Tories' Dirty Tricks Do Not Stop UKIP Rise

Who is right? Ann Widdecombe (whom I admire but not necessarily agree with on this point)? She says that, despite having found herself questioning her own loyalty "since Cameron forced through gay marriage against the wishes of his own party":

At the General Election a vote for Ukip [right-wing UK Independence Party] will be a vote for Miliband and all that Britain has gone through in the interests of putting the economy right will be brought to nought. I make no apology for repeating what I have said before: the note from Liam Byrne, the outgoing Labour treasury minister, summed it up: “There is nothing left.” There never is after Labour governments.

In tomorrow’s [local] elections much the same warning applies; a vote for anything other than Conservative is a vote for Labour and thus for high tax and high spend at county halls.

Don’t do it. Vote instead for the party that has imposed a benefits cap, promises an in-out referendum, is sorting out educational standards and is slowly restoring financial sanity. No other party that can win offers all that.

So vote Conservative even if through gritted teeth.

Or UKIP's leader Nigel Farage, who says: "A young Margaret Thatcher would join Ukip instead of today's Conservatives"?

He added that Ukip would stand down candidates to help the Tories if they pledged to take Britain out of the European Union.

He considers the prospects of a deal with David Cameron to be just about zero, but thinks that other Tories exist with whom his part could do a deal, "there are some very good-thinking people there, like Michael Gove, who doesn't just dismiss somebody else's point of view, he listens to it and engages with it."

Mr Farage believes that Ukip has "every prospect" of taking first place in next year's European elections.

He said: "It seems to me that we get to the point where if Ukip does become strong enough as a result of this year's local elections and the European elections next year, that is the moment at which we can have a serious conversation about realigning British politics.

"We are not there yet, by a long chalk, but don't think it can't happen.

"I think Ukip could be the catalyst over the next two years for a really fundamental realignment of the way politics is structured in Britain."

Tories are so desperate that they have resorted to any means, including the ones which are commonly employed but are usually the Left's prerogative, i.e. calling people (in this case UKIP candidates at the UK local election of 2 May) names, e.g. "homophobic", "racist", "neo-Nazi" and the like. Together with Labour, the Conservatives have also produced fake leaflets to discredit the UK Independence Party, leaflets that look like they have come from UKIP and carry messages like "An apology, we got it wrong" as well as attacking candidates for that party. A similar strategy (the use of the striking yellow and purple colours of UKIP for the Tory leaflets) had already been employed and failed in the recent Eastleigh by-election where the UKIP triumphed.

Despite all these attempts, Britain's bookmakers are betting on UKIP making major gains in Thursday's local elections.

The bookies know what they are doing. The most recent opinion poll by ComRes gives these results:

1. Conservatives 31%
2. Labour on 24%
3. UKIP 22%
4. Lib Dems 12%

According to recent evidence, therefore, it looks like UKIP may be going to take votes from the left-wing parties as well, i.e. the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. A 2-point difference between Labour and UKIP is particularly noteworthy, considering that UKIP was until not long ago a fringe party and now is on the brink of overtaking the historical party of the British left, workers and unions.

It appears to me as if those politicians and media commentators who use these tactics to scare off prospective UKIP voters have understood neither the reason for the party's electoral success nor indeed the people of this country, who increasingly support it. Otherwise they would realize that accusing UKIP's candidates or members of "racism" and "homophobia" is exactly what will make its popularity grow: the public opinion has started recognizing these terms, to which we can add "Islamophobia", for what they are: an attempt by people without either arguments or principles to frighten the population into silence and force them to cower into submission.

These insults, the modern version of accusations of heresy, say much more about the persons who use them than about the persons they are used against.

Western Socialist Governments Destroy Economy with Taxes and Inflation

Both inflation and taxes are the worst enemies of productive work and earning.

Taxes, especially high ones, act as a discouragement, if not a deterrent, from working hard to acquire money that you will see taken away in front of your very own eyes.

Inflation will see to it that what you are allowed to keep will be in reality much less than what appears to be.

In my personal experience I have to say that, when I was earning reasonable money from my internet commercial activity, realizing that a big chunk of it was not mine at all thanks to the Inland Revenue did cool my passion and dampen my enthusiasm a bit, not much but a little. So, when I became more involved in political writing - nothing to do with taxes but for entirely different motivations -, I was not so keen to devote more time to my commercial websites as I might have been without the lurking presence of high taxation and high inflation.

I am interested in economics, and I was very pleased to find in what I consider one of the best blogs around, that of Alexander Boot, such clear, simple and, more importantly, well-founded explanations of how Western current financial woes originate in the political sphere.

Inflation may have economical causes too, but what we have now is astronomical:

Behold: £100 pounds in 1850 became £110 pounds in 1900 -- a negligible inflation of 10% over 50 years. That meant that a baby born at the time with a silver spoon in his mouth, which utensil equalled, say, a solid middle-class income of £500 a year, could live his whole life in reasonable comfort even if he never made a penny of his own. Conversely, £100 in 1950 became £2000 in 2000 -- a wealth-busting, soul-destroying inflation of 2,000%.

Today's skyrocketing inflation derives from heavily indebted governments' habit of printing too much money to repay their debt with it.

Economic value, despite the appearances, is not in the money, it is in the goods - products and services - that people need and are willing to pay for. So, if inflation depends on the proportion between the goods produced and the currency in circulation or, as Milton Friedman put it, is "too many dollars chasing after too few goods", it is evident that, coeteris paribus,  the more money is printed the higher the rate of inflation.

The government is responsible in two ways: first by overspending and getting into debt ("Excess government spending causes inflation", wrote American economist Alan Greenspan, who served as Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, in his book The Time of Turbulence (Amazon USA), (Amazon UK)), and then by trying to get out of it by "quantitative easing", i.e. printing money.

High inflation does all the wrong things for the economy: not only, along with high taxes, deters people from working hard, but also it deters them from saving and encourages them to spend and even take debts. After all, the money you borrow now has more value than when you have to repay it in the future.

If there are not enough savers, there will not be sufficient funds for businesses to borrow, which will slow down enterprise and productivity and therefore reduce employment. It is a domino effect, or rather a geometric progression, multiplying instead of summing the terms. A wrong choice, a bad move causes a concatenation of cascading calamities.

This is what socialism invariably and solely does: destroy. It destroys many other things, but here we are talking economics so we concentrate on the fact that it destroys wealth and the ability to produce it.

And Western governments become bigger and bigger and spend as if there is no tomorrow (literally as well as metaphorically) because they run on socialist principles like redistribution of wealth and, as Marx described the second element of communism, they give "to each according to his needs", a perfect definition of the welfare state (the first element of communism is "From each according to his abilities").

As for high taxation:

The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%.It was slightly reduced after the war and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.

Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the UK in comparison to the OECD and the EU 15. In 1971 the top-rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% on investment income kept the top rate on that income at 90%. In 1974 this cut was partly reversed, and the top rate on earned income raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war.

That was true madness, before Thatcher restored sanity and reduced the tax burden.

The reason why the 50% tax top rate on incomes higher than £150,000 introduced in 2010 by Labour was lowered to 45% in the 2012 budget is because it was costing the Exchequer an estimated over £1 billion a year in loss of tax revenue.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research correctly predicted:

There is good evidence that an increase in high-rate Income Taxes beyond 40% will lead to a loss of revenue to the Exchequer over the coming years.
Calculating the taxable income elasticity
Higher rates of Value Added Tax and National Insurance Contributions mean that the revenue maximising rate of Income Tax for the very rich has fallen over the past year. Combined with increased labour and capital mobility, this means the revenue maximising top rate of Income Tax is likely to be less than 40%.

Mosques Are the Battleground of the War between Islam and the West

 

"We don't debate unprofessional councillors, unprincipled journalists, and self-righteous community organizers; we turn the tables on them": this is how British planning lawyer Gavin Boby, also known as the "mosque buster", describes the activity of his organization, the Law And Freedom Foundation. He uses the law to stop the building of mosques in the UK by demonstrating to local councils that the building of a mosque or an Islamic centre is actually in violation of British law. And he succeeds: the count so far is 16 victories out of 17 cases.

Gavin Boby is a 48-year-old planning lawyer from Bristol, South-West England. He deals with planning permissions or zoning permissions.

 

Like many other people in Britain, for almost 10 years Boby had witnessed the progressive penetration of Islam in his country, but like many other people he watched idly not knowing what to do about it.

It was the same feeling of impotence that most of us shared. But then, a couple of years ago, he had this idea. Many mosques disrupt neighbourhoods and drive out long-time residents. Non-Muslim women in particular are made to feel uncomfortable in those areas. Why not use his legal skills to help local communities resist planning applications for mosques?

The BBC video above the article exposes how corrupt the process of granting mosque planning applications can be, showcasing a session in the Rochdale Council's planning committee in the North of England, during which councillor Begum does not allow discussion before the vote is taken and rushes the other members to vote.

This is very topical in light of the recent revelations that the Boston bombers' mosque "has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism", has classic jihadi texts in its library, and gave money to two terrorist charities which have been shut down by the U.S. government. But then again, when is something about the violent nature of Islam not topical these days?

Still, this is a good way to introduce the mosque buster's work. What are mosques? As we know, mosques are not like churches or synagogues, they are far more than houses of worship and contemplation, many of them are centres of jihadist activity that indoctrinate to commit and support violence against infidels. In America, as many as 4 different studies have independently come to the same conclusion that 80 per cent of US mosques "were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians".

The Law And Freedom Foundation website declares: "A mosque is not merely a place of worship. Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within its geographical reach."

We can see the truth of that in London. It is no coincidence that sharia-law areas or self-declared Muslim areas with Muslim patrols acting like vigilantes in cities like London are near mosques. We are increasingly seeing Muslim patrols in the proximity of mosques saying to passers-by that they can't walk a dog, wear a skirt, drink alcohol.

In an interview Gavin Boby explains that mosques are being used as the bridgehead, the forefront of the advance of Islam in a territory. What happens in neighbourhoods - usually working class districts which are not used to dealing with officialdom - where a mosque is built is that the area changes forever for its residents, who no longer recognize it and eventually have to move out, due to things like the parking jihad, general harassment, vandalism.

"The parking jihad is" he describes, "soon after the construction of a mosque, people will find no parking space there, their driveway is being blocked or even a car is parked in the driveway inside your property and if you ask them to move their car they'll say it's only for an hour." The parking tends to be used as a way to establish possession and control over the area, of saying: "This is a mosque area, we are the owners now and there's nothing you can do about it", and then after that it gets worse until the point when people move out.

"The Koran" the Bristol lawyer continues, "calls 14 times for the enslavement of non-Muslims, and 3 times for killing the unbelievers wherever they are found. This is obviously against English law. You don't need to be a good lawyer to fight it but you need to be a very good lawyer to get around it."

Partly, the mosque buster's approach is that of finding the contradictions and incompatibilities between Islam and Western fundamental principles (that's the easy part), and making mosque building and planning regulations become the battleground of these ideological conflicts.

In the same way as Islam is not just a religion but also a political doctrine of supremacy and power, so the mosque is not simply a building of worship but also a political one.

Gavin elaborates:

This is the Islamic doctrine, every mosque is instructed to be based upon the original mosque in Medina, where Muhammad originally in the 7th century set up his religious-political doctrine of social control, and the mosque is a place of government, it is a place where treaties are made, death sentences are passed, armies are blessed and dispatched, it is primarily about political control and it is very much used as a tool of advance. Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey talked about that, the Muslim Brotherhood compared their mosques to battalions and to beehives, where Muslims will gather and then advance, and there's nothing new about this, it goes back to the 7th century.

So, this is the why of the Law And Freedom Foundation's operation. Now let's see the how.

Gavin works pro bono as a planning lawyer for anyone wishing to fight the erection of a mosque. He says:

The method is very simple. A planning application gets submitted for a mosque in an area, and it will never be called a "mosque". It will be called a community centre; an inter-faith centre; a public community, harmony-building outreach centre, and then the neighbours contact us, and it's usually people who have never been involved in politics before, are shy of politics and officialdom and ask us to help them to resist it. And that's what we do, we help them to simply use established methods of consultation to tell the local authorities: "We object to this proposal because of the effect it will have on the neighbourhood, the effect on parking, the effect on noise, the effect on disturbance, the architectural effect, the effect of concentrations of people generally, the amenity for residents". And also we give them advocacy in front of the council meeting, we'll advocate on their behalf.

Therefore the approach is twofold. The most commonly employed is to use the effects on and the desires of the local communities as tools in the consultation process which is local authorities' standard procedure before a planning or change of use permission is granted.

As an example, the last two refusals to mosque building from local authorities were motivated by: loss of the retail floorspace; harm to the character, function, vitality and viability of the neighbourhood centre; possible harm to the surrounding transport network in respect of movements to and from the site for both pedestrians and vehicles; loss of employment use in a Locally Significant Industrial Site and potential harm to the viability and function of the remaining Locally Significant Industrial Site; low public transport accessibility inappropriate for a large-scale community facility; lack of adequate on-site parking with resulting overspill on-street parking likely to cause unacceptable traffic management problems and traffic congestion, to the detriment of traffic flow and road safety in the vicinity of the site.

From these you can have an idea of the broadness and scope of reasons that can be used. Other common issues are noise, and congestion at particular times like Fridays at prayer times or when there are Koran lessons for children.

The second approach - although what is predominantly used is the first - goes more to the core of what Islam is. The organization's website states: "Also, it is hard to see how a Local Authority has the power to grant planning permission for a mosque, since the purpose of a mosque is to promote a doctrine that incites killing, enslavement and war. You don’t need to be a skilled lawyer to understand this point – you have to be a skilled lawyer to find a way around it."

This conviction was evident when the mosque buster was asked how he responds to people who say this is an infringement of freedom of religion. He answered:

I understand people who say that, and it would be the case if Islam were simply about private contemplation and reflection, the way that Christianity in a parish church is, but the problem is that you have two legal principles that conflict. You have this issue of freedom of religion and you have the public order issue, it's not an issue of censorship, it's a public order issue that [you have] if you have people preaching warfare, preaching violence, preaching killing and enslaving against another part of the population: that is against the most founding principles, [which were established] before freedom of religion was established within English law, within any law.

The British planning lawyer clarifies the relationship between these approaches when he advises his clients: "Don't focus on the religious and political aspects, focus on the technical ones, but what we are doing is trying to stop the area from being Islamized". But the two issues, i.e. the political question and the concern about community safety, are in fact indissolubly interconnected; he acts from knowledge of the intimidation and violence that the mosques regularly bring with them.

He observes that mosques are increasingly being built in the UK in numbers which are disproportionate to the need for them, and often in areas with hardly any Muslim population.

The Law and Freedom Foundation also offers advice to local activists on how to go about the business of mosque busting. Gavin Boby's is an original approach, even the way he talks gives you the immediate impression that he brings something new and different (lawyer-like but this time in a good sense) to the anti-Islam movement.

Boby has become a household name in the counterjihad movement, and others outside the UK are following his example, like Geert Wilders in Holland, whose party recently launched the “MoskNee” (“MosqueNo”) project. Still to remain in continental Europe, the mosque buster spoke at the Brussels ICLA conference on July 9 2012.

He was also invited to speak in Ottawa, Canada by the organization Act for Canada, which points out that the University of Alberta's former Chair in Islamic Studies explained how the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hassan al-Banna hoped to change "the status of the Mosque, bringing it from a static place of worship to a center of Islamic revolution", while Youssef Qaradawi, unconditionally endorsed by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood operating in Canada, wrote: "It must be the role of the mosque to guide the public policy of a nation, raise awareness of critical issues, and reveal its enemies. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah". Gavin also spoke in Toronto and Montreal.

In August/September 2012 Mr Boby toured Australia on invitation of the Q Society of Australia, according to which many Australians still do not fully understand how important mosques and mosque-building are in Islamic doctrine and how crucially different a mosque is from a church or synagogue. Many Australians did not know that in their country there are already over 340 mosques and Islamic prayer rooms, many of which are rooms in once secular public buildings and public spaces.

As can be expected, there is controversy and attempts to stop this mosque-busting lawyer from giving speeches wherever they are scheduled, and he has been vilified by the mass media.

But what really matters is that it works. Maybe his activity can be the inspiration to find other specialistic, professional ways to use the law against the Islamization of our countries.

Giuliani: Institutionalized Political Correctness Jeopardizes Safety

Sean Hannity of Fox News interviews Republican Rudolph Giuliani, who was New York City major at the time of 9/11, on the Boston bombings.

The elder brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the dead main suspect, was already on a government watch list. Not only that. The US government had been warned multiple times by the Russians about him and how dangerous he might be, and Homeland Security, as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, knew that Tamerlan left the U.S. for Russia last year. What shocks Giuliani is that he had been dropped from the watch list after he travelled to Russia, whereas that trip, obviously to Chechnya, should have been reason to place him higher on that list.

The former mayor has always thought, he says, that not being able to call a spade "a spade", or the Fort Hood massacre "terrorism" and not "workplace violence", would lead to a situation he calls "institutionalized political correctness". That means that workers in the bureacracy - either in the military or law enforcement - get the message from above that the keyword is being over cautious with classifying people and crimes, to the point of hampering investigations and security.


"I'm not even sure if we can use the description 'Muslim extremist' any longer", he adds.

Muslims Pelting Dogs Get Just Deserts

Fantastic video showing a mob of disgustingly coward Muslims in Casablanca, Morocco, throwing rocks and bottles at two German Sheperds walking down the street with their human companion.

But the splendid animals react by mauling the bastards. It is not clear why the dogs' owner tries to stop them, they were only defending themselves.

Islam considers dogs "unclean". It forbids believers to keep dogs, and the punishment for doing that is the loss of one or two qiraats from a Muslim's hasanaat (good deeds) each day, meaning it is easier to go to Hell.

Muhammad made statements to the effect that dogs are "impure" and worse, and these edicts have always affected dogs in a tragic way, leading to the cruel treatment of these wonderful, loving and faithful animals.

The statements regarding dogs are not found in the Quran but there are many of them in the hadith, collections of traditions which are a primary foundation of Islamic theology and the basis of many Islamic laws. Muhammad ordered that and all black dogs and most other dogs should be killed.

Islam is unfortunately spreading like a wildfire. It is crucial that Muhammad’s teachings are examined: was he really a prophet or someone with mental problems?


h/t to The Muslim Issue.

Want to Know if a Site Is Blocked in Iran?

There is a website with a test that tells you if a particular site on the internet is blocked in Iran, predictably called Blockediniran.

I can't find any source that can give information about the reliability of this test, which I presume will not be 100%. In fact, while the OK answers (not blocked) are definite, the BLOCKED results are more cautious, saying: "It appears as though this site IS blocked in Iran".

Among the websites banned in Iran are Jihad Watch, Daniel Pipes, Fox News and The Daily Mail.

Very understandably not blocked are The Guardian, The Times, Occupy Wall Street, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein.

My site, Enza Ferreri, is blocked in Iran.

Is Released Boston Bombings Saudi Man Really Innocent?

Just after the Boston Marathon bombings and before they knew the identity of the two main suspects, the Tsarnaev brothers, the police questioned Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, a Saudi man, as a "person of interest". He was running away from the scene of the crime after the explosions like so many others, but he had acted in a way that a witness found suspicious.

He was just at the finish line of the Boston Marathon when the bombs exploded and he got injured but, instead of seeking medical assistance, he was running away.

This is the summary of the story so far:

•A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing
•As the story gained traction, TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national, originally identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi
•Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill.
•An ICE official said a different Saudi national is in custody, but is “in no way” connected to the bombings.
•A congressional source, however, says that the file on Alharbi was created, that he was “linked” in some way to the Boston bombings (though it is unclear how), and that documents showing all this have been sent to Congress.
•Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano
•Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that Alharbi was allegedly flagged on a terrorist watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted. Sources close to the investigation also told him the Saudi is still set for deportation.
•New information provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered early Wednesday evening to disassociate him from the initial charges
•Sources say the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts
•Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.

Now, as former Muslim Brotherhood member turned peace activist Walid Shoebat observes, many from Alharbi’s clan are involved in terrorism and are members of Al-Qaeda. A list of 85 terrorists listed by the Saudi government shows that several people belonging to the Alharbi clan have been active fighters in Al-Qaeda. And there are several Alharbi clan members in Guantanamo.

Saudi Arabia is a highly tribal society, and both clan and family ties are important and tell you a lot about people:

There are specific Saudi clans that are rife with members of Al-Qaeda, which makes it quite alarming as to why nearly a hundred thousand student visas are issued to these. Americans are clueless as to clan ties when it comes to terrorism.

Lesson one: Terrorism and crime by the Saudis is interlinked extensively within families, as we see in the Harbi clan.

Shoebat had warned a couple of weeks before the Boston Marathon bombings about the threat of Saudi infiltration into the United States, saying: "Many of these Saudi nationals are criminals and terrorists".

The mainstream media are ignoring the question marks surrounding former "person of interest" Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, but Glenn Beck is doing his investigative journalist job and The Blaze is reporting on it:

Beck proceeded to highlight the background of the Saudi national first identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston bombings, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, noting that the the NTC issued an event file calling for his deportation using section 212, 3B which is proven terrorist activity.

“We are not sure who actually tagged him as a ’212 3B,’ but we know it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain,” Beck explained. “It is the equivalent in civil society of charging someone with premeditated murder and seeking the death penalty — it is not thrown around lightly.”

Beck continued, noting that after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud on Tuesday, the FBI began backtracking on the Saudi national from suspect, to person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.

Then, on Wednesday, President Obama had a “chance” encounter with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.

“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered,” Beck said. “This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge….You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off. It would require too much to do it.”

“There are only two people that could revoke the deportation order — the director of the NTC could do it after speaking with each department, the FBI, the ATC, etc. — which is impossible to do in such a short period of time, — or, somebody at the very highest levels of the State Department could do it. We don’t have any evidence to tell you which one did it,” Beck said...

If, as an ICE official said last week, there is actually a ​second ​Saudi in custody, who is it? Beck asked...

It is still unclear why the government is stonewalling the media on information as to why the file initially labeled Alharbi as a threat, only to change that designation later in the week. Is there a legitimate threat that’s being covered up? Did the government have actual concerns about Alharbi, but was too quick to connect him in this instance and is now trying to stave off embarrassment?...

“The Bush administration would later block the investigation into Saudi involvement into 9/11, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and would eventually force the redaction of a 28-page chapter of the 9/11 Commission report regarding foreign, specifically Saudi, support for some of the Al-Qaeda hijackers,” Beck said, noting that the questionable relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States goes back further than the current administration.

But, he said, we have now taken that relationship to a whole new level. “On January 14, 2013 President Obama met with Saudi Minister of Interior,” Beck remarked. “Two days later Janet Napolitano signed agreement with Saudi minister allowing ‘trusted traveler’ status on Saudi student visitors, meaning greatly reduced security checks and scrutiny.”

“This is trusted traveler status that we don’t give to some of our most trusted allies, and we gave it to Saudi Arabia last January?” Beck said. “So they can just walk into our country no questions asked?”

“There is a pattern,” he said. “There is a relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia the American public doesn’t know about. The case of Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi is only the latest example.”

Even prior to the Boston bombings, Republican lawmakers had expressed concern about the "potential risks" of a Department of Homeland Security decision granting "trusted traveler" status to airline passengers from Saudi Arabia.