Saudi Arabia braces for ISIS

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba and pray at the Grand mosque during the annual haj pilgrimage in the holy city of MeccaIntersec, Nov. 23, 2015:

Jeff Moore investigates the growing influence of ISIS in Saudi Arabia, the rise of incidents, the different cells and what the future holds for the Kingdom

While Saudi Arabian forces battle it out with Houthi rebels in Yemen in their most intense conventional fighting since Operation Desert Storm, a domestic irregular threat looms over the kingdom: ISIS. ISIS has launched several small but effective attacks against Saudi Arabia in the past, and authorities have shut down several cells. None of this is surprising since the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, called on Muslims in November 2014 to attack the Saudi government and kill Shia Muslims. These threat variables spell trouble for both Saudi Arabia and the entire Peninsula.

In March and April this year, Saudi authorities arrested 93 members of an ISIS cell that aimed to attack the US embassy in Riyadh with a car bomb. This cell also plotted to attack Saudi security forces, residential compounds and prisons, presumably to free their jailed cohorts. Authorities said that the group further meant to enflame Sunni-Shia relations.

On 22 May, during Friday prayers, a suicide bomber attacked the Shia Ali b. Abi Talib Mosque in Al Qudaih, near Qatif, Najd Province. The explosion killed 21 and wounded 102. The Najd Province of ISIS (central Saudi Arabia) claimed responsibility, and it was apparently ISIS’ first attack in thecountry, though officials believe it might have staged an attack in Eastern Saudi in 2014.

The next week on 29 May – again during Friday prayers – a suicide bomber dressed in women’s clothing attacked the Shia Imam Hussein mosque in Dammam. As the bomber was parking his car, a security team hailed him and he detonated his device, killing four. The Najd Province of ISIS claimed responsibility.

On 3 July, a group of Saudi security officials were in Taidf serving an arrest warrant on an ISIS suspect, Yousif Abdulatif Shabab al-Ghamdi, when they came under fire. One official was killed, and al-Ghamdi got away. Three suspects were arrested and had in their possession laptops, ISIS flags, and silencers.

The Ministry of Interior (MoI) said on 18 July that it had arrested 431 people belonging to four ISIS cells over the past few weeks, many of which were linked to the Shia mosque attacks. These cells were planning attacks on a variety of targets and were also making suicide bombs.

On 6 August, an ISIS suicide bomber detonated his explosives in the mosque of an elite Saudi security force based in Abha, Asir province. The blast, which occurred during noon prayers, killed 15 and wounded 22.

ISIS’ target was the Special Emergency Force (SEF), a counter terrorism unit under the Public Security Directorate, which falls under the MoI. SEF has 13 base camps throughout Saudi Arabia to react to various terrorist scenarios.

ISIS said its operative from Hijaz province of ISIS carried out the SEF bombing against a monument of the apostate. Hijaz refers to the South-Western area of Saudi Arabia, which is close to Yemen, and this appears to be the first time this particular branch of ISIS has been mentioned in open sources.

Later that month, on 23 August, gunmen – possibly belonging to ISIS, say investigators – shot at a police patrol in Jeddah in a drive-by shooting that wounded one.

On 16 September, police conducted raids against ISIS safe houses in Riyadh and Dammam. They arrested three and killed two. The militants had in their possession firearms, scores of ready-made IEDs, and cellphones.

On 30 September, police arrested a Syrian man and Philippine woman in Al-Fayah district, Riyadh, for running a makeshift suicide bomb factory. Aside from defusing two bombs on site, they also found bomb-making equipment, two suicide vests, a machine gun and ammunition.

On 1 October, masked gunmen killed four in two attacks in Al-Shamli, Hail province. The first attack was on a police post where a policeman and two civilians were shot. The second was on a policeman at a traffic station. One of the attackers shouted ISIS slogans during the attack.

On 3 October, police raided two terror hideouts in Dhahran, arresting seven after an exchange of gunfire.

A analysis of these incidents reveals six takeaways. First, those carried out by the Najd group indicate that ISIS is expanding operations in the Arabian Peninsula, and that it’s specifically targeting Saudi Arabia. Since the spring, Saudi authorities have arrested or detained 540 people associated with ISIS cells on Saudi soil. Statistically speaking, since and including March, that’s approximately 77 people arrested each month up to early October. This demonstrates a significant ISIS presence in the Kingdom.

Second, the weapons and target sets demonstrated in these incidents are telling. In each case, light infantry weapons and IEDs were the norm. They are all sustainable for terror and insurgency operations (bombings, raids, ambushes, assassinations, etc.)

ISIS targeting so far has been aimed at the Saudi police/MoI (patrols, stations, and mosques), Shia mosques, a prison, the US embassy, and residential compounds, presumably foreign. These are typical for a movement that’s aiming to destabilise society, embarrass a government, drive out foreigners and inspire silent supporters as demonstrated in scores of other insurgency zones such as Iraq, Southern Thailand, Colombia and Northern Ireland.

The targeting of Shia mosques is designed to enflame existing Sunni-Shia tensions and drive a wedge between the two groups, triggering chaos and bloodshed. ISIS is trying to win Sunni hearts and minds by destroying Shias. It’s an effective destabilisation method that has shown results in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen.

Third, these attacks demonstrate good terrorist and insurgent skillsets. The SEF bombing in particular proves that ISIS has the prowess to target, infiltrate, and successfully strike one of Saudi Arabia’s most elite counter terror units, so these operatives are to be taken seriously.

Fourth, calling the Saudi government “apostates” reveals that ISIS is directly challenging it as the traditional purveyor of Islam. The term “apostate” or munafik, is one of the worst insults in Islam. In layman’s terms, it means, “you are not a ‘real Muslim,’ and you should be eliminated for this terrible sin.” This ‘takfir ideology’ is common to al Qaeda (AQ), ISIS and political Islamist groups. To purely spiritual conservative and moderate Muslims, it’s a haram (forbidden) concept.

The reference to the Hijaz province of ISIS is significant, too. Hijaz is home to Mecca and Medina, the geographic center of gravity of Islam. With this phrase, not only is ISIS making a direct administrative challenge to Saudi’s governorship over these essential sites, it also indicates that ISIS has some kind of operational entity there.

Combined, the Hijaz and apostate factors tell Saudi Arabia, “We, ISIS, are imbedded in your heartland, you are false Muslims, and we are the solution.” This is a powerful challenge because ISIS’ political warfare resonates with millions, especially the more politically inclined Islamists.

Fifth, based on the geographic spread of ISIS-related attacks and arrests, it’s apparent that it has a demonstrated presence throughout Saudi Arabia. ISIS is in the Kingdom’s East, West-Southwest, North central and the capital – and these are just the known points of ISIS activity.

Sixth, the fact that ISIS has given geographic names to its groups suggests that it has an organised structure inside Saudi – cells, at the very least – that focuses on carrying out attacks in specific regions. If the cells are mature and networked, a worst case scenario would be a Peninsula or Saudi-wide insurgency with roots deep inside Islamist sects of Sunni Islam prolific to the area.

Simply put, a terror campaign or insurgent movement is obviously afoot in Saudi. Such a scenario isn’t so far fetched. It has happened before.

Saudi Arabia fought a war against AQ from 2003-07 where the latter’s operatives had infiltrated the military and police, making it easier to attack scores of Saudi citizens, foreigners, and government personnel with bombings, assassinations, and ambushes.

Next door in UAE, a group called al-Islah with alleged links to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood sought to overthrow that government by trying to launch attacks against it in 2012. Authorities stopped these from happening and arrested 94 suspects. They convicted 68 for sedition in July 2013. A number of these had also set up a shadow government parallel to UAE’s real government from the local level all the way up to the national level. This is a classic insurgent political maneuver.

More recently, on 2 August, the UAE announced that it had arrested 41 people trying to overthrow the government and establish a caliphate. Whether it was ISIS or not remains an open question, but it sounds like it. What other group in the Middle East is currently establishing a caliphate? Not AQ, not its franchises, and not the Brotherhood.

What happens next? Additional attacks, most likely. ISIS said so in a statement released shortly after the SEF bombing. Furthermore, AQ carried out more than 40 attacks during its 2003-07 campaign in Saudi Arabia, and ISIS has proven more aggressive and bloodier than its rival. To suppose it won’t increase its operational tempo in Saudi Arabia and/or the rest of the region ignores recent history and mounting indicators and warnings.

This is not to say, however, that Saudi Arabia and its neighbors are weak and ripe for the picking. They have, in recent years, increased their counter terror and counter insurgency prowess, and they’ve decisively stopped past terrorist campaigns and shut down insurgent movements. But there’s no guarantee of success.

ISIS has made solid progress in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. It knows it needs to continue this momentum to keep attracting recruits. A dramatic and/or a high casualty attack operation in the Arabian Peninsula would do just that.

For these reasons, a strike on a major population centre, a critical military installation, key infrastructure, or even an assault matching the Grand Mosque seisure in 1979 cannot be ruled out. The latter would be in line with ISIS’ accusatory “apostate” rhetoric.

Regardless of the target, however, dangerous times are returning to the Kingdom and the Peninsula, and they’re here to stay until Riyadh demonstrably ramps up its counter politico-religious warfare activities. ISIS excels in political warfare, propaganda, and recruiting. Its brand of Islamist jihad and call to revolution is dramatically appealing, particularly in the Middle East. For Saudi Arabia to be effective, it has to directly confront the Islamist jihadi ideology and correct it, in part by rallying the global ummah, the world population of Muslims. So far, Saudi Arabia has done none of this.

Jeff Moore, Ph.D., is the chief executive officer of Muir Analytics, which assesses threats from insurgent and terror groups against corporations. He is a renowned terrorism and insurgency subject matter expert, and he is also the purveyor of SecureHotel.US, which analyses terror risks against hotels, worldwide.

Islamic State Tightens Grip on Libyan Stronghold of Sirte

An image taken from jihadist media outlet Wilayat Trablus and provided courtesy of the U.S.-based monitoring agency SITE Intelligence Group on June 9 allegedly shows Islamic State fighters running toward what they say is a power plant in the southern Libyan city of Sirte. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

An image taken from jihadist media outlet Wilayat Trablus and provided courtesy of the U.S.-based monitoring agency SITE Intelligence Group on June 9 allegedly shows Islamic State fighters running toward what they say is a power plant in the southern Libyan city of Sirte. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES


MISRATA, Libya—Even as foreign powers step up pressure against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe where it can generate oil revenue and plot terror attacks.

Since announcing its presence in February in Sirte, the city on Libya’s Mediterranean coast has become the first that the militant group governs outside of Syria and Iraq. Its presence there has grown over the past year from 200 eager fighters to a roughly 5,000-strong contingent which includes administrators and financiers, according to estimates by Libyan intelligence officials, residents and activists in the area.

The group has exploited the deep divisions in Libya, which has two rival governments, to create this new stronghold of violent religious extremism just across the Mediterranean Sea from Italy. Along the way, they scored a string of victories—defeating one of the strongest fighting forces in the country and swiftly crushing a local popular revolt.

Libya’s neighbors have become increasingly alarmed.

Tunisia closed its border with Libya for 15 days on Wednesday, the day after Islamic State claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing on a bus in the capital Tunis that killed 12 presidential guards.

Tunisia is also building a security wall along a third of that border to stem the flow of extremists between the countries. Two previous attacks in Tunisia this year that killed dozens of tourists were carried out by gunmen the government said were trained by Islamic State in Libya, which has recruited hundreds of Tunisians to its ranks.

This burgeoning operation in Libya shows how Islamic State is able to grow and adapt even as it is targeted by Russian, French and U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria as well as Kurdish and Iraqi ground assaults in Iraq.

On Thursday, nearly two weeks after Islamic State’s attacks on Paris, French PresidentFrançois Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi met in the French capital where both said Europe must turn its attention to the militants’ rise in Libya. Mr. Renzi said Libya risks becoming the “next emergency” if it is not given priority.

In Libya, Islamic State has fended off challenges from government-aligned militias and called for recruits who have the technical know-how to put nearby oil facilities into operation. Libyan officials said they are worried it is only a matter of time before the radical fighters attempt to take over more oil fields and refineries near Sirte to boost their revenues—money that could fund attacks in the Middle East and Europe.

Sirte is a gateway to several major oil fields and refineries farther east on the same coast and Islamic State has targeted those installations in the past year.

“They have made their intentions clear,” said Ismail Shoukry, head of military intelligence for the region that includes Sirte. “They want to take their fight to Rome.”

Islamic State is benefiting from a conflict that has further weakened government control in Libya. For nearly a year, the U.S. and European powers have pointed to the Islamic State threat to press the rival governments to come to a power-sharing agreement. Despite a United Nations-brokered draft agreement for peace announced in October, neither side has taken steps to implement it.

A new U.N. envoy, Martin Kobler, was appointed this month to break the stalemate, part of efforts to find a political solution to counter the extremists’ expansion.

“We don’t have a real state. We have a fragmented government,” said Fathi Ali Bashaagha, a politician from the city of Misrata who participated in the U.N.-led negotiations. “Every day we delay on a political deal, it is a golden opportunity for Islamic State to grow.”

Since early 2014, two rival factions have ruled Libya, effectively dividing the country. In the east, an internationally recognized government based in the town of Tobruk has won the backing of regional powers Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. In the west, an Islamist-leaning government based in Tripoli has relied on Misrata fighting forces for political legitimacy.

Islamic State militants have successfully taken on and defeated myriad Libyan armed factions, including the powerful militias from Misrata which were the driving force behind the revolt that unseated longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. Misrata, 150 miles west of Sirte, has recently come under sporadic Islamic State attacks.

Members of Misrata’s militias, who are loosely under the control of the western government in Tripoli, say they lack the support to mount an offensive against Islamic State. Earlier this month, the Tripoli government forced the Misrata militias into a humiliating prisoner swap with Islamic State.

“There will be no meaningful action without a political agreement,” said Abdullah al-Najjar, a field commander with the Brigade 166, an elite Misrata militia that engaged in a protracted fight with Islamic State on the outskirts of Sirte earlier this year. “You have to know you’re going to war with a government that is going to back you.”

This month, the U.S. launched an airstrike against Islamic State in Libya, its first against the group outside of Syria and Iraq. Officials said they believe the strike killed one of the top deputies of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The deputy, Abu Nabil al-Anbari, had been sent to Libya last year to establish the group’s presence there.

In recent weeks, a flood of foreign recruits and their families have arrived in Sirte—another indication the group is becoming increasingly comfortable in its North African base, according to residents and activists from Sirte and Libyan military officials.

Islamic State has called on recruits to travel to Libya instead of trying to enter Syria, while commanders have repatriated Libyan fighters from Syria and Iraq, Libyan intelligence officials said.

“Sirte will be no less than Raqqa,” is a mantra often repeated by Islamic State leaders in the Libyan city during sermons and radio broadcasts, several residents and an activist from the city said. Raqqa is the group’s self-declared capital in Syria.

Like its mother organization in Syria, Islamic State has appointed foreign “emirs” in Sirte to administer its brutal brand of social control. Music, smoking and cellphone networks have been banned while women are only allowed to walk the streets in full cover. Morality police patrol in vehicles marked with Islamic State’s logo and courts administering Islamic law, or Shariah, as well as prisons have been set up.

With a population of about 700,000, Sirte was long known for being Gadhafi’s hometown and a stronghold of his supporters.

Soon after Libya’s uprising ended more than four decades of Gadhafi’s rule, he was killed in Sirte by fighters from Misrata.

Earlier this month, Islamic State reopened schools in the city, segregating students by gender and strictly enforcing an Islamic State approved curriculum. On Fridays, the traditional day of communal prayer, the group organizes public lectures and residents are often herded into public squares to witness executions and lashings of those who run afoul of the strict rules.

The seeds of Islamic State’s growth in Libya were planted after Gadhafi’s ouster. In the almost exclusively Sunni Muslim Libya, the Sunni extremist group exploited tribal and political rifts that lingered after the strongman’s death, particularly around Sirte.

Islamic State lured extremists from other groups under the Islamic State umbrella.

By June, Brigade 166, one of western Libya’s strongest armed brigades, abandoned a monthslong battle with the militants on Sirte’s outskirts. In August, Islamic State cemented their grip on the city, bringing the last holdout district under their control, officials and residents said.

Islamic State crushed an armed uprising in August in three days. It was sparked by local residents angered over the group’s killing of a young cleric who opposed the radicals. Militants publicly crucified several people who participated in the revolt and confiscated homes.

The brutality moved the internationally recognized government in eastern Libya to plead for military intervention by Arab nations and a lifting of a U.N. arms embargo on Libya in effect since 2011. But the support never came.

Unlike in Syria, the group has struggled to provide basic services. Gas stations are dry and residents are expected to smuggle in their own fuel—as long as it is not confiscated by Islamic State.

Hospitals have been abandoned after Islamic State ordered male and female staffers be segregated. The ill must travels miles to other cities for treatment, a trip that is often accompanied by difficult questioning and searches at Islamic State checkpoints.

“No services, just punishment,” said Omar,  a 33-year-old civil engineer who fled Sirte after taking part in the failed uprising against Islamic State. “Sirte has gone dark.”

Despite the challenges, Islamic State has big plans for Sirte. A recent edition of their propaganda magazine, Dabiq, featured an interview with Abu Mughirah al-Qahtani, who was described as “the delegated leader” for Islamic State in Libya. He vowed to use Libya’s geographic position—and its oil reserves—to disrupt Europe’s security and economy.

About 85% of Libya’s crude oil production in 2014 went to Europe, with Italy being the largest recipient. About half its natural gas production is exported to Italy.

“The control of Islamic State over this region will lead to economic breakdowns,” the leader of the Libyan operation said, “especially for Italy and the rest of the European states.”

Also see:

Islam, Jihad, and our Ignorance

mosqueinabujaPolitically Short, by Nick Short on Nov. 28, 2015:

“Ignorance kills. In war, ignorance brings defeat, especially for those who are sworn to support and defend us,” writes Stephen Coughlin in his latest book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Coughlin continues, “While ignorance is not a crime for the average person, it is for professionals concerning subject matter that is the object of their professions. Why shouldn’t this hold true for national security professionals? For them, one requirement is that they know the enemy by undertaking real threat identification of entities that constitute actual threats to the Constitution and people of the United States.”

The refusal to account for the doctrinal elements of Islam in our national security analyses constitutes the professional malpractice that Coughlin was alluding to as our threat doctrine has been reduced to strategic incomprehension and incoherence. In wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris that took the lives of 130 and injured 350 others, Coughlin ominously warned back in April that this strategic incoherence in the War on Terror “will increasingly be measured by news stories that reveal senior leaders’ inability to answer basic questions about the nature of the enemy and his environment. It will also manifest itself in official responses to terrorist attacks that become progressively less reality-based.” Yet, as Americans, Parisians, and virtually every citizen living within Western society grows more outraged by yet another failure of intelligence in stopping the latest jihadist attack, “those professionally and constitutionally tasked with keeping them safe continue to lack awareness, understanding, and even professional curiosity about the doctrines that drive the enemy to action,” notes Coughlin.

For our enemies, the implementation of Islamic law known as sharia is both the objective and the basis in which they routinely states their justification for attack. Our enemy openly declares that they are engaged in a global jihad as Islamic law serves as their doctrinal driver to commit murder in order to establish an “Islamic state”, or Caliphate, governed by Islamic law.  Osama bin Laden stated the following in 2002:

Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread Shari’a law to the world — that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the masses. No, the Shari’a of Islam is the foundation. … In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their system of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts Shari’a from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case in the dawn of Islam. … They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. … Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His Shari’a.

“Jihad in the cause of Allah” is what the enemy claims it is doing, whether it be the now deceased leader of al-Qaeda or the current leader of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. To the exclusion of all other reasons, including “underlying causes” such as economic deprivation, “climate change”, or poverty, the root cause always traces back to Islam itself and the enemy doesn’t just make this claim. What the jihadis say they will do tracks exactly with what they do.

The concepts of jihad given expression by so called “extremists” can be found in the body of Islamic law as defined by recognized authorities and authoritative sources as the legal description has remained consistent across the 1400 year span that incorporates today’s recognized authorities. Defined as “warfare against non-muslims to establish the religion,” the rules of Islamic law pertaining to jihad have remained consistent regardless of whether it was defined by an eighth century Arab, a ninth century Uzebki, a 12th century Spaniard, a 14th century North African, or even a 20th century Arab, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian or American. “All conformed to the idea that jihad does not end until the world has been made the dar al-Islam,” notes Coughlin, adding “because there is agreement among the scholars on the status of jihad, it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

“Yet, the requirement of jihad neither begins nor ends with the kinetic aspects of warfare. Coughlin notes that Islamic law divides the world into two states, dar al-Islam (the house of Islam and peace) and dar al-harb (the house of War, which is the world of the infidel and the region of perpetual warfare) with jihad being an unabrogable obligation for Muslims until the dar al-harb is eliminated and the people of the book ‘pay the jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (Qur’an 9: 29).” Anyone who comes from the dar al-harb has the status under Islamic law of harbi (enemy). As a country not governed by Islamic law, the United States resides in the dar al-harb, therefore we Americans are harbi.

To elaborate on this concept, Coughlin cites Majid Khadduri, a professor at John Hopkins University who wrote War and Peace in the Law of Islam (1955) and published his translation of the classic 8th-century treatise Shaybani’s Siyar (1966). The Siyar is among the oldest testaments on international relations and the law of war in Islamic law. Khadduri in War and Peace in the Law of Islam writes:

It follows that the existence of a dar al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.

It’s imperative to understand this concept for even when a fighting jihad is not underway, a “continuous process of warfare” is waged at the psychological and political levels. Khadduri states this as a matter of doctrine— because the “dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; … the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence.” It is from this context that those who believe, as our current adminstration repeatedly reminds us, that we are “not at war with Islam” can be refuted as Islam has and will continue to remain at war with us as a continuous process of psychological, political, and kinetic warfare.

Through this concept of Islamic warfare, a substantial effort is placed on the “preparation stage”, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political, and religious institutions underpinning the target. A very clear example of this doctrine is Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War. As Coughlin explains, “In the Quranic Concept of War, Malik emphasized the importance of laying the groundwork for successful military operations. He explained this preparatory stage as a ‘dislocation of faith’ in the target nation’s sense of security and in the capability of its leaders to defend its territory. The inability of the target population’s leadership to protect its citizens in the face of a terror campaign signals the beginning of kinetic operations in earnest. At some point, dawah (issuing of summons) transitions to jihad.” Elaborating on the concept of dawah, Coughlin highlights that it is “often defined as the ‘invitation’ or ‘call to Islam,” the meaning and purpose of which is more extensive and closely associated with jihad. In fact, much of what is popularly called “stealth jihad” are actions taken in preparation for jihad in the dawah phase of operations as explained by Malik when he states the following:

The Quranic strategy comes into to play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy. Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror.

In the early phases of dawah, one should expect to see an emphasis on penetration and subversion campaigns directed at cultural, political, media, and religious institutions. Actions taken in the early dawah phase are aimed at compromising a community’s core beliefs which substantially contributes to the sense of hopelessness that is exponentially magnified when a jihadist finally commits an act of terrorism. From this perspective and contrary to Western notions of “separation of church and state,” Islam in general defines itself in unitary terms as a complete way of life governed by a single body of law that comes from Allah who retains sole sovereignty. Thus, Islamic law is the legal system “extremists” emulate and seek to impose when fighting jihad both kinetically and non-kinetically.

The refusal to understand the enemy’s doctrine, which tells him not to strike until he has assessed that we are already defeated in our own minds, lends credence to the notion of why we are so routinely caught of guard when a jihadist strikes. Judging by the fact that the FBI currently has nearly 1,000 ongoing ISIS probes in the United States with 82 individuals affiliated with ISIS having been interdicted by law enforcement since March of 2014, the enemy has assessed that the time has come to unleash kinetic attacks as we have already been defeated within our own minds.

“Most importantly,” notes Dr. Sebastian Gorka in his latest ThreatKnowldgeGroup special report on ISIS: The Threat to the United States, “nearly one third of the domestic ISIS cases in the past 18 months involved people who planned to carry out attacks against Americans on U.S. soil. In other words, one third of those interdicted calculated that the best way to serve the new Islamic State and its Caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is to wage jihad here on the soil of the infidel.” The primary reason that we have seen a 300 percent increase in terrorist arrests in the United States beginning in 2014 compared to the average monthly arrests of al Qaeda suspects since the 9/11 attacks of 2001 is because of the proclaimed caliphate established on June 29, 2014.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch explains that “the Islamic State’s June 29, 2014, proclamation of itself as the caliphate, which in Islamic theology is the Islamic nation, embodying the supranational unity of the Muslim community worldwide under a single leader, the caliph, is the key to [understanding] its appeal to so many Muslims worldwide.” Spencer elaborates, “the caliph is the symbol of the unity of Muslims worldwide, in traditional Islamic theology, Muslims worldwide constitute a single community [known as an umma] and are rightfully citizens of the Islamic Caliphate.” Moreover, if we look to the book Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law that has the imprimatur of Al-Azhar University in Cairo which is the intellectual heartbeat of Islam, we find that it certifies as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” in which only the caliph is authorized to declare “offensive jihad” in order to “make war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.” The caliphate, this Sharia manual says, is “both obligatory in itself and the necessary precondition for hundreds of rulings established by Allah Most High to govern and guide Islamic community life.” It quotes the Islamic scholar Abul Hasan Mawardi explaining that the caliph’s role is “preserving the religion and managing this-worldly affairs.”

As Spencer notes, “since the caliph is obligated to wage offensive jihad, we can expect that with the coming of the Islamic State caliphate there will be even more jihad in the wold than here has been recently.” This is because of the appeal that the Caliphate has upon Muslims who are devoutly religious and since the Islamic States’ theology is straightforward with the Qur’anic justifications for their actions being based on the plain words of the text, the appeal will continue as the tens of thousands of Muslims who have already joined ISIS from all over the world testifies to the resonance of their literal reading of Islam’s holy book.

In closing, since adherents to sharia and a strict interpretation of Islam have sworn to destroy us, it is their doctrine that we are required to know. Whether that doctrine is judged by us or this adminstration to be accurate with “genuine” Islam is wholly irrelevant. If it can be demonstrated, which it has been, that the enemy that attacks and kills Americans and seeks to subvert our Constitution refers to and relies on the implementation of sharia to guide and justify his actions, then that is all that matters in terms of the enemy threat doctrine U.S. civilian and military leaders must thoroughly understand and orient upon for the purpose of defeating such foes. As Coughlin concludes, “failing to orient on an enemy’s self-identified doctrines not only violates our own doctrine on threat analysis but renders us unable to defeat the enemy because we have failed properly to identify him.” Such a catastrophic failure of intelligence defies the rules of warfare reaching back to Sun Tzu on the requirement to “know the enemy.” It also completely defies common sense and the canons of professional conduct of our leadership.

We are at war and it’s time we as a nation orient our strategy to reflect it.

Nick Short, a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a Bachelors in Criminal Justice. Politically Short offers a millennials perspective over today’s news outside the beltway of Washington D.C.

Nick is also a contributor to Western Free Press and Western Journalism 

Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ 

Email him at

German Officials Warn of New Security Risk: Local Extremists Recruiting Refugees

Islamic preacher Pierre Vogel arrives for a rally of supporters of Salafism, a fundamentalist strain of Islam, in Pforzheim, Germany, last year. PHOTO: ULI DECK/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Islamic preacher Pierre Vogel arrives for a rally of supporters of Salafism, a fundamentalist strain of Islam, in Pforzheim, Germany, last year. PHOTO: ULI DECK/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES


BERLIN—The Paris attacks have raised fears of terrorists slipping into Europe by posing as refugees. But in Germany, the top migrant destination, security officials have another worry: Local extremists will recruit the newcomers to join the Islamist cause once they arrive.

German authorities warn that migrants seeking out Arabic-language mosques in search of the familiar are increasingly ending up at those attended by Islamist radicals. In interviews, security officials from Berlin to the southwest German state of Saarland said they have registered a sharp rise in the number of asylum-seekers attending mosques they believed attracted extremists.

Federal officials said they have counted more than 100 cases in which Islamists known to them have tried to establish contact with refugees. According to state and local agencies across the country, Islamists have offered migrants rides, food, shelter and translation help. In some cases, they have invited them to soccer games and grill parties, or brought them copies of the Quran and conservative Muslim clothing.

“They start by saying, ‘We will help you live your faith,’ ” said Torsten Voss, the head of the German domestic intelligence agency’s Hamburg branch. “The Islamist area comes later—that is, of course, their goal.”

Security officials across Germany describe the potential radicalization of migrants, still entering the country by the thousands every day, as a challenge that adds to Europe’s existing security threats. With Germany expecting to take in roughly one million asylum-seekers from the Middle East and elsewhere this year, authorities are scrambling to prevent new pockets of radicalism from forming.

Intelligence services say they have no evidence of successful recruitment efforts, pointing to the risk as a long-term problem.

Many politicians and migrant advocates argue that refugees fleeing Islamic State and religious conflict generally have no interest in extremism. Still, others, including Jewish organizations, warn that many of the migrants are coming from places where radical views are common.

“Many of the refugees hail from societies in which anti-Semitism and enmity of Israel are propagated,” Josef Schuster, president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, said last week, urging that new arrivals be well-integrated and arguing that Germany’s capacity for doing so was limited.

Germany—the European Union’s most populous country—hasn’t experienced a major Islamist terror attack in recent years, though it is home to one of Europe’s largest Muslim populations. Part of the reason, security officials say, is that most of Germany’s Muslims have roots in relatively secular Turkey rather than the Arab world.

But many of the migrants arriving now are from Syria and other Arab countries and are seeking out Arabic-speaking mosques—some of which have ties to extremists, security officials say.

Berlin authorities describe the Ibrahim Al Khalil mosque, inside a ramshackle, two-story brick warehouse in an industrial section of the German capital, as a key meeting point in the city for fundamentalist and potentially militant Muslims. On Friday, many recently arrived migrants were among the several hundreds who gathered for weekly prayers.

Many of the migrants there said they were there simply out of convenience. One Syrian man, who said at least 40 people in his refugee shelter rode the subway to Al Khalil every Friday, said he had discovered it via a smartphone app listing nearby mosques.

“We come here to do our Islamic duty,” said another Syrian, 27-year-old Ali Kafri.Referring to fundamentalist movements, he added: “We don’t care if it’s a Salafi or a Muslim Brotherhood mosque.”

The chairman of the Al Khalil mosque in Berlin, Adnouf Nazir, rejected the authorities’ claim that his congregation had ties to extremism.

“We want to live in peace,” Mr. Nazir said. “It can be that some people have other thoughts, but that doesn’t mean that we are responsible for this.”

Still, a Berlin security official said the authorities were registering with alarm the rising numbers of refugees at the Al Khalil mosque, as well as two others in Berlin that are seen as meeting points for fundamentalist Muslims.

The city distributed a 16-page pamphlet to migrant-shelter workers earlier this month flagging those three mosques and alerting aid workers to the risk.

Islamists may “take advantage of the refugees’ emotional situation to influence especially young people ideologically, to build ties to them ideologically, and in the worst case to incite them to acts of violence,” the pamphlet says.

Security officials said that because fundamentalist Muslims approaching or recruiting migrants generally aren’t breaking any laws, the best they can do is to keep a close watch on extremist networks and to ask workers at shelters to be on the lookout.

Many of the groups identified by security officials as fundamentalist say they have only religious and humanitarian motives in helping refugees.

Despite evidence that at least two Paris attackers entered Europe by blending in with the flood of refugees arriving on Greece’s shores, security officials played down the possibility of Islamic State fighters traveling along the well-trodden migrant route and into Germany. They argued that radicalized EU citizens could enter more easily through an airport.

“If I’m planning an attack on Europe, I would choose the more secure and simpler path,” said Helmut Albert, the top domestic intelligence official in the state of Saarland. “I would find people from Western Europe with clean papers who are probably not known to the security agencies. I would train them, and I would send them to conduct the attack.”

In Saarland, on the French border, intelligence officials have long had an eye on several mosques they say attract followers of the fundamentalist Islamic strain known as Salafism. Officials noticed in early September that newly arrived migrants were increasingly frequenting those mosques, Mr. Albert said.

Mr. Albert said that migrants now attend Friday prayers at those places of worship in numbers ranging from 50 to 200 per mosque—sometimes accounting for half the faithful in attendance. The migrants appeared to be going to those mosques simply to hear sermons in Arabic and talk to Arabic-speaking locals, he said. But in the long run, he said he worried they might become susceptible to the more fundamentalist ideology of other worshipers.

“We’re watching to see whether, over time, the refugees start going there not only because the sermons are in Arabic but because they’ve joined the movement,” Mr. Albert said in an interview.

The wave of migration is exacerbating a problem that has vexed German security officials for years: how to deal with fundamentalist Muslim preachers who they suspect play a role in radicalizing youths but don’t appear to be breaking laws in doing so.

One of the most prominent of such preachers, a German convert to Islam named Pierre Vogel, published a how-to guide on Facebook in September on reaching out to migrants to help them in their worship, though it makes no suggestion of drawing them into extremism. The Salafist preacher urged his followers to bring gifts and a compass to help Muslim asylum-seekers pray in the direction of Mecca.

The human tide coming to Germany has created an opportunity for good deeds—known in Islamic tradition as hasanat—that would be rewarded after death, he said in a video posted online.

“We have the gold rush, like in America in the time of gold when one found the gold mines,” Mr. Vogel said in the video. “One can now get gold mines of hasanat.” Mr. Vogel, who has said he rejects violence in the name of Islam, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Some 70% of the migrants arriving in Germany are believed to be Muslims, according to a spokeswoman for the federal domestic intelligence service. A top German expert on Islamic radicalization, Claudia Dantschke, said she was increasingly getting queries from local officials on which mosques to recommend to migrants and which ones to avoid.

“These people don’t arrive here ready to be radicalized,” said Ms. Dantschke, who runs a counseling program for radicalized Muslims. She added that refugees needed to be quickly given a chance to integrate into German society. “We are responsible as to whether or not they ever become open to radicalization.”

Syrians are a Terror Threat, Here are the Numbers

ht_ISIS_twitter_mssg_01_mt_140814_16x9_992-lanczos3Sultan Knish, by Daniel Greenfield, Nov. 29, 2015:

Syria is a terror state. It didn’t become that way overnight because of the Arab Spring or the Iraq War.

Its people are not the victims of American foreign policy, Islamic militancy or any of the other fashionable excuses. They supported Islamic terrorism. Millions of them still do.

They are not the Jews fleeing a Nazi Holocaust. They are the Nazis trying to relocate from a bombed out Berlin.

These are the cold hard facts.

ISIS took over parts of Syria because its government willingly allied with it to help its terrorists kill Americans in Iraq. That support for Al Qaeda helped lead to the civil war tearing the country apart.

The Syrians were not helpless, apathetic pawns in this fight. They supported Islamic terrorism.

A 2007 poll showed that 77% of Syrians supported financing Islamic terrorists including Hamas and the Iraqi fighters who evolved into ISIS. Less than 10% of Syrians opposed their terrorism.

Why did Syrians support Islamic terrorism? Because they hated America.

Sixty-three percent wanted to refuse medical and humanitarian assistance from the United States. An equal number didn’t want any American help caring for Iraqi refugees in Syria.

The vast majority of Syrians turned down any form of assistance from the United States because they hated us. They still do. Just because they’re willing to accept it now, doesn’t mean they like us.

If we bring Syrian Muslims to America, we will be importing a population that hates us.

The terrorism poll numbers are still ugly. A poll this summer found that 1 in 5 Syrians supports ISIS.  A third of Syrians support the Al Nusra Front, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Sunnis are 3/4rs of the population and Shiites and Christians aren’t likely to support either group, this really means that Sunni Muslim support for both terror groups is even higher than these numbers make it seem.

And even though Christians and Yazidis are the ones who actually face ISIS genocide, Obama has chosen to take in few Christians and Yazidis. Instead 98.6% of Obama’s Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslims.

This is also the population most likely to support ISIS and Al Qaeda.

But these numbers are even worse than they look. Syrian men are more likely to view ISIS positively than women. This isn’t surprising as the Islamic State not only practices sex slavery, but has some ruthless restrictions for women that exceed even those of Saudi Arabia.  (Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, however, mostly closes the gender gap getting equal support from Syrian men and women.)

ISIS, however, gets its highest level of support from young men. This is the Syrian refugee demographic.

In the places where the Syrian refugees come from, support for Al Qaeda groups climbs as high as 70% in Idlib, 66% in Quneitra, 66% in Raqqa, 47% in Derzor, 47% in Hasakeh, 41% in Daraa and 41% in Aleppo.

Seventy percent support for ISIS in Raqqa has been dismissed as the result of fear. But if Syrians in the ISIS capital were just afraid of the Islamic State, why would the Al Nusra Front, which ISIS is fighting, get nearly as high a score from the people in Raqqa? The answer is that their support for Al Qaeda is real.

Apologists will claim that these numbers don’t apply to the Syrian refugees. It’s hard to say how true that is. Only 13% of Syrian refugees will admit to supporting ISIS, though that number still means that of Obama’s first 10,000 refugees, 1,300 will support ISIS. But the poll doesn’t delve into their views of other Al Qaeda groups, such as the Al Nusra Front, which usually gets more Sunni Muslim support.

And there’s no sign that they have learned to reject Islamic terrorism and their hatred for America.

When Syrian refugees were asked to list the greatest threat, 29 percent picked Iran, 22 percent picked Israel and 19 percent picked America. Only 10 percent viewed Islamic terrorism as a great threat.

By way of comparison, twice as many Iraqis see Islamic terrorism as a threat than Syrians do and slightly more Palestinian Arabs view Islamic terrorism as a threat than Syrians do. These are terrible numbers.

Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. 33% oppose the objective of destroying ISIS.

And these are the people whom our politicians would have us believe are “fleeing an ISIS Holocaust.”

Seventy-three percent of Syrian refugees view US foreign policy negatively. That’s a higher number than Iraqis. It’s about equal to that of Palestinian Arabs.

They don’t like us. They really don’t like us.

Obama’s first shipment of Syrians will include 1,300 ISIS supporters and most of the rest will hate this country. But unless they’re stupid enough to announce that during their interviews, the multi-layered vetting that Obama and other politicians boast about will be useless.

It only took 2 Muslim refugees to carry out the Boston Marathon massacre. It only took 19 Muslim terrorists to carry out 9/11.

If only 1 percent of those 1,300 Syrian ISIS supporters put their beliefs into practice, they can still kill thousands of Americans.

And that’s a best case scenario. Because it doesn’t account for how many thousands of them support Al Qaeda. It doesn’t account for how many of them back other Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas that had widespread support in Syria.

While the media has shamelessly attempted to exploit the Holocaust to rally support for Syrian migrants, the majority of Syrians supported Hamas whose mandate is finishing Hitler’s work. The Hamas charter describes a “struggle against the Jews” that culminates in another Holocaust. Bringing Hamas supporters to America will lead to more Muslim Supremacist violence against Jews in this country.

But all of this can be avoided by taking in genuine Syrian refugees.

While Obama insists on taking in fake Syrian refugees, mainly Sunni Muslims from UN camps who support terrorism and are not endangered in Jordan or Turkey, both Sunni countries, he is neglecting the real refugees, Christians and Yazidis, who are stateless and persecuted in the Muslim world.

Instead of taking in fake refugees who hate us, we should be taking in real refugees who need us.

Obama and Paul Ryan have claimed that a “religious test” for refugees is wrong, but religious tests are how we determine whether a refugee is really fleeing persecution or is just an economic migrant.

The Sunni Muslims that Obama is taking in do not face persecution. They are the majority. They are the persecutors. It’s the Yazidis and the Christians who need our help. And these real refugees, unlike the fake Sunni Muslim refugees, are not coming here to kill us. They truly have nowhere else to go.

Syria is a disaster because its rival Muslim religious groups are unable to get along with each other. Bringing them to this country will only spread the violence from their land to ours. Instead of taking in the religious majority that caused this mess through its intolerance, we should take in their victims; the Christians and Yazidis who are being slaughtered and enslaved by ISIS.

During the entire Syrian Civil War, Obama has only taken in 1 Syrian Yazidi and 53 Christians.

It’s time that we had a refugee policy that protected the persecuted, instead of their Muslim persecutors. It’s time that we listened to Syrian Christians in this country who oppose bringing tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims to terrorize their neighborhoods the way that they are already terrorizing Syrian Christians in Germany.

Syrian Muslims are a nation of terrorist supporters. They destroyed their own country. Let’s not let them destroy ours.

It’s time that we kept our nation safe by doing the right thing. Let’s take in the real Christian and Yazidi refugees and let the fake Sunni Muslim refugees and terrorist supporters stay in their own countries.

Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State

ISIS-fires-rockets-FlickrAmir-Farshad-Ebraham-640x480Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, Nov. 30, 2015:

The Obama administration pursued a policy in Libya back in 2011 that ultimately allowed guns to walk into the hands of jihadists linked to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda (AQ) in Syria, according to a former CIA officer who co-authored a report on behalf of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB), detailing the gun running scheme.

In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News.

The ripple effects of the illegal policy to arm America’s enemies continue to be felt as the U.S. military is currently leading a war against ISIS and AQ terrorists in Iraq and Syria, according to Lopez.

In late October, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria who may have reaped the benefits from the gun-running scheme that started in Libya.

“The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.”

To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.

“In 2012, the gun-running into Libya turned around and began to flow outward, from Benghazi to the AQ-and-MB-dominated rebels in Syria,” Lopez added. “This time, it was the CIA Base of Operations that was in charge of collecting up and shipping out [surface-to-air missiles] SAMs from Libya on Libyan ships to Turkey for overland delivery to a variety of jihadist militias, some of whose members later coalesced into groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS [also known as IS].”

Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.

Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syria included thousands of MAN-Portable-Air-Defense-System (MANPADS) missile units, such as shoulder-launched SAMs, from late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s extensive arms stockpiles that pose a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters.

“It’s been reported that President Obama signed an Executive Order on Syria in early 2012 [just as he had done for Libya in early 2011], that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would have been in violation of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war and providing material support to terrorism,” notes Lopez. “Still, such blatant disregard for U.S. national security can only be described as deeply corrosive of core American principles.”

Libya Amb. Stevens was killed by jihadists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, along with three other Americans.

Echoing a Benghazi resident who provided a first-hand account of the incident, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis Haney, a CCB member, suggested to Breitbart News that Hillary Clinton’s State Department armed some of the al-Qaeda linked jihadists who may have killed the four Americans in Benghazi.

“The reason the U.S. government was operating in Libya is absolutely critical to this debacle because it reflects where America went off the tracks and literally switched sides in the GWOT,” points out Lopez. “This is about who we are as a country, as a people — where we are going with this Republic of ours.”

“There can be no greater treason than aiding and abetting the jihadist enemy in time of war – or providing material – weapons, funding, intel, NATO bombing – support to terrorism,” she continued. “The reason Benghazi is not the burning issue it ought to be is because so many at top levels of U.S. government were implicated in wrong-doing: White House, Pentagon, Intel Community-CIA, Gang of Eight, at a minimum, in Congress, the Department of State, etc.”

The State Department and the CIA did not respond to Breitbart News’ requests for comment.

Clinton was asked about the gun running operation when testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner claimed she was not aware of any U.S. government efforts to arm jihadists in Libya and Syria.

Clinton did admit to being open to the idea of using private security experts to arm the Qaddafi opposition, which included al-Qaeda elements, but added that it was “not considered seriously.”

Members of the 2011 “Gang of Eight” mentioned in this report included: then-House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, then- Rep. Mike Rogers , Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger , then-Sen. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, then-Sen. Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnellSen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss .

Lopez is the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and the Canadian Meighen Institute.

Madness: Amid Refugee Crisis, EU Willing to Fast-Track Turkish Membership

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses a rally in Bayburt, Turkey, Friday, Nov. 27, 2015. (AP Photo/Yasin Bulbul, Presidential Press Service, Pool )

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses a rally in Bayburt, Turkey, Friday, Nov. 27, 2015. (AP Photo/Yasin Bulbul, Presidential Press Service, Pool )

PJ Media, by , Nov. 29, 2015:

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu is one happy man. The reason is that the European Union is set to give in to every single one of his country’s demands in order to do something about the refugee crisis.

The EU wants Turkey to stem the refugee flow into Europe by taking care of them in Turkey. In return, Turkey wants 3 billion euros (around $3.2 billion US) in extra aid, visa-free traveling for Turks in EU-countries, and a re-launch of EU-accession talks. In other words: Turkey demands fast-track membership:

“Today is a historic day in our accession process to the EU,” Davutoğlu told reporters on arrival for the talks, in which EU leaders will offer Turkey cash, visa-free travel to Europe and re-launching of accession talks in exchange for Ankara’s help in stemming the flood of migrants to the EU.”With EU leaders today we will be sharing the destiny of our continent, global challenges of the economic crisis as well as regional geopolitical challenges in front of us, including migration issues,” Davutoğlu said.

This is lunacy. Not only is Turkey currently involved in a serious crisis and trade war with Russia, the country’s authorities are also arresting journalists on a scale never seen before. At least not in a free and democratic country. A few days ago, two journalists of Cumhuriyet were arrestedbecause they had the audacity to report on a truck filled with weapons that was traveling from Turkey to Syria. These weapons were in all likelihood going to radical Islamic groups fighting the Assad regime. When Cumhuriyet pointed that out, they were accused of “treason” and are now threatened with years imprisonment.

Another Turkish columnist has been told he faces up to five years and four months in prison for “insulting” President Erdogan. His “crime” was speaking out against the president’s foreign policy, especially with regards to Syria and the resulting refugee crisis.

In an op-ed entitled “Listen, grand man” written after the tragic death of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian Kurdish refugee whose body washed ashore a Turkish beach, Özkök slammed Middle Eastern actors for turning the region into “the most brutal land in the world.”Although Özkök did not mention anyone specifically, the article referred to a “dictator” who thought the country was the “property of his father.”

“Release your fingers that are clenched for the Rabia gesture… Unclench your fist clenched by your black politics and let that hands raise for prayer… Look, my friend, you are the murderer of that kid,” were among the sentences deemed insulting by the prosecutor’s office.

The indictment claimed Özkök’s writing “degraded” its collocutor and exceeded the limits of “acceptable criticism.”

Meanwhile, journalists critical of the government are told to hand in their press cards for an early renewal. When they do, they quickly find out that their cards are cancelled:

The Press Card Commission, which recently underwent significant changes after a new regulation was introduced by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government, is forcing journalists known for their critical stance against the government to return their permanent press cards under the pretext of renewal, and then systematically canceling them without presenting a valid reason.

That’s bad, but it gets even worse. Last year, President Erdogan told Muslim Brotherhood leaders that they were welcome in Turkey when Qatar decided to deport them. The Muslim Brothers are a radical Islamic organization dedicated to islamizing the Middle East first, and the rest of the world after that. Many terrorist organizations — Al Qaeda and ISIS among them — are among the group’s many infamous and violent offshoots. These are the kind of people Erdogan welcomes into his country and, if Turkey joins the EU, the rest of Europe.

In other news, Turkey even admitted to treating wounded ISIS commanders in its hospitals.

It’s clear that the EU needs Erdogan to act against the tidal wave of Middle Eastern refugees, but he can be convinced to do so without fast-tracking his EU membership. He can be bought off and, if necessary, threatened. After all, the EU sends financial aid to Turkey every single year. If that’s cut off, Erdogan has a serious problem.

Re-opening EU-accessions talks with Turkey — fast-tracking them — is sheer madness. This country does not belong in Europe, at least not as long as Erdogan is its president.

Omnibus spending bill is the most important target to rein-in refugee program!

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran, Nov. 30, 2015:

It is also the hardest to accomplish, but this—the power of the purse—is the real Constitutional power that Congress has (if they would learn to use it).


The last thing Speaker Paul Ryan wants is to have a budget battle over refugees in the coming days….He will have to decide whose side he is on!

There is much you can do this week and you must get involved because the NO borders pushers in the resettlement industry are reeling right now (scroll back through posts over the last few days).

To save me time since it has been so carefully presented by fellow blogger Richard Falknor at Blue Ridge Forum, click here, and read about Texas Rep. Brian Babin’s efforts in the House to attach a spending curb on the so-called “Omnibus” budget bill that must be voted on before December 11th (or the government shuts down).

The effort must start in the House, but we expect Senator Jeff Sessions and others to be involved in the Senate.

Go here to learn more and to see the 73 brave Members of Congress who have already signed on!

If you can only do one thing this week, this is it!  Pound your Member of Congress!

If yours is not among the 73, please let them know how important this issue is to you (the refugee industry is pulling out all the stops to make sure they stay in business.)


Go to ACT! for America’s Action Center to send prepared letter

Also see:

Audio: Clare Lopez on the Global Islamic Jihad Movement

hqdefault (4)

This is an excellent wide ranging interview with Clare Lopez by Roy “Backpack” Baron and Yoda of Global Voices of Freedom radio. Visit their website:

Topics covered:

  • The Global Islamic Jihad Movement
  • Pre-violent civilization and violent jihad 
  • America’s First Principles vs. Sharia
  • Refugee resettlement and vetting for ideology
  • Need for local police departments and sheriffs to learn about jihad and what to look for (32 min. into audio)
  • Mosques as command and control centers for jihad
  • US Middle East Policy 

Resources mentioned:

Clare Lopez audio widget

Ms. Lopez manages the Center for Security Policy’s counterjihad and shariah programs, bringing with her also an expertise on Iran, Hizballah, and southern border issues. From 2010-2014, she was a Sr. Fellow with the Center. Lopez began her professional career as a CIA operations officer and later applied her national security expertise as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher in various contract positions within the defense sector. She has been an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students and lectures widely on Iran, Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood around the country. Earlier an advisor to EMP Act America, in February 2012 Ms. Lopez was named a member of the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security, which focuses on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) threat to the nation and is a member of the Center’s Secure the Grid Coalition.

Lopez is the co-author of two published books on Iran, author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby, and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”. Ms. Lopez received a B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and an M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She completed Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia before declining a commission to join the CIA.

The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won’t Admit It

Clinton at cfrNational Review, by Fred Fleitz — November 30, 2015:

Has Hillary Clinton separated herself from President Obama by taking a tougher and more realistic position on the threat from ISIS? That’s what many in the news media are saying based on some of her recent foreign-policy statements, such as her remarks in a November 19 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions: a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria; an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond; and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three, and time is of the essence.

This portrayal of the ISIS threat sounds like an improvement over the awkward rhetoric used by President Obama to discuss what he insists on calling ISIL or Daesh, and his refusal to use words such as “jihad” and “jihadism.” But Hillary’s rhetorical improvements were offset by caveats indicating that she actually has not moved very far from the president and has a worldview that is just as incoherent.

For example, Clinton criticized “the obsession in some quarters [meaning Republicans] with a clash of civilizations.” Clinton also echoed Obama’s frequent claims that the United States is not at war with Islam when she said, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”

RELATED: Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

Clinton’s dismissal that the threat from jihadist groups represents a clash of civilizations is troubling because it indicates that while she says ISIS is motivated by a radical ideology, she does not understand what this ideology is. Its adherents — including many authorities of Islam — believe in sharia, which amounts to a global operating system for jihad, a holy war with infidel societies explicitly seeking to impose, by violent or stealthy means, an Islamic caliphate worldwide.

Clinton also apparently does not realize that the clash-of-civilizations concept is not a Republican talking point but a well-known theory developed by two giants in the history of the Middle East and political science, Drs. Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.

RELATED: After Paris, Obama Refuses to Lead

This term, first used by Lewis in a 1990 Atlantic Monthly article and then by Huntington in a famous 1993 Foreign Affairs article, exactly describes sharia ideology. Believing that this ideology is a war being waged against the West by Islamic fundamentalists in retaliation for purported efforts to undermine Islam and the Muslim world through secularism and modernity, Lewis concluded that:

We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies of governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations — the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

Huntington discussed several coming clashes of civilizations in his Foreign Affairs article but highlighted a potential clash between the West and the Muslim world as the most serious. According to Huntington:

The centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent.

President Obama’s approach to the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups — including the Muslim Brotherhood — is doomed to fail to protect this country and its interests insofar as it refuses to recognize that they are all based on a global ideology at war with Western civilization.

Clinton’s dismissal of the clash-of-civilizations concept indicates she is also adhering to Obama’s erroneous view and that her reference to an “ideological movement of radical jihadism” is as meaningless as “violent extremism,” the euphemism the president uses to lump together perceived threats from veterans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party members, anti-abortion activists, conservatives, and foreign or domestic Islamist terrorists.

Clinton’s statement, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists,” is similar to President Obama’s claims that global jihadist groups and their ideologies have very little support in the Muslim world. Last week, the president said 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism.

Obviously the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims. But by making this false argument, Obama and Clinton are ignoring the reality that the global jihad movement is such a difficult threat to counter because it has the support of more than a small minority of the world’s Muslims.

Josh Gelernter addressed this in an excellent November 21, 2015, National Review article in which he debunked President Obama’s “99.9 percent” claim. Citing Pew Research polling figures, Gelernter wrote:

In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent.

There also are disturbingly high levels of support for the global jihadist ideology among Muslims in the United States. According to a June 2015 online survey conducted by The Polling Company and sponsored by my organization, the Center for Security Policy, a majority (51 percent) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah” and nearly a quarter believe “it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” The survey also found that 25 percent agreed fully or in part that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

RELATED: Obama’s Increasingly Surreal War on ISIS

By claiming the United States is at war only with jihadists, Clinton is making the same mistake as President Obama by ignoring the sizeable number of the world’s Muslims who sympathize with them and their ideology. They are ignoring how this reality is a clash of civilizations and that the real war is an ideological one.

To win the war against the global jihad movement, the United States needs to combine military, diplomatic, and intelligence measures with aggressive efforts to challenge and discredit the jihadist ideology worldwide. This must include embracing and empowering Muslim moderates who want to reform Islam, such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sissi as well as Muslims and former Muslims who have been persecuted by jihadists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

It is outrageous that President Obama has never invited President Sissi, Dr. Jasser, or Ms. Hirsi Ali to the White House to discuss the threat from ISIS and the global jihad movement. Instead, he relies on counsel from American Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with connections to Hamas that has, according to Daniel Pipes, a “malign, terroristic quality.”

At the last Democratic presidential debate and in recent foreign-policy speeches, Clinton defended her decision not to use the term “radical Islam” because she does not want to offend Muslim societies or make it appear the United States is at war with Islam. This was the wrong answer, since defeating ISIS and the jihadist ideology requires risking offending some in the Muslim world by pressing for reform of Islam and promoting Muslim reformers.

Moreover, given that this is a problem within Islam, it’s absurd to avoid using terms that label it as such, a point Senator Marco Rubio made in this brilliant retort to Clinton:

That would be like saying we weren’t at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi party but weren’t violent themselves.

Repairing the damage done to international security and America’s global security interests by President Obama’s feckless “leading from behind” foreign policy will take a new president with leadership, vision, and an understanding of global threats. Defeating ISIS will require a new president who will acknowledge that ISIS is simply one manifestation of the larger problem we face from Islamic supremacism, a sharia-driven movement that is very much at war with Western civilization, and who will fight it on that basis.

Hillary Clinton’s recent statements about the ISIS threat fall far short of these requirements and suggest that, although Clinton wants to sound tough on how she would deal with ISIS, her approach would be just as dangerously ineffective as President Obama’s.

 — Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He followed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee during his 25-year government career. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

Funding terrorists

U.S. Donation to Terror Group Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

U.S. Donation to Terror Group Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Giving money to groups tied to terror finance must end

Washington Times, by Kyle Shideler, Nov. 29, 2015:

The United States, in the form of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is providing $100,000 to an organization directly linked to financing terrorism.

According to, a government website which tracks grant allocations, USAID provided the funds to the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), for Fiscal Year 2016.

Islamic Relief Worldwide is a United Kingdom-based organization co-founded by known Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam El-Haddad, currently jailed in Egypt. El-Haddad is also a former Clinton Foundation employee.

Islamic Relief Worldwide is a designated terrorist entity in both Israel and the United Arab Emirates since 2014, due to its ties to the Global Muslim Brotherhood network that provides material support to Hamas. In 2006, the Israel security forces arrested IRW’s Gaza project coordinator for links to the terror group.

Following their 2014 designation by Israel, Islamic Relief Worldwide carried out an “independent investigation” and declared that it was not in violation. The independent watchdog group NGO Monitor has contested the quality and independence of that investigation.

Islamic Relief Worldwide has also been implicated in financial ties with al Qaeda-linked organizations as well, particularly in Yemen. Terrorism researcher Samuel Westrop writes, “In 2004, 2007 and 2009, IRW accounts revealed donations of tens of thousands of pounds from the Charitable Society for Social Welfare [CSSW], a charity founded by al Qaeda terrorist and ‘Bin Laden loyalist’ Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani. In 1998, the al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, eventually killed by a U.S. drone strike, served as vice-president of CSSW’s San Diego branch.”

Al-Zindani is the leading member of the Hamas financing network known as the Union of the Good, which has been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department. Islamic Relief Worldwide is one of the founding organizations for the Union.

American law enforcement officers have also reported that the group is known to play a role in financing Hamas, taking the place of the convicted Holy Land Foundation. In 2011, a Department of Justice source told investigative reporter Patrick Poole, “We know that these Muslim leaders and groups are continuing to raise money for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Ten years ago we shut down the Holy Land Foundation. It was the right thing to do. Then the money started going to KindHearts. We shut them down too. Now the money is going through groups like Islamic Relief and Viva Palestina. Until we act decisively to cut off the financial pipeline to these terrorist groups by putting more of these people in prison, they are going to continue to raise money that will go into the hands of killers.”

Islamic Relief Worldwide is technically legally distinct from, although closely linked to their U.S.-based affiliate, Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA). The two groups share overlapping leadership. IRUSA has provided tens of millions of dollars for its parent organization to distribute.

Islamic Relief USA recently fundraised in response to a devastating October earthquake in Pakistan where according to Reuters jihadist-linked linked charities played a leading role in the response. According to the Pakistan Tribune, Islamic Relief worked side by side with Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation, a charity foundation tied to Laskar-e-taiba, the group responsible for the Mumbai massacre. Also operating with Islamic Relief in the Earthquake response was the Alkhidmat Foundation, a charitable organization of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Jamaat-e-Islami organization, known to have financed Hamas.

Despite that Islamic Relief is well known by U.S. law enforcement, the group has continued to share a close relationship with the State Department and USAID under the Obama Administration, including hosting shared annual “Iftar Dinners”. IRUSA’s CEO, who is also a leading Islamic Relief Worldwide board member, has served on USAID’s advisory committee beginning in 2010, according to Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro. Islamic Relief USA described itself as a 2011 “partner” with USAID for operations in the Horn of Africa.

In addition to partnering with both the U.S. government and Terror-linked charities, one of Islamic Relief’s major projects involves support for Syrian refugees, including advocating for bringing Syrian refugees to “rich countries,” including presumably the United States.

Despite these long-running associations with Islamic Relief USA, the fund allocation directly to Islamic Relief Worldwide raises new questions. And while the U.S. government has previously been identified funding U.S. Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations like the North American Islamic Trust, which once shared a bank account with the Holy Land Foundation, the allocation of funds directly to an entity that two U.S. allies consider a terrorist group may be a new low.

The revelations that the U.S. government is giving money to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups that are closely tied to terrorism finance should raise serious oversight questions for the U.S. Congress, particularly as the last omnibus appropriations bill for the Obama administration’s second term is currently under discussion.

Kyle Shideler is director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

Stop the Jihad on Campus Campaign Combats Pro-Terror Groups


Exposing the true motivations of terrorist proxies and challenging their genocidal propaganda.

Frontpage, by Mark Tapson, Nov. 27, 2015:

Two weeks ago, a series of posters was placed anonymously on the campuses of George Washington University and American University in Washington, D.C. and those of UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego in Southern California. The images were hashtagged #StopTheJihadOnCampus and pulled no punches in denouncing a pair of campus organizations for what they are: supporters of violent, Jew-hating jihad.

One poster depicted a bloody knife and photos of children being trained to become terrorists. Referring to a group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the caption read, “Students for ‘Justice’ in Palestine: Supporting a Culture that Teaches Children to Slaughter Jews.” A second poster linked the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national campus organization. A third targeted the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the current “stabbing intifada” in Israel with the image of a bloody knife stabbing a Star of David. Its caption read, “The Real BDS: Boycott, Divest, Stab.”

Naturally, the posters sparked instant controversy and angry condemnations, because the campus supporters of jihad weren’t accustomed to having their agenda challenged or being caught in the harsh spotlight of truth. In response to the discovery of the posters, the Hillel organization at American University predictably issued a statement decrying them as threatening, “Islamophobic” hate speech and condemning “any efforts to demonize any racial or religious group.” Likewise, the statement from the Students for Justice in Palestine at American University labeled the posters as “the intimidation tactics of bigoted ideologues,” as “falsehoods” propagated about BDS (which the statement described as “the epitome of effective non-violent resistance”), and as “vitriolic, hateful rhetoric deliberately targeting Muslims, Arabs, those who may appear Muslim, and supporters of Palestinian rights.”

The following week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center took credit for distributing the posters as part of a major campus initiative called Stop the Jihad on Campus. The poster campaign targeted SJP and MSA, both of which were spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist organization that launched al-Qaeda and Hamas. As a Freedom Center statement put it, both groups “are the chief campus sponsors” of the BDS movement “designed to destroy the Jewish state.”

UCLA’s Daily Bruin posted an article labeling the “offensive posters” as Islamophobic, to which David Horowitz himself responded with a letter in the Bruin correcting that and other “misleading impressions” in the initial article. “Shame on the students who spread the genocidal lies of Hamas on the UCLA campus,” he wrote. “Shame on them for supporting the 70-plus-year Arab aggression against the Jewish state and the 70-plus-year oppression of Palestinian Arabs by Fatah and Hamas.”

It is typical of these campus supporters of terrorism to attempt to suppress their critics by falsely accusing them of racism and Islamophobia, even though no racial or religious group was specified in the poster campaign. The posters were aimed at the two campus groups not because their membership is entirely Muslim (it’s not), but because they hold “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” spread Jew-hating propaganda, support intifadas like the current one in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and support terrorist parties in Gaza and the West Bank that call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews of the Middle East.

The Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign seeks to raise awareness of how such anti-Israel terrorists have infiltrated American universities, spreading terrorist propaganda and messages, with university funding and support. Along those lines, it offers teach-ins to raise student awareness and combat pro-terrorist propaganda on American campuses. It has since gone on to post a list of the “Top 10 American universities most friendly to terrorists.”

The campaign’s demands are simple: no campus support for jihad terrorists, no campus privileges for anti-Israel hate groups, and no student funding for apartheid hate weeks. “Our goal in placing these posters on prominent campuses across America,” explains David Horowitz, “is to expose the true motivations of these terrorist proxy-groups and challenge their genocidal propaganda.” He continues:

These terrorist support groups are afforded campus privileges, including university offices and the right to hold events on campus grounds that would be denied to any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels.

Below are photos from the “Palestinian Wall of Lies” display recently set up at the University of South Dakota in conjunction with the Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign, as part of the Freedom Center’s efforts to counteract campus propaganda. The Wall lists and then debunks the major Palestinian lies about Israel and the Jews, which are often propagated unquestioned by the mainstream media and swallowed whole by impressionable college students. Needless to say, the Wall has proven to be quite a conversation piece whenever it has appeared on American campuses awash in leftist indoctrinationabout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To donate to Stop the Jihad on Campus, click here.




Also see:

Author: Open Borders Policies Reveal Obama More Interested In Power Than Protecting Americans


Daily Caller, by Ginni Thomas, Nov. 28, 2015:

As Americans awaken to dangers to our homeland, they are losing confidence in President Obama. A new poll shows Americans’ confidence in President Obama’s efforts to keep us safe after the Paris jihadist attacks is dropping.

Jim Simpson, author of “Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America,” has no confidence in the screening or border security policies of the Obama administration. To Simpson, a host of open border policies — including the Refugee Resettlement Program — provide a fertile ground for terrorists to enter the United States.

In this 25-minute video interview, he says, “This president and this administration have little if any concern for the welfare of American citizens. They are all about advancing their agenda and amassing political power at the expense of our welfare, our safety, everything. They are greedy for power.”

Simpson suggests the rallying cry for congressional Republicans should be a rider offered by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions on the coming omnibus spending bill. It would, for once, cancel the “blank check” President Obama has for refugee resettlement in the coming government funding bill, giving us “a genuine pause” to ensure our government can protect us.

Last week, the House passed a cobbled-together H.R. 4038 by 289-137 with bipartisan support. To Simpson, H.R. 4038 was wholly inadequate to guarantee the government’s ability to stop the flow of dangerous immigrants and ensure our safety.

As for the narrative war being waged by President Obama and others against critics of refugees, Simpson reminds us that the Left’s primary counter-argument is always to vilify and destroy their opposition.

The progressives’ goal with open borders, Simpson says, is to overwhelm America with problems while creating a huge new pool of Democrat voters who will only be needed to achieve left-wing goals. Many believe the Left’s efforts to stop voter ID laws, cast as “racist,” is related to the influx of potential new immigrant voters.

Simpson discusses the Left’s desire to turn Texas blue, and how the state has received more refugees than any other region in the union. Refugees who are put on a fast track to citizenship, Simpson says, are eligible for all government assistance citizens can get, and even other programs, including a special matched savings program.

There are more compassionate and cost-effective alternatives that help refugees more than bringing them to America, Simpson reminds us, calling refugee advocates “greedy” for their own pecuniary interests.

Contrary to claims that refugees are being screened, FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress on the inadequacy of government screening and the non-existence of databases that exist from failed states.

With over half of the nation’s governors objecting to unscreened Syrian refugees coming in their states, Simpson advises more citizens to get educated and raise their voices to federal, state and local leaders. The White House is monitoring “pockets of resistance” for their “New Americans Program” being led out of the Obama White House. But ever since presidential candidate Donald Trump put immigration squarely in the public eye, Simpson thinks this policy and national sovereignty will be determining issues in the 2016 presidential elections.

The three things he wants more people to know about the refugee program are: (1) The inordinate influence of the United Nations in determining the bulk of who comes to America; (2) Governors, mayors and Congress have almost no say in the refugee resettlement process; and (3) Refugees are but one program bringing in outsiders who could threaten our national security.

For more information, see Jim Simpson’s book, Red-Green Axis, and video, Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch blog  and the Center for Security Policy’s refugee resettlement activism center.


Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch presents a quiz on open borders advocates.This presentation was given at the October 2015 Social Contract Writers Workshop in Washington, DC.

Also see:

US Citizens: Three Ways to Tell Your Legislator “NO REFUGEES”


Join ACT’s Refugee Resettlement Working Group

Citizen Warrior, Nov. 25, 2015:

This is a timely message from ACT! for America:

Our 300,000 grassroots advocates have been very vocal in opposing the resettlement of Syrian refugees to the U.S. We are being heard, but we must do more. President Obama has been clear that he still intends to bring hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to our towns and communities — irrespective of the roar of disapproval from American citizens, the strong public disapproval of over half of U.S Governors, the passage of legislation by the U.S. Congress, and — of course — even after the Paris attack, where we now know that at least one of the terrorists arrived in Europe as a Syrian refugee.

This is unacceptable and ACT for America is taking action, but we need your help.

We have three important and time-sensitive ACTION ALERTS currently underway. Please be sure to take action on each of them, and to forward this e-mail to everyone you know. This is a critical time, both in our nation and worldwide, and we need all hands on deck.


1. We are gathering tens of thousands of signatures on an Open Letter to the leadership in the House and Senate voicing strong opposition to the Obama Administration’s plans to bring  to the U.S. The letter will be hand-delivered to the U.S. Congress by our Director of Government Relations. If you haven’t yet added your name, please click HERE to do so.

2. We are actively supporting H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015 introduced by Rep Brian Babin (R-TX). The bill would immediately suspend the U.N.-run refugee program to provide Congress time to fully assess the national security risks and investigate its financial burden on federal, state and local taxpayers.

As of this writing, the bill has 78 cosponsors. Is your House Representative one of them? Click HERE to find out. If not, please send your House Representative an e-mail asking for cosponsorship, by clicking HERE. If your Representative HAS cosponsored the bill, please send a quick note to say thank you. It goes a long way.

(Several weeks ago, before the Paris attack, Representative Babin spoke on the Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives about the grave threat associated with the U.N.-run refugee program. Click HERE to watch it.)

3. We are actively registering our opposition to any federal funding for U.S. Refugee resettlement actions to be included in the U.S. Congress’s end of year spending bill. This is our most time-sensitive activity right now! Please click HERE to e-mail or call your federal legislators TODAY to express your opposition to any federal funding going to refugee resettlement.

[NOTE: When calling your legislator’s office, it’s fine to merge Actions 2 and 3 together. Express your support for Rep. Babin’s bill and ask for cosponsorship; and express your opposition for any refugee resettlement funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget bill.]

The Paris attack is but a foreshadowing of what can and will take place in our nation soon. We cannot allow unvetted refugees from Syria (or elsewhere) to be settled in our towns and communities. This is a high priority national security matter. Please take action today and pass this e-mail on to everyone you know. Remember, if each of us does just a little, together we can accomplish a lot.

Thank you for all that you do.

ACT for America accepts no funding from any governmental agency, any foreign influence peddlers, or political institutions. Your support of ACT for America is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate. ACT for America education is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

Also see:

The ISIS-Al Azhar-Murfreesboro Imam Connection

Daily Roll Call, by Cathy Hinners, Nov. 29, 2015:

In troubling times such as these, where violence and lawlessness are rampant, a lot of people turn to their faith and sometimes the faith of others to console them.  Despite so much of the turmoil  being created by Muslims across the globe, Christians and Jews turn to Imams for answers .

It is during these interfaith forums, Muslims get their chance to plant a seed of doubt that Islam in its truest form is violent. Christians and Jews then come away thinking Islam is in fact just like the Imam said it was. Peaceful.

One Imam in particular is a pro at interfaith fraudulence, Imam Ossama Bahloul of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Bahloul, not only has been a host to Muslim Brotherhood /Hamas members as speakers in his mosque, but is a graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo Egypt. Bahloul even graduated 4th in a class of over 200 with honors in his field of study, Dawa. ( the proselytizing of Islam). Pretty prestigious right? Not quite.

In an article published on Nov 25, in the Middle East Forum online magazine,  ( Islamic scholar and himself a graduate of Al-Azhar,  Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr revealed ISIS is a by product of Al-Azhar programs. Asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic, he stated: It can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic]. The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?

Nasr further stated: The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches…

Imam Ossama Bahloul from the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is  a graduate of a University that espouses the return of the global caliphate, killing apostates, upholding jizya,and teaches stoning people is acceptable. Bahloul recently participated in a forum in Nashville on  the truths and myths of Sharia Law. So which face did the Imam wear that night?


Bahloul isn’t the only “religious” figure  in Tennessee that graduated from ISIS University, oops, Al-Azhar University. Former Imam Mohammed Ahmed from the Islamic Center of Nashville also hails from there. Ahmed, now Mohammed Al Sherif, was the same Imam that escorted high school students from Hendersonville on a tour of the Nashville Mosque. He also is the same Imam that during a Religious Communicators Council convention explained how acceptable it was for female protesters to be forcefully tested for their virginity during the Arab spring protests.

(click to see video)

Perhaps those that seek comfort in attending interfaith forums should know the University their favorite Imam attended was exposed for handing out books filled with Anti Christian sentiment, including calling Christianity a “failed religion” and the Bible sows “seeds of weakness”.

What will it take for the interfaith believers to understand they are victims of fraud? As the old saying goes, “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. was founded by Cathy Hinners,  a retired police officer with experience within the Middle Eastern/Muslim community.