations that have fallen to this ideology, cultural Muslims (including atheists) were the first targeted.  

Islam spreads by coercion:

First, Islam is demanded to be followed.  This is the "submission" that one must give and then "peace" is settled.  

For Jews and Christians who refuse to submit, the "peace" permitted is Dhimmitude:  that is, the specific "tax" (jizrah) to be paid to Muslims to be allowed to live.  Not only must they pay the tax but they must verbally acknowledge their inferiority to the satisfaction of the Islamist. 

The women are to wear coverings so as not to be sexually molested.  Those who refuse to wear the covering are fair game for rape.  In Sweden, even with government statistics taken into account, Sweden's native women are raped in the highest percentage in the western world.  By refusing to "cover" (hijab, etc) and importing Islam by the hundreds of thousands, the political elite are endangering women who refuse to submit to Islam's demand.  They are paying a terrible cost. 

Dhimmitude is a form of slavery and it is to bow before Islam in varying degrees. 

When young men pay $10,000 to a smuggler, and walk into Sweden, and are immediately welcomed with money their hands have not earned, including free housing, medical care, internet access and so on, it affirms what they have been taught since childhood. 

The Islamic Supremacist raised in the Islamic culture has also experienced acute desensitization to violence against women.  

The impact upon children of even viewing violence against their own mothers is still bewildering in studies and its impact upon society is seismic.  

Islamic culture in the workplace

I interviewed Islamic women who immigrated from Somalia and eventually took work ("liberal Muslims") in nursing homes.  There, no higher educational standards were needed and some companies hired almost exclusively Somali women to take care of elderly New Englanders who were incapable of taking care of themselves. 

Repeatedly, they struck elderly men and women, particularly, in the face. 

There was nothing I could do to talk them out of this norm. 

First, they had no fear of prosecution. (This is one of three elements in Employment Analysis that helps companies hire the best and brightest of their pool, as well as the most low risk for theft and fraudulent claims.) 

They long had learned that they would not face prosecution lest the prosecutor be called "racist", "Islamophobic" and face hostile and violent threats.  This would be accompanied by the complicit support of local media.  

Next, it was I who did not "understand" the "kuffar" element within these nursing homes.  The elderly were "unclean" and "should have been cared for by their families."  If the victim was a Jew, there was no dialog.   

These women had been raised since childhood in violence.  They were then targeted with violence by their husbands who beat them in obedience to the Koran. 

They did not grasp our society's shock over such treatment of the elderly.  

They felt no need to stay with their initial unreliable denials, which increased the risk to the elderly.  "Tacquia", that is, the Islamic lie (to protect Muslims, or to propagate Islam) was something they all abandoned early in the interview process.  

The Supremacist is dangerous.  He or she believes in an ideology that states that they are superior to others, and they migrate to cultures that confirm this belief.  

                                          What About Bob?

Bob had Thanksgiving dinner where his brother-in-law made a Tom Brady joke, enjoyed by the crowd, except for Bob.   

 Bob blew.   

In our culture, we believe that Bob should apologize for his behavior. 

In Islamic culture, Bob is the powerful respected one and the brother-in-law who did not stand up and fight Bob, is the weaker one, to be despised. 

Now consider the "sinful" Muslim male who has adopted the Western culture of "weakness", ostracized by his own insulated community.  

He drinks, smokes and eats ham sandwiches and listens to western music and dates a western woman. 

How can he be "redeemed"?

This is why imans say one thing to the media, while stocking cache of weapons in the mosque, targeting young males, particularly with mental health issues, for "redemption" of Islam.  

When the Orlando Islamist was insulted by being called "towel head", the analyst concluded, from his own projective western value, that "sticks and stones may break our bones, but names will never hurt us."  He wrote that the Orlando Islamic terrorist did not pose a risk of violence but was a victim of "Islamophobia."  

The analyst did not consider how he was in need of Islamic "redemption" due to his "disobedience" to Islam by embracing western culture.  

II.  The Supremacist Convert 

The Supremacist Convert is distinctly different than the Supremacist who was raised in the culture.  He is still dangerous, but in a different way and for different reasons. 

He is, in a sense, a Supremacist "wanna be" who, dangerously, has something to prove. 


In a murder case, John Doe became Mohammad Doe in prison, which is the perfect storm for violence. 

By listening to prison imans, the violent criminal is told:

*You are superior to others.  (combine this with both his violent history and testosterone). 

*You are here because of the fraud committed against you.  

*The violence you feel is holy and approved in religion by "god" (allah) but it must be properly used.  

*You may rape "infidel" women under certain conditions.  Women hold a "one-half value" of the man when she is Islamic.  Infidel women do not even reach this percentage.  

*Pray five times a day 

*Wage Jihad.  

If you die as a martyr, you will be raping virgins in the afterlife.  

Here, he was not raised to be considered supreme to others and his violent and criminal history shows a constant 

White Supremacy is a very tiny portion of the population.  It is only significant to main stream media. 

Yet, even in small number, the danger is in the "need to prove" one's own superiority can assist in removing the common cultural restraints against violence, posing an increased risk.  

This supremacist wanna be can be interviewed from this specific standpoint.  Whether it is a new prison convert, or any other type of supremacist, there is a ready-made excuse for:

criminal behavior

Failure to succeed in life

by the ideology. 

Islamic nations do not report criminal statistics. Wherever Islamic nations have had western influence, they have made some progress, but the supremacist ideology leads to violence even when the nation is finally 100% Islam.  

This is because of life's inequalities inherent in creation.  

One person is born with more intellect than another.  Socialism says to take away what the smarter has gained by coercion (theft) and give it to the lesser. 

When this is combined with religion or religious like zealousness (including National Socialism, extreme leftist, pseudo science, elevation of emotion, etc), the violence is hastened. 

In criminal interviewing, the better the understanding of the ideological impact upon the subject's own culture, the better the strategy, and even the more pointed the tactics within the interview. 

For training in detecting deception, visit  

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Samantha Brown: "I Would Never Hurt My Children"

Just how far will someone go to avoid saying, "I didn't..." when seeking to deny without really denying an allegation?  

This is a good short quote for analysis.  

Using the word "never" is sometimes due to wanting to make a specific time period appear vague.  

Repeating it is unnecessary emphasis.  

PITTSBURGH, Pa.  A mom in Pennsylvania is charged with attempted homicide involving her children.
 Samantha Brown, 27, from East McKeesport is accused of giving her 8 and 9-year-old sons prescription medication used to treat seizures and panic disorders.
The children were rushed to the hospital on March 1 after they became ill at school.
Police say both boys were foaming at the mouth, and one was unresponsive.
Police also say Brown told them she, quote: “didn’t want the kids anyway.”
But Brown says she never said that.
“I would never do the things I’m being accused of, never.  I love my children. I would never hurt my children. Never hurt my children ever.”

There is a progression here. 

"would never" is conditional/future and avoids saying, "I did not" 

"I love my children" is an unnecessary element used to justify one's own actions. 

"the things I'm being accused of" is a form of avoidance.  This is common in child abuse cases where the allegation is avoided or it is minimized.  In a child murder, "I would never harm my child" 

We find the minimization to be used frequently in childhood sexual abuse, sometimes with the verb "did not" as in:

"I did not hurt my child" which asserts "hurt", and in child sexual abuse, the lack of physical pain may produce this statement.  This avoids addressing the allegation.  

Given more time to speak, she might have used the proverbial, "I'm a good mother" statement which is closely related to child protective services intervention history.  

For training in detecting deception, visit and hit "training." 

UK Islamic Terrorist Attack Ideology

While on the road, I heard a partial description of the death of the police officer in London.  I almost pulled over to the side of the road, sick to my stomach.  

The police officer was unarmed.  

He works where there is more than 50% Islam, but does not possess the basic right to defend himself, that Americans have.  

The denial of ideology is responsible for his death, as well as so many other deaths, rapes and the crime to come in the name of mohammad.

Here, the wisdom of Winston Churchill is desperately needed. 

Statement Analysis sees ideology, its impact upon culture, through both language and behavioral analysis.  

Islam is a political and social ideology that is supremacist and criminal in nature, with distinct sexual violence, with religious overtones.  As suspect as statistics are, even if more than 90% of all Muslims reject Jihad, we have 100,000,000 who do not. 

The Koran and hadiths teach supremacy, violence and sexual degradation of women.  This is the ideology.  Barak Obama and Angela Merkel have been two major architects in bringing "change" to the West by importing this violent base ideology all the while declaring that those who disagree are mentally ill (phobic) and morally unworthy of an opinion (hateful, nazi, islamophobic). 

The imans deliberately target those with mental health issues for exploitation. 

Turkey tells Muslims in Europe to continue to "outbreed" Europeans to conquer, while western support systems are overwhelmed with birth defects and learning disabilities due to Islamic close marriage inbreeding.  

Europe pays for child rape with Islamic child marriages. 
Tax dollars are used for female genital mutilation. 

Those who speak out can be barred, fined, and even imprisoned.  

Mosques are storage houses for weapons and violent ideology, while citizens are disarmed.  

Sweden is the rape capital of the West, no matter how much effort is made by politicians to obscure statistics and protect their religious-like submission to "multiculturalism" (without discrimination).  

In the United States, the FBI has routinely told us:  Mosques do not cooperate with law enforcement.  They claim to want peace, but will not yield information on jihadists.  

But police disarmed in the UK?

This is the absurdity of illogic and refusal to speak the truth about both Islam and its appeal to the base elements within human nature. 

As soon as steps are taken to protect Americans, the political elite claim "Naziism!" 

Islam is inconsistent with freedom. 

When a state votes to exclude Sharia law from its courts, why does CAIR and other Muslim associations object?

Do they not want to be safe from brutal Sharia?

The West says it is not at war with Islam but Islam is at war with the West and the invasion has political cover and has been funded by the West.  

It is to watch history unfold before our eyes, as the Gates of Vienna have not only been opened, but the invaders have been met with offerings of both finance and praise. 

Barak Obama's Ben Rhodes boasted how stupid the American public was when he sold the plan to make Iran a nuclear weapons country while Obama lied repeatedly to the American people, as he gathered untraceable cash payments to supplement Iran's terror network.  

Refugee Status 

Why would Muslims in America object to vetting?

Refugee companies get wealthy, political elite get votes, and citizens are endangered by an ideology that demands their surrender if they want "peace."  

The Lies

Obama's "widows and orphans" have been up to 90% male, 18-35, often posting as "children", receiving welfare benefits just as the smugglers (and Koran) promised, further affirming the supremacy of Islam.  For these, whatever money they are given, it is not enough.  It is, to them, the "jizrah" the Koran teaches, that must be paid to the Islamist by the non-Islamist, "infidel."

The Hijab, or coverings, is a teaching of the Koran that exempts women from sexual assault, allowing for non-hijab or covered women to be sexually abused.  The hypocrisy of feminists wearing it is front and center.  

In October 2001, British Prime Minister held a press conference where he stated:  "This is not a war with Islam. It angers me as it angers the vast majority of Muslims to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran."

George W. Bush after 9/11 said, "Terrorists have hi-jacked a peaceful religion."

This was not an error, but a lie as bold as Barak Obama's scolding of Christians each time Islam took lives.  

The two presidents motives may have been different, but the end is still as Obama said:

Either give Muslims free entry into the United States or they will attack us.  

This is surrender.  

He said, "America is better than that.  We don't vet by religion" as he barred almost 99% of Syrian Christians from entering in favor of Islam.  

When British Army soldier was run over and beheaded on the streets of Woolwich, England in May 2013 by two Muslims, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  

"This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and on the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.  There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

After British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Muslims in ISIS on video in September 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  "They claim to do this in the name of Islam.  That is nonsense.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They are not Muslims.  They are monsters."

Islam is a religion of "peace", that is, the cessation of violence once you submit.  You are then at "peace." 

Societal, with supremacy, Islamic nations remain ripe with violence due to the inherent nature of supremacy and the inequalities of life.  

"Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them" (Koran 9:5) 

This is taught in prisons everywhere:  'You are a victim, not a perpetrator.  You are better than them.  You are their superior and have been defrauded.  Fight for allah!' 

London elected a jihadist mayor who agreed with Barak Obama: either let Muslims have free entry into western countries and pay them for not doing any work, or they will be even more violent.  

Note:  he has already said the West must learn to "live with it."

This is not a time for teddy bears and tears.  It is time for action.  

This ideology of supremacy must always lead to violence.  As long as there are those unwilling to yield to it, there will always be violent coercion. 

We do not address individuals, but ideologies.  

Muslims who resist Jihad are often the first targets and the first to yield to threats of violence.  

When Islam gains footing in an area, the non religious Muslims are the first to side with Islam, as they know the violence that can come to them as "apostates."

Islam teaches that you are not allowed to leave. 

Islam teaches that it cannot be reformed, which is why it has resisted reformation for 1400 years.  It calls for the death for anyone who even questions it, hence the silence. 

Although people have done bad things in the name of religion, for Jews and Christians, the evil done is in opposition to its own teaching. 

For Islam, it is "devout" and it is "obedience" to commit acts of violence, including specifically using knives and terror.  

see:  Leathernecks and the Tripolitan War, our nations first fight against Islam.  

This is why beheading is so popular.  It is "sacred" to the teaching of Islam.  

The obsession with sex (see Islam hygiene) produces not only execution of homosexuals, but the rape of little boys as a cultural acceptance.  Many American and British soldiers first confronted this in Afghanistan, made helpless by "political correctness" (fear of hurting the rapists feelings or insulting Mohammad), they were traumatized by the cries of the young boys' bodies being torn apart.  Those who did intervene paid a terrible price upon their careers.  For American policy:  to stop an Afghan male from raping a little boy was to insult Islam and mohammad.  

Yet, main stream media refused to question why.  

Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men...Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

[Winston Churchill, The River War (Volume II, 1st edition), pages 248-250]