RUTHFULLY YOURS

Well, not for criticizing Trump, but for breaking the law and recklessly endangering their citizens by harboring and shielding from scrutiny illegal aliens among whose number may include assorted Islamic State agents, sympathizers and potential lone wolf recruits, along with assorted criminals like the one charged with the murder of Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They are accomplices in crime.

That is the suggestion of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who followed the righteous indignation of those condemning Trump for suggesting Muslim immigration be curtailed until we get our terrorist act together, a suggestion not unlike President Jimmy Carter’s halt to Iranian immigration during the hostage crisis. Jindal made the case on Monday on Boston Herald Radio:

“Absolutely, I would hold them as an accomplice. Make them criminally culpable,” the Republican presidential candidate said when asked if he’d arrest mayors of sanctuary cities. “I’d also make them civilly liable so that families, victim’s families could sue. Especially if the prosecutor isn’t taking action or the mayor’s not changing their ways, I’d allow the families to go to court as well to recover damages.”

Jihad Matchmaking? FBI Director Says San Bernardino Killers Radicalized Before Meeting By Bridget Johnson

FBI Director James Comey acknowledged at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today that it will be “very, very important” to know if terrorist organizations are setting up jihadi marriages.

A week after the massacre at a holiday party of San Bernardino County health department employees, authorities have determined that health inspector Syed Farook had been planning jihad for many years — even plotting an attack with an unidentified co-conspirator three years ago that wasn’t carried out. That information came from his longtime friend and former neighbor Enrique Marquez, whose Russian bride is the sister of Farook’s brother’s Russian bride.

Marquez, a convert to Islam and Walmart employee, purchased two AR-15 rifles that were used in the attack. He checked himself into a mental institution afterward, and is now cooperating with investigators. Marquez reportedly says he knew nothing about the attack.

Farook reportedly met Tashfeen Malik in 2013. He brought her back from Saudi Arabia in 2014 on a fiancee visa, and the pair were married in Southern California.

The Obama administration hits just keep on coming…

A House Armed Services Committee report set to be released Thursday accuses the Obama administration of misleading Congress and violating federal law during a controversial prisoner exchange.

The report compiled by the GOP majority charges that the administration did so when it bypassed Congress in negotiating the exchange of five Taliban prisoners for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held in Afghanistan. They suggested that the White House had put politics and expediency ahead of proper procedure in making the deal.

This is the same administration that put politics and expediency ahead of common sense when “ending” the war in Iraq, so this is really no surprise. This president puts politics ahead of everything. If the Republicans are against it, national security be damned. The quickest way to get rid of Obamacare may be to have every Republican in Congress embrace it.

As this entire weird story played out, it always did seem that the administration’s interest in Bergdahl was motivated solely by a need to stick it to Republicans. The timing and the rush to get it done never made sense. It was almost as if the president got bored.

It’s always good to keep in mind that half of the job of “lawmaking” is proposing dead-end bills or amendments designed to score political points against your opposition. Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy steps up to the plate with a “sense of the Senate” exercise in moral preening:

Congress is set to vote on Thursday on what some have called an “unprecedented” right that would allow immigrants easier access to relocate to the United States, according to new legislation offered by a Democratic senator. The legislation, which is being offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) as an amendment to a larger bill governing nuclear safety, would prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion.

The bill comes amid a fierce national debate about immigration to America, particularly for individuals coming from Muslim-majority nations. Critics of the Obama administration’s refugee plan, which would permit up to 10,000 Syrians into the country, maintain that there are not enough oversight measures in place to ensure that immigrants are not linked to terrorists or various terror organizations, such as the Islamic State.

Many who closely follow the dueling Islamic terror narratives emanating from the White House are mystified by Mr. Obama’s inability (or deliberate unwillingness) to utter the phrase “Islamic terrorists.” Many are curious, too, about why he refuses to call ISIS “ISIS,” steadfastly insisting instead that everybody in his administration call the terror group “ISIL.” What’s the difference, and why is it important? The agendas behind each diverge widely. In fact, the variance between the two is elephantine in scale.

ISIS stands for the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” a terror group controlling a large swath of both Iraq and Syria in which the terrorists claim to have established a “caliphate,” a state in which Islamic sharia law is imposed upon all living in the area, anyone who fails to adhere to strict Muslim guidelines has his head removed. Obama’s contrary assertions aside, ISIS is by no means contained. In fact, the savage group (which prefers to be called the “Islamic State” or “IS”) has metastasized on maps like immense pools of blood covering the ancient borders that once divided parts of Syria and Iraq.