Feds Are Mystified Why Syrian Named Mohamad Planned Terrorist Attack

Almost as soon as the July 14 shooting happened in Fargo, North Dakota, the media rushed to emphasize that nothing was known about the gunman’s motive. On a Friday afternoon, on a busy street just blocks away from the city’s Downtown Street Fair, there was a traffic accident. When police responded to the accident, they were targeted by gunfire that killed one officer and wounded two others. A civilian was also struck by gunfire during the shootout, in which the suspect was killed.

It was not until 24 hours later that we learned that the suspect was named Mohamad Barakat, but in the June 15 press conference announcing this information, Fargo’s police chief made it a point to declare the shooting happened “for no known reason at all.”

It is a profound mystery, you see, why a guy named Mohamad would want to kill policemen in Fargo, North Dakota. But how did Mohamad get to Fargo? We now know how that part happened:

Barakat arrived in the U.S. from Syria in 2012 as part of former President Barack Obama’s massive wave of Syrian refugees, where nearly 20,000 were admitted from October 2011 to December 2016. Eventually, Barakat gained a green card, allowing him to permanently reside in the country. In 2019, Barakat was allowed to become a naturalized American citizen.

Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama! I’m sure the family of the dead cop is grateful that you brought their son’s killer to America. Daniel Greenfield highlights the continuing “mystery motive” theme:

Authorities said they don’t know why Barakat was planning the attack downtown or why he stopped to shoot officers Friday afternoon.
“In regards to motive, if we had clear evidence of that, we would share it,” North Dakota U.S. Attorney Mac Schneider said.

I’m sure he would. Mac Schneider was a [Democrat] politician who lost a congressional race and got nominated as U.S. Attorney by Joe Biden.

Schneider declined to say if Barakat was on the FBI’s radar.

The FBI’s too busy rounding up Trump supporters to bother investigating guys from Syria named Mohamad. Finally this week, we were informed that the Syrian named Mohamad had a vast arsenal of weapons:

The heavily armed man who ambushed Fargo police officers investigating a fender bender last week likely had a bigger and bloodier attack in mind, with at least two fairs taking place at the time in and around North Dakota’s largest city, authorities said Friday.
Mohamad Barakat killed one officer and wounded two others and a bystander before a fourth officer shot and killed him, ending the July 14 attack.
Over the past five years, Barakat, 37, searched the internet for terms including “kill fast,” “explosive ammo,” “incendiary rounds,” and “mass shooting events,” state Attorney General Drew Wrigley said Friday during a news conference in Fargo, a city of about 125,000 people. But perhaps the most chilling search was for “area events where there are crowds,” which on July 13 brought up a news article with the headline, “Thousands enjoy first day of Downtown Fargo Street Fair.”
Had Officer Zach Robinson not killed Barakat, authorities said they shudder to think how much worse the attack might have been. All evidence suggests that Barakat came upon the traffic crash by “happenstance” and that his ensuing ambush was a diversion from his much bigger intended target, Wrigley said. . . .
On the day of the attack, the downtown fair was in its second day and was less than 3 miles from the crash scene. It’s unclear if it was the intended target, though, as Barakat also searched for information on the Red River Valley Fair, which was just a 6-mile drive from the scene, the attorney general said.
After driving by the fender bender, Barakat pulled into an adjacent parking lot to watch from his parked car, Wrigley said. He said Barakat’s car was loaded with guns, a homemade grenade, more than 1,800 rounds of ammunition, three “largish” containers full of gasoline, plus two propane tanks, one completely filled and the other half-filled not with propane, but with “explosive materials concocted at home, purchased lawfully.”
With police and firefighters busy helping, Barakat watched for several minutes until the officers walked by him, when he lifted a .223-caliber rifle out of his car window and began firing, Wrigley said.
The rifle had a binary trigger that allowed it to fire so rapidly that it sounded like an automatic weapon, he said. A binary trigger is a modification that allows a weapon to fire one round when the trigger is pulled and another when it is released — in essence doubling a gun’s firing capacity. The three officers who were shot had no time to react and fell in rapid succession. He also shot and wounded a fleeing woman, Karlee Koswick, who had been involved in the fender bender, he said.
Robinson, who was badly outgunned but was the only officer at the scene who hadn’t been shot, engaged Barakat in a two-minute shootout. It ended with Robinson shooting and killing Barakat as bystanders crouched nearby.
Wrigley described Robinson as “the last man standing in that blue line at that moment.”
“What he was standing between was not just the horrible events that were unfolding there, but between the horrible events that Mohamad Barakat had envisioned, planned and intended and armed himself for — beyond fully — that day,” he said.
Barakat killed Officer Jake Wallin, 23, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Minnesota Army National Guard, and wounded Officers Andrew Dotas and Tyler Hawes. Wallin and Hawes were so new that they were still undergoing field training.
Barakat was a Syrian national who came to the U.S. on an asylum request in 2012 and became a U.S. citizen in 2019, Wrigley said, adding that he didn’t appear to have any ties to the Muslim community in Fargo. He said Barakat had some family in the U.S., but not in the Fargo area, and that investigators are still looking into his history before he arrived in the country.
In recent years, Barakat amassed his arsenal. And his internet searches about causing mayhem date back to 2018, with periods in which they abated before picking back up, the attorney general said. . . .
Wrigley said Barakat was wearing a vest that was “absolutely stuffed” with magazines and that he “was putting the finishing touches on his shooting skills in the last hours before this assault.”
As for the propane tanks, Wrigley said it was “quite dramatic” when the bomb squad detonated them. He suggested the tanks contained something similar to Tannerite, a commercial explosive that can be easily detonated with a shot from a high-powered rifle.
“Obvious motive to kill,” Wrigley said. “I mean, driven by hate. Driven by wanting to kill. Not particularized to some group that we can discern at this moment, not particularized to one individual that we can see.”
Barakat had worked odd jobs, and briefly trained as an emergency responder at a nearby community college. He had no criminal record or social media presence and had so little contact with other people that the only photo law enforcement could provide was a blurry image of him lifted from a video.

Mohamad from Syria arrives here about 10 years ago, and only “worked odd jobs,” so how could he afford all this weaponry? Really, 1,800 rounds of ammunition? A gun with a modified trigger? Notice that the information about Barakat is coming from the state Attorney General, rather than from federal officials. The feds want to make this case disappear, so they can go back to their usual business of investigating Trump voters and giving sweetheart plea deals to Democrats.



 

As ‘Blue Wave’ Collapses, Desperate Democrat Denounced by Women

 

Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp voted against confirming Justice Kavanaugh, and her poll numbers in North Dakota, which had never been very good, took a sharp turn for the worse. It appears that most voters in North Dakota don’t share Sen. Heitkamp’s anti-male ideology and the desperate Democrat has now made her problems even worse:

In her zeal to use the #MeToo movement against her Republican opponent, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s (D-ND) campaign placed an ad purporting to be from victims of sexual assault calling out challenger Kevin Cramer for being insensitive.
But several of the women named in the ad say they did not consent to having their name used in this manner, and at least one says she isn’t even a victim.
The ad, which ran in several North Dakota newspapers including the Bismarck Tribune and the Wahpeton Daily News, was framed as an “open letter” to Rep. Cramer, criticizing his comments that the #MeToo movement was “a movement toward victimization.”
“We are here to let you know that we have all suffered from domestic violence, sexual assault, or rape — and that yes, we expect somebody to believe us when we say it,” the letter states. A disclaimer that this was paid for by the Heitkamp for Senate campaign is featured at the bottom of the letter.
Shortly after the ad ran, women who say they were named as signers began posting on Facebook that the campaign did not have their permission to publish their information. . . .
One woman posted in a Facebook group . . . . that not only did she not give permission for her name to be used by the campaign, but that she doesn’t support Heitkamp and is not even a domestic abuse survivor.
“This was posted in the Bismarck Tribune,” The woman says in her post, which contained a photo of the ad. “A lot of these people listed, including me, did not give anyone permission for our names to be posted. I don’t even support Heidi Heitkamp and I am not a domestic abuse survivor. Should this even be legal?? Using people’s names as part of your campaign??”
Another woman said the campaign was “literally sharing false information.” She wrote a response to the campaign saying she “NEVER gave my consent or permission, written or verbal, to be involved in anything like this: for, against, or personally affected.” She also said some of the names are spelled wrong and that some are listed twice.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)

Heitkamp looks set to lose a seat Democrat have held since 1960 and why? Because in the post-Obama era, Democrats have made identity politics the sole basis of their electoral appeal. Democrats are the anti-white party and the anti-male party. Common-sense people outside the coastal urban bubbles reject this ideology of hatred, and yet the more they register their opposition to the Democrat agenda, the more the Democrats double down. If you opposed the dishonest smear campaign against Justice Kavanaugh, you’re a “rape apologist,” guilty of defending “white male privilege.” The possibility that Christine Blasey Ford was lying (which is what the preponderance of evidence indicates) was automatically excluded from discussion, and anyone who argued on behalf of due-process rights was accused of “misogyny.” In essence, Democrats made the Kavanaugh hearings a referendum on radical feminist ideology, and were shocked they lost.

Prospects for a Democrat “blue wave” on Nov. 6 are looking increasingly dim, and even the New York Times is becoming skeptical:

The fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court seems to have contributed to polarizing the electorate, helping Republicans gain in red states and districts even as Democrats cement their strong position elsewhere. The trend might fade, but if it holds it will be an abrupt change from earlier polls and last year’s special election results, which indicated that Democrats were highly competitive in red areas.
Instead, the district and state polling raises the possibility of an election more like last year’s Virginia elections or the 2010 midterm elections. Both were strong results for the party out of power — but the big numbers came mainly on home turf. A similar result this year would tend to lock the Democrats into their single biggest disadvantage: the map.
The Democratic geographic disadvantage is so severe that it gives the Republicans a chance to survive a so-called wave election, like the 1994, 2006 and 2010 elections that flipped control of the House.

Remember this when you look at the so-called “generic” congressional polls: Currently, Democrats enjoy an advantage of about 7 points on the generic ballot question, but much of that margin involves voters in deep-blue urban districts — New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, etc. — represented in Congress by Democrats. While billionaires like Tom Steyer and George Soros are pouring tens of millions of dollars into campaigns to flip GOP-held House seats, voters in Kansas or Kentucky aren’t automatically going to switch from Republican to Democrat because of attack ads on TV. Common-sense voters are smart enough to understand that no matter how “moderate” the Democrat candidate in their district may try to seem, a vote for Democrats is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and the left-wing mobs that tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.



 

North Dakota GOP Screws Over Santorum

I’d heard some talk about this: Evidently, the pro-Romney leadership of the North Dakota Republican Party rigged their state convention so that, despite the fact that Mitt Romney came in third in the March 6 caucuses, he got most of the delegates. The Right Scoop has this video:

(Hat-tip: Richard McEnroe on Twitter.) The amazing thing about this is how GOP “leaders” flagrantly screw over their own rank-and-file like this — and “leaders” in the Republican Party do this all the time — and then wonder why it’s so hard to generate grassroots enthusiasm for their hand-picked candidates.

Short of tar-and-feathering the corrupt bastards, what can you do?

Palin Helps Romney Win Alaska

WASHINGTON, Pennsylvania
Mitt Romney has a powerful ally in his effort to win the Republican nomination: Sarah Palin, who told a Fox News reporter last night that she voted for Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich got 1,834 votes in the Alaska caucuses, giving the former House Speaker 14.2% of the vote, good for a fourth-place finish behind third-place finisher Ron Paul (3,105 votes, 24%), runner-up Rick Santorum (3,762 votes, 29%) and winner Romney (4,225, 32.6%).

Gingrich also placed fourth Tuesday in caucuses in North Dakota (962 votes, 8.5%) and Idaho (940 votes, 2.1%), and the primaries in Vermont (4,608 votes, 8.1%) and Massachusetts (16,756 votes, 4.6%). Gingrich placed third in Ohio (14.6%), Tennessee (24%), and Oklahoma (27.5%).

Gingrich’s vote total in Alaska was more than four times as large as Romney’s 463-vote margin over Santorum. In Ohio, Gingrich’s third-place total (175,375) was 16.7 times larger than Romney’s 10,508-vote margin over Santorum.

In related news, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — who quit the presidential race Jan. 19 and endorsed Gingrich — was still on the ballot in Ohio, as was former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who dropped out Jan. 16 and endorsed Romney. Between them, Perry and Huntsman got 13,843 votes in Tuesday’s Ohio primary.

UPDATE: This post seems to have stirred some anger from people who think that my summary of Neutral Objective Facts was intended as a personal disparagement of Sarah Palin.

Of course, I would have enthusiastically supported Governor Palin, had she seen fit to run for president — see my coverage of her Labor Day speech in New Hampshire — but she decided against it. Another source of anger about this post was expressed by my young friend Jamie:

How come you hate Newt so much?

I replied in the comments, but given the rage reaction this post seems to have provoked, I’ll quote my reply here:

I don’t “hate” him, Jamie. But as a presidential candidate, Newt is utterly implausible. There is simply no way in hell a twice-divorced Republican, married to his former mistress — with whom he had an extramarital affair in the midst of the Clinton impeachment scandal — is going to be elected president of the United States.
Not going to happen. Period.
Gingrich’s rhetorical skills are admirable, but his biography makes him unelectable. This is just the reality of politics, and people who would like to ignore Newt’s biography are simply deluded.
It’s not a matter of policy or ideology. I don’t accuse Newt or his supporters of being insufficiently conservative. They are, however, insufficiently realistic about what it takes to succeed in presidential politics, and their admiration for Newt the Great Debater is blinding them to the unavoidable obstacle to Gingrich’s candidacy. Newt is wasting time and money (and his supporters are wasting their votes) on a campaign that was doomed from the outset.
These are, I assert, Neutral Objective Facts. You may dispute the facts, but I guarantee you that Newt Gingrich will not win the GOP nomination.
Not this year. Not ever.

This is my summary of what is, rather than my personal opinion of what ought to be, and I understand that many people wish that Gingrich’s debate skills were sufficient to offset the liabilities of his biography, but they’re not.

It seems that the online world has become a place where we are so accustomed to people expressing opinions that we have become prone to regard simple statements of fact —e.g., “Newt Gingrich will never be elected president, nor nominated by the Republican Party for that office” — as if they were merely opinions, which might be argued out of existence.

Having supported a lot of long-shot underdogs over the years, I recognize why people might vote for a completely hopeless candidate like Newt. But when the hopelessness was so obvious before his campaign ever began, it ill behooves Newt’s supporters to disparage the motives of those who are guilty of no sin more grievous than stating Neutral Objective Facts.

Attention, Lonely Women

There you are, alone at your computer on a Saturday night. Sure, you’re attractive in your own special way. But that miserable city where you live is full of beta males, metrosexuals and other wimpy guys who don’t know how to appreciate a woman like you. There’s only one thing left to do: Head to North Dakota!

TIOGA, N.D. — As much as the drilling rigs that tower over this once placid corner of the prairie, the two communities springing up just outside of town testify to the galloping pace of growth here in oil country.
They are called man camps — temporary housing compounds supporting the overwhelmingly male work force flooding the region in search of refuge from a stormy economy. These two, Capital Lodge and Tioga Lodge, built on opposite sides of a highway, will have up to 3,700 residents, according to current plans.
Confronted with the unusual problem of too many unfilled jobs and not enough empty beds to accommodate the new arrivals, North Dakota embraced the camps — typically made of low-slung, modular dormitory-style buildings — as the imperfect solution to keeping workers rested and oil flowing.

Why are you sitting around all lonely in that city, sweetheart? You could be as popular as the prom queen in Tioga, North Dakota!


Regis Philbin, 79, to Retire

And isn’t it about time?

Regis Philbin, a star of morning television for a generation, made a surprise announcement at the start of “Live with Regis and Kelly” Tuesday morning, telling viewers that he intends to step down sometime later this year.
The decision will mark the end of one of television’s longest runs on the same show for an individual host — 28 years. Mr. Philbin has shared the show with two chief co-hosts during his run, Kathy Lee Gifford and the current co-host Kelly Ripa. . . .
Mr. Philbin broke into his usual morning banter with Ms. Ripa, to say: “Well, I’ve got one of those announcements to make.” He added that he didn’t “want to alarm anybody” before declaring, referring to his producer Michael Gelman, “It’s going to happen. The station needs to know and Gelman needs to know and we all need to know. But this will be my last year.”
Mr. Philbin, 79, did not offer any specific reason for his decision other than to say, “There is a time. Everything must come to an end for certain people on camera — for certain old people.”

Certainly after so many years as a national TV star, Regis Philbin ought to have accumulated enough wealth that he can live comfortably the rest of his life, and I certainly wish him a long life.

I’m not anti-geezer. At 51, I’m a good ways down the road to geezerdom myself. But I’ve always thought it was wrong for people to ensconce themselves in a key position and then stay there past the point where they’re doing anything other than going through the motions — and preventing younger people from having an opportunity. There comes a time when a successful person ought to go play golf and write his memoirs.

One of the things that ruined CBS News was that Dan Rather stayed in the “Evening News” anchor chair until he was 75, preventing the organization from revitalizing its on-air personnel.

UPDATE: Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad has decided to retire rather than seek re-election in 2012, but unlike Philbin, it isn’t advanced age that’s driving 62-year-old Conrad out of the Senate. It’s the Big Red Wave, which hit North Dakota hard in the 2010 midterms, as Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post notes, “Former [Democrat] Sen. Byron Dorgan retired in the face of a challenge from popular [Republican] Governor-now-Senator John Hoeven while former Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) was defeated by [Republican] Rick Berg.”

Nine Key States for 2012

Jennifer Rubin identifies the Democratic senators who are most vulnerable in the next cycle:

Jon Tester, Bill Nelson, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Sherrod Brown, and Kent Conrad, for starters. That’s a total of seven Democrats who voted for (were all the 60th vote for) ObamaCare, supported the stimulus plan, and come from states (Montana, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and North Dakota) that are quite likely to vote for a Republican for president. And the way things are going, you might add Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) and Herb Kohl (Wisconsin), who may have gone too far left in their states.

OK, so who are the possible contenders for the GOP Senate nominations in these states? What grassroots conservatives should be doing is encouraging as many candidates as possible to enter 2012 Republican primaries. If we let John Cornyn and the NRSC handpick their pets, we’ll get a lot of Charlie Crist/Mike Castle types.

Having strong GOP Senate candidates running in these states will have an “up-ticket” benefit, especially in the key presidential swing states like Florida, Ohio and Missouri.

So, if you’re familiar with any of these states, feel free to suggest good conservative candidates.

UPDATE: In the comments, someone suggests Ken Blackwell to take on Sherrod Brown in Ohio.

Marcela Hoeven Bikini Scandal?

North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven is 47 points ahead in a Senate campaign that is, by all odds, the closest thing to a surefire pick-up for Republicans this fall. And yet it appears that there are some fiendish Democrats who hope that “family values” conservatives will be horrified to discover that the governor’s daughter Marcela looks good in a bikini:

Three years ago, when a North Dakota political blog reported that Marcela, 23 at the time, had a modeling portfolio online, the photos disappeared the next day.  The existence of this lone remaining photo (posted at a North Dakota State University student forum) was brought to my attention by a source who asked my opinion as a communications professional: Is this a scandal?

Short answer: Of course not.

Conservatives are not only smarter and more patriotic than liberals, we’re also better-looking. It’s high time we stopped letting liberals get inside our heads and tell us that it’s some kind of “hypocrisy” for conservatives even to acknowledge the existence of sex.

Here’s a cluebat for you: Mrs. Other McCain and I have six kids. Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that the missus looked good in a swimsuit, to say nothing of my notorious Speedo? On what planet is that supposed to be a scandal?

Remember when Democrats thought they could take down Scott Brown for his Cosmo centerfold? Remember when Democrats tried to make it a “scandal” that Scott Brown’s daughters wore bikinis? And do you remember how Scott Brown kicked their Democrat butts on Election Day?

It’s 2010, conservatives — this year, we’re taking sexy back.

JOHN HOEVEN for U.S. SENATE

(P.S.: Marcela Hoeven works at First Western Bank & Trust in Minot, N.D., which her family has operated for three generations. So she’s a Republican who looks good in a bikini and can balance a checkbook. What’s not to like about that?)

UPDATE (Smitty): Instalanche! Thanks, Professor Reynolds!

UPDATE II (RSM): Everyone is thoroughly scandalized:

And notice that, although Memeorandum is now listing this shocking scandal, lefty bloggers are trying to ignore it. What’s going on here? Bikini-worthy Cassy Fiano explains:

Liberals always like to act shocked that conservative women can be sexy and conservative. . . .  They like to paint conservatives as frigid, dried up, ugly old prudes, and of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth. . . . They’re always shocked when bikini photos do not, in fact, derail conservative candidates’ campaigns.

Exactly what I’ve been trying to explain to Christine O’Donnell‘s campaign staff, but . . .

UPDATE III: If you’ve ever wondered what John Hoeven’s Democratic opponent looks like in a bikini, you’re obviously in need of psychological counseling.

Speaking of twisted minds, what about Judge Walker’s decision in San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger?