San Bernardino might be the next phase of jihad, and our candidates better have a plan to stop it

I think the San Bernardino terrorist attack represents a new phase in the war with radical Islam. I think this is the phase where ISIS and/or Al Qaeda create and then activate sleeper cells within the US to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the US population. It’s only a matter of time before a suicide bomber straps on a bomb and blows himself or herself up in a crowded area.

I think there’s a chance that the wife in this case became radicalized while she was in either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.   Perhaps she then got in touch with a terrorist group, or maybe they reached out to her first and recruited her. Their goal may have been to find a way to get a jihadi into the US without raising any red flags or suspicion, and the only way to do that was to use someone without any known ties to terrorists or terrorist-affiliated groups.

A woman with no criminal background would be the perfect candidate. I think this whole operation was part of a bigger long-term plan consisting of many steps, and they carried it out almost perfectly.


Step 1 would be to get her into the US via the fiancee visa program, all she had to do was go online to one of the many dating websites for Muslims/Arabs and convince an American muslim to marry her and bring her back to the US to live with him.

Step 2 would be to radicalize him once they’re in the US.

Step 3 would be to buy all the materials needed to make the bombs they had, and the ammunition and guns they had at their house. There’s no way they could’ve afforded all that on their own, so I think that’s proof that they were working with a terrorist group, who financed the whole operation. But they were able to make the purchases without raising any red flags because the wife didn’t have any connections to terrorists, at least that the feds knew about yet.

Alternatively, this terrorist group might’ve already had a sleeper cell within the US, that might be who those middle eastern men coming and going out of Farook’s house were, and these men had already bought all the materials for the explosive devices, they just needed to transport them to Farook’s house. This represented step 4, which is that once the husband is sufficiently radicalized, the terrorist group could then activate an already existing sleeper cell here in the US.

Someone had to have lots of knowledge and expertise about bomb making and weapons in order to assemble all of that material and create the bombs the Farook’s would later plant but fail to activate at the Inland Center, which is more proof that they were working with terrorists connected to ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Finally, step 5 would be to pick their targets and to inflict maximum damage, both in terms of numbers and symbolically. This is the part I think the media is missing. I don’t think Farook suddenly got into an argument at the Christmas party and in a fit of rage got up and left and came back with all of his weapons. That’s not how pre-planned attacks, or attackers for that matter, work. You select a target weeks or even months beforehand, you scout it out, you learn everything you can about its security and weak points, and then you pick a date to hit it.

I think Farook picked the Christmas party for several reasons: 1)He clearly hated the Jewish man whom he’d had discussions with in the recent past about Islam and Israel, so this was a way to take out his rage on him, 2)He didn’t have to do much scouting because he went to the Christmas party there the year before so he already knew the layout and all the weak points. It turns out the area the party was held was an area with little to no security, perfect for an attack, and

3)It was a CHRISTMAS party. It wasn’t a secular party, but one that represented a holiday that represents the religion Islam is diametrically opposed to and is determined to eradicate from the face of the planet, as seen by their genocide of Christians in the Middle East. What better way to send a message to the entire Christian world and the West in particular that they’re at war with us and won’t stop their attacks until they kill all of us or die trying than to kill people at a Christmas party?
Make no mistake, these terrorists had a much bigger attack planned. The Christmas party was just the soft target, the symbolic strike on Christianity before the bigger attack. This was in California and they were near an interstate, so they could’ve been headed to any number of highly populated areas. They didn’t have all those IEDs and weapons stored at their home for one attack. There was more coming, they just didn’t get to use them.

But this isn’t over, because those middle eastern men who were seen coming and going out of their house in the past few weeks, you can be sure they either have some connection to radical terrorists, or at the very least are inspired by them, otherwise they wouldn’t have been helping Farook make the bombs.

They’re on the loose, and as of right now we have no idea where they are. For all weknow they could be planning another attack as we speak, or more likely, just laying low and waiting for all this attention to die down until we forget about them and naively go back our everyday lives, with our clueless president leading the way.

So here’s what I think any GOP presidential candidate should promise to do if they eventually become president: 1)We need to immediately suspend the fiancee visa program, at least from countries that are rampant with terrorism, and make changes to it so that it’s much harder for women and men to come here through countries like Pakistan and Saudia Arabia. There’s a good chance ISIS is planning on using this program to sneak in more women and men to carry out attacks on the Homeland, if they haven’t already, which leads to

2) We should start secretly monitoring all couples who’ve recently come into the US via that program, even if they have no known ties to terrorist groups. The old rules of only monitoring known terrorists or people with connections to known terrorists don’t apply anymore. ISIS has grown out of that and has moved past it, so we need to keep up with them. We have to expand the range of our intel and broaden the net we use to catch terrorists. Yes, that means we need to start racial and religious profiling. It might not be pc, but it could be the difference between life and death for some americans, as we found out in San Bernardino.

This means monitoring their phone calls, social media, daily routines, and travel plans.

For people who complain that this violates their civil rights I would say that they don’t have the same rights as Americans because they aren’t american citizens, which leads to

3)Use all the economic, military, and diplomatic leverage we have on countries like Pakistan and Saudia Arabia who have become breeding grounds for radical Islam and who are looking the other way because officials within their gov’ts and military are either working for terrorist groups activately, are being bribed by them, or are simply scared of them and choose to let them use their countries as operating bases and planning grounds for their attacks in Europe and elsewhere, including the US.

We should give them an ultimatum that if they don’t start monitoring mosques and individuals with connections to ISIS and Al Qaeda and start cracking down on these people, we’ll cut all funding we’re giving to their militaries, which we should’ve done a long time ago to begin with since they’ve been aiding terrorists behind our backs for years, or at the very least in many cases not activately helping our CIA flush them out.

4)Immediately suspend our refugee immigration program for the indefinite future. However, I do believe we should let in Christians from the Middle East. Liberals will scream bloody murder at this and cry about religious and/or racial discrimination, but we can’t let their pc culture get in the way of doing what’s necessary to keep our people safe.

As for the argument that this is a “religious test” for refugees and “that’s not what we’re all about”, my reply is that it is a religious test, and for good reason. It’s really the only way we can be sure that we’re not bringing in more potential terrorists into our country. Yes, we can agree with liberals that not all Muslims are terrorists, but they should agree with us that in modern times, all major terrorist attacks just so happen to have been carried out by Muslims.

Isis is already imposing a religious test on the people in the Middle East, so we should turn that on its head and use it against them. They wanna weed out Christians and probably intend to infiltrate the ranks of the refugees with some of their members, who they can use as sleeper agents once they get past the vetting process and into the US.

Rick Santorum has a point when he says that Christians should actually stay in the Middle East because the goal of ISIS is to permanently remove them from that area, thus erasing their Christian heritage and reclaiming that land for Islam. My position is between that and Cruz’s, which is that we should be taking in as many Christian refugees from the Middle East as possible.

I think instead we should try to resettle as many refugees of all faiths in surrounding Arab countries. I’ve said from the beginning that our reasons for refusing to take in Syrian refugees go way beyond just national security concerns. There are many other reasons this would be a terrible idea, such as: 1)they would have a problem assimilating into our society since their culture is very different than ours, as is their language 2)who’s gonna pay for all the social services and welfare benefits they’re gonna need since most of them won’t have the skills or ability to start working anytime soon

3)they’ll probably vote Democrat since of course the Democrats will be the ones who promise them all the free stuff mentioned above, without telling us how they’d pay for it 4)We could reach a critical mass in our country where we have too many foreign born people coming in at once, and it’ll be disruptive to both our economy and our communities, like it’s been in Minnesota with the Somali immigrants, several of whom left the country to fight for terrorist groups.
These attacks should be the basis for the political message the GOP nominee uses against Hillary next fall. It’s official now and beyond dispute: Bush kept us safe after 9/11, and Obama hasn’t. We’ve had people die from several horrible attacks, the Boston Bombers, Nadal Hassan, and now the San Bernardino terrorists.

But what’s even worse is that they were all preventable, we just needed stronger security measures from the gov’t, something a republican president would’ve had in place. So if safety is important to you, vote republican, cause it’s been proven that democrats just aren’t strong enough on terror and have failed to keep us safe.