Courtney currently is a consultant, speaker, and published author on a variety of topics, including ISIS, countering violent extremism, counter terrorism, and women in politics. Currently she is working with the Los Angeles Police Department’s counter terrorism unit on strategic initiatives to tackle extremism and foster relationships within the community. Courtney is also working with CSIS on a study commissioned by Tony Blair & Leon Panetta relating to violent extremism in the future. She also serves on a working advisory group for Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign, focusing on CVE and ISIS. Courtney also works with the Quilliam Foundation, a counter terrorism think tank based in London, which challenges extremist narratives. She is a reserve specialist officer with LAPD’s Counter Terrorism Unit.So, in short, La Bau is embedded deeply in what has been termed the "deep state," and her op-ed probably reflects the attitude of those in charge of determining anti-terrorism policy. Glenn Reynolds would probably refer to her as a Democratic operative with a by-line, but this operative also is in a position to shape policy. Regardless, her whole career is focused around consulting about terrorism and so she has a vested economic interest in keeping the public scared about "terrorism."
Courtney also sits on the board and is the program committee chair of Emerge California, an organization dedicated to recruiting and training Democratic women to run for political office. She went through the intensive 7-month program, chosen as a future leader who will run for office. Courtney also frequently speaks on behalf of the Pacific Council on International Policy on various foreign affairs issues. She is the Political Director, and a very active Political Partner for the Truman National Security Project in Washington DC; through this role she has frequented various media outlets.
Courtney has also worked with the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign, having served as the women’s constituency leader in Southern California during the primary elections.
Courtney previously worked and lived between Cairo, Egypt and Los Angeles as a Senior Investment Consultant for various companies in the region, analyzing opportunities within the finance, real estate and entertainment industries across the Middle East and Southeast Asia. As a result, she was in Tahrir Square during the uprising, and experienced the Egyptian revolution and the political shift in the region first hand.
Prior to her work overseas, Courtney was a Global Investor for JPMorgan Securities in Los Angeles where she was responsible for advising on and execution of client trades and strategies across various products – including U.S. and International equities, listed options, restricted stock, fixed income, structured investments, mutual funds (proprietary and 3rd party), foreign exchange, and alternative investments. She started her career as an Analyst for JPMorgan’s Private Bank in New York and then Los Angeles prior to moving to the trading desk.
Courtney has also served as part an international delegation that was sent to Cairo, Egypt to monitor the presidential elections. She is currently on call with various international organizations in this capacity. Courtney also serves on staff as the Director of Missions for the City Church Los Angeles campus.
Courtney graduated from the University of Southern California in 2001 with a B.S. in Business Administration. Although a native of Los Angeles, Courtney is a travel enthusiast and finds joy in understanding cultures, religions, and foreign relations having lived and worked overseas. She is also a die-hard Dodger fan.
Back to her op-ed. The first sentence should tell you why our anti-terrorism efforts were largely fruitless until President Trump's election. She begins by asserting that "Mass shootings are a uniquely American tragedy." Given her background, she necessarily knows that this is false. Mass shootings occur almost daily in Mexico and other countries heavily involved in the drug trade. Other countries have their fair share as well. For instance, take a look at terrorist attacks in France and note how many were conducted with small arms. It occurs frequently in Islamic countries, particularly where there is a mix of coreligionists such as the Sunni and Shia, or minority religions that have been targeted by a pogrom. So, immediately, from the first sentence, we know that La Bau will not be honest in her assessment.
La Bau sets out her bona-fides as to international terrorism, then turns to the United States:
What I have seen is a common narrative: hatred, the notion of superiority and cleansing, and mobilization to violence in the name of an ideology. But in the United States, we’ve chosen to fight back a lot harder against the kinds of violent extremism perpetrated by foreigners or those with a certain color of skin. We created a vast toolkit to counter al Qaeda and ISIS, but we do nothing to prevent these homegrown extremists who happen to be white from accessing weapons of mass destruction in our country.Well, an incident like 9/11 does tend to focus one's attention on violent Islamic terrorism. Particularly when added together with all the other terrorist incidents since. The June 1, 2009, shooting of military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas. The 2009 Fort Hood shooting. The December 2009 "underwear bomber." An attempted bombing in New York City in May 2010. The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. The 2015 San Bernardino shooting. The 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting on Orlando, Florida. The 2017 vehicular attack in New York City killing 8 and wounding 11. And this does not even begin to touch the number of foiled attacks.
But even putting that aside, the statement "we do nothing to prevent these homegrown extremists who happen to be white" is complete B.S. Anyone that has done research on the militia and white separatist movements knows that the FBI and ATF have spent considerable time, resources, and effort in monitoring "white" organizations and infiltrating them.
And the statement "accessing weapons of mass destruction" is also inaccurate. "Weapons of mass destruction" is a term of art referring to nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons, or weapons that might be developed with similar ability to kills large quantities of people at one go. There have, to my knowledge, never been a nuclear or radiological attack conducted in the United States (unless you consider U.S. military negligence or malfeasance to be an attack). While we occasionally hear of fake incidents of "white powder" being sent to someone or another, the only biological terrorist attack in the United States that I'm aware of was the mailing of anthrax to various persons or entities in the fall of 2011. This incident was variously attributed to scientist Steven Hatfill (who later won a lawsuit against the Justice Department) and, subsequently, Bruce E. Ivins, who eventually committed suicide due to the hounding from the FBI. There is no evidence that Ivins was the perpetrator, however. One possible suspect is Iraqi microbiologist Waly Samar (Walied Samarrai), who worked in New York but lived in New Jersey, from where the first contaminated envelopes were sent. Interestingly, it was discovered that a couple of the 9/11 terrorists were treated for symptoms consistent with anthrax, suggesting that they may have been the conduits for shipping the anthrax into the United States. In short, the 2001 anthrax attacks have no connection to "white supremacism" and likely were also Islamic inspired. As for chemical weapons, the only article I came across suggesting that there was a chemical weapon attack on the United States was an article that likened the fentanyl crises to a chemical attack by the Chinese. So, La Bau's comments regarding "weapons of mass destruction" is just hyperbole designed to scare the reader.
La Bau next argues that "domestic terrorism-labeled cases are almost always linked or motivated by some version of white supremacist ideology." By only focusing on domestic terrorism, La Bau is deceptively excluding one of the most important sources of terrorism. For instance, in recent Congressional testimony, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that authorities had, through the third quarter of the fiscal year, "a hundred arrests in the international terrorism side, which includes the homegrown violent extremists," and about the same number of domestic terrorists of all stripes. Later, an FBI spokesman clarified that there were 90 arrests related to domestic terrorism. So, by the FBI Director's own testimony, the number of foreign terrorists arrested outnumbered the domestic terrorists. But even as to those, the FBI was unable to provide any concrete information to back up the number, and the author of that article was only able to confirm 5 arrests. Thus, domestic terrorism may be an insignificant risk compared to foreign inspired terrorism.
Even looking at domestic terrorism, La Bau's statement that it is "almost always linked or motivated by some version of white supremacist ideology" is false. Julie Kelly recently wrote about the sudden interest in "white nationalism" and explained:
There is no systemic threat posed by white supremacy. Domestic white terrorists are not the same as, let alone worse than ISIS Jihadis. There has been no massive “surge” in white supremacy activity, as I wrote in November. These groups remain fringe, disorganized, and unrespected.The Los Angeles Times, when reporting about Wray's testimony discussed above, observed that FBI officials said that racially motivated domestic terror cases represent about 40% of its 850 investigations. That isn't white extremists only, but would include black nationalists, and so on. And in early August 2019, an FBI document was leaked that listed black identity extremists and animal rights extremists as the top domestic terrorism threat. So La Bau's "almost always" statement is false and even the FBI, in its private internal documents, recognizes this.
La Bau then moves to the anti-gun canard, writing:
Why then do we see mass shooting after mass shooting in our nation alone? The only major difference is the everyday access to the type of weapon, an AR-15, that lets a person fire 41 times in under 30 seconds, as in Dayton.Later, she continues this theme:
Again, it’s the ready access to guns that can kill 9 people and injure 27 more even when it takes police less than a minute to stop the attack. Such access in this country is unparalleled, but it is not a “freedom” we should be too proud of.I've gone over this topic so many times that I'm tired of it. The reality is that people that are motivated to commit atrocities will use whatever comes to hand. The worst terrorist incident in the United States, the 9/11, attacks were carried out with box cutters and airliners. The second largest incident, the Oklahoma City Bombing, used an IED. The largest mass killing at a school was carried out in 1927 by someone using explosives.
It is true that the two largest mass shootings in U.S. history (2017 Las Vegas shooting and the Pulse nightclub shooting) were committed using semi-automatic rifles. But the third largest, the Virginia Tech shooting, was committed using a handgun, as were many others. The 1966 shooting at the University of Texas was done with a bolt action rifle. And by the way, the largest mass shooting incident was in Kenya in 2014--148 killed.
Finally, she ties it all together, asserting that there is a national emergency:
I remember September 11, 2001. That attack changed the course of history, and it changed the way counterterrorism efforts were conducted around the world.And then she ends by urging the passage of two gun control bills that would extend the time that the Feds can process a NICS check and another bill prohibiting private transfers of firearms.
In the wake of the attack, communities were surveilled, houses of worship were monitored and law enforcement agencies had to adapt and shift as the threat evolved. Now is the time to mobilize against a similar threat. We need to put the same time and energy into fighting and curbing white supremacy as we did to stopping Al Qaeda after 9-11.
Let's be clear here. The United States does not have gun problem. And, in particular, it does not have a gun problem involving white Americans. Quoting from the Anatomically Correct Banana:
On a related note, the United States does not have a gun problem. The firearm homicide rate in the US seems very high for a developed nation, but that’s until you look under (in?) the hood. The firearm homicide rate for white Americans is 1.7 per 100,000, which is identical to the Czech Republic and lower than countries like Canada, France, and Austria, which, to be fair, have their own issues with “diversity.” The firearm homicide rate for Hispanics in the United States is 6.4 per 100,000, or nearly four times that of white Americans. The firearm homicide rate for blacks in the US is 19.8 per 100,000, or eleven-and-a-half times that of whites. This is very obviously not a gun problem, but a people problem, and a black and brown people problem at that.A cynical part of me thinks La Bau's op-ed is partially motivated by her financial interests: now that the U.S. is dialing back its military presence in the Near and Middle-East, there might not be the demand for terrorism experts to advise governments and businesses.
But her voice is only one of many recently pushing the White Scare and linking it to gun control or mass shootings. I suspect that what these elites see is a nation where a larger than normal percentage are beginning to wake up to what has been done to them over the last several decades. And these elites fear the repercussions. So, not only do they want to paint anyone that is opposed to open borders and globalism (i.e., importing cheap labor and exporting good jobs) as a "white supremacist," but they also want to disarm these "deplorables".
Related articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment