Students can’t remember 9/11, blame Bush and oil

57Published on Sep 10, 2015 by YAFTV

As time passes, students on our nation’s campuses continue to become further removed from the 9/11 attacks given their ages in 2001. This year’s freshmen were only four years old that day. YAF visited the campus of George Mason University to see how much students know about the attacks and whether they think their professors should do a better job of educating them.

WATCH: 7 major 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked

wtc1The Rebel, by DAVID MENZIES, Sep. 11, 2015:

I’m joined by explosives expert and firefighter Ron Craig, who debunks many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 Muslim terrorist attacks.

He says theories that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled explosions are based on faulty photo interpretation and personal testimonials of survivors, not on analysis of the hard evidence.

Craig also answers other common questions:

Was thermite used to cut the buildings’ steel columns?

Do the huge clouds of dust prove explosives were used?

What really happened to Building #7?

Is it true that no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire?

And finally: Why do people believe these conspiracies?

On that topic, Craig says, “Scratch any 9/11 conspiracy site (…) and you’re going to find people who have a deep dislike for the United States.”

’28 Pages:’ A ‘Full Measure’ special report about the 9/11 attacks

28 pages

Fox 29, Sep. 10, 2015:

Fourteen years after 9/11, one of the last, great mysteries surrounding the terrorist attacks on America has yet to be unmasked: parts of the Congressional probe that have been kept secret from the public under two U.S. administrations.

We’re bringing you a special report you’ll see only on Sinclair stations as part of the launch our new weekly investigative program: Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson.

Sinclair Broadcast Group

WASHINGTON — For the few who have seen them, they are known as the ‘28 Pages.’ They constitute a small portion of the much larger report that was classified under the George W. Bush Administration and are still hidden from public view today under Barack Obama.

There are bipartisan calls to make them public. And accusations that those who want to keep them classified aren’t protecting national security interests but something or somebody else.

It was the morning of September 11, 2001. As the eyes of the world were fixed on the terrorist attacks, a special election was being held in Massachusetts where Stephen Lynch quietly won a vacant Congressional seat.

So it may be fitting that today, Congressman Lynch is devoting a great deal of effort to revealing long held secrets from Congress’ 9/11 investigation.

“There’s 28 pages that look like just redactions?” we asked.

“Yeah,” replied Lynch. He added, “And when I read it, I thought this information is something that the public should have.”

No ordinary American can view them. And members of Congress, sworn to secrecy, are only permitted to read the 28 pages under strict conditions.

“You had to make an appointment with the Intelligence Committee and also go to a secure location,” explained Lynch. “They, they take your pen, paper, electronics. You sit in a room, and they watch as you read it.”

In October of 2013, Lynch went to the secret room in the basement of the Capitol and began reading. The censored material begins on page 395 under the heading, “Certain Sensitive National Security Matters.”

As you’re reading the pages what kind of realization was coming to your mind?” we asked.

“It gave names of individuals and entities that I believe were complicit in the attacks on September 11th. They were facilitators of those attacks. They are clearly identified,” said Lynch. “How people were financed, where they were housed, where the money was coming from, the conduits that were used, and the connections between some of these individuals.”

Individuals, he says, who were never brought to justice. But who are they? And why would the U.S. government want to keep the information secret?

Former Senator Bob  thinks he knows. He coauthored the Congressional report, including the 28 pages.

“Here are some facts. The Saudis know what they did. Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did,” said Graham.

Graham has become a relentless advocate for releasing the records. He goes so far as to say the 9/11 Islamic extremist hijackers were only successful due to direct support from prominent Saudis named in the 28 pages. The Saudis deny that.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Their leader, al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden was part of a powerful Saudi family with close ties to the royal family.

“The position of the United States government has been to protect Saudi Arabia at virtually every step of the judicial process,” Graham reports.

And that may be the problem. Could the 28 pages unravel the alliance between the U.S. and a close Arab ally in the Mideast?

Terry Strada of New Jersey thinks that relationship is secondary to her right to know what’s in the withheld pages. She lost her husband Tom, a bond broker, in the World Trade Center on 9/11. The couple’s third child was just four days old. She’s leading a fight to expose the names of those in the 28 pages who allegedly provided the means for the terrorists.

“Without money, terrorist organizations cannot exist. It is the lifeblood of terrorism,” explained Strada, who is with the group 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism. “As long as there are well-funded terrorist organizations out there vowing to kill and destroy us, here on our homeland and abroad, we will never be safe.”

Strada’s coalition has made repeated pleas in letters to President Obama.

“We have not heard back from the administration at all,” said Strada.

“Has someone put an official reason out there for why this is still classified?” we asked.

“Having read the 28 pages, I think it’s to, to allow those individuals to escape accountability,” Lynch said.

Plenty of Democrats and Republicans have supported the need for secrecy over the years on national security or other grounds. We contacted more than a dozen key members of Congress, but none of them would discuss their position on camera.

Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra read the 28 pages a decade ago when he headed the House Intelligence Committee.

“I think in terms of diplomatic relationships, it may be very, very sensitive,” said Hoekstra.

Today, Hoekstra is a business consultant, and he agreed to explain the rationale of those protecting the secrecy of the 28 pages because of what they imply about Saudi Arabia or other U.S. allies.

“I think they’re concerned it may be embarrassing to the countries or the individuals that are talked about in that section,” explained Hoekstra. “And it’s a complication that they’d rather not deal with. They’re just saying ‘We’ve got enough problems. We’ve gotta deal with ISIS. We’ve gotta deal with Iran. We gotta deal with al Qaeda.”

Reports of a Saudi connection to 9/11 were furthered by none other than 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Last year, the al Qaeda member gave rare prison testimony for victims’ families suing Saudi Arabia for allegedly supporting terrorism.

Moussaoui testified it was his job in the late 90’s “to create a database” of al Qaeda donors. On that list, he claimed, were important Saudi royal family members and officials.

“The money that was coming from the Saudi donors, how important was it to bin Laden’s ability to maintain the organization?” attorneys for the victims asked Moussaoui.

“It was crucial,” replied Moussaoui. “Without the money of the Saudi[s], you will have nothing. It was absolutely fundamental.”

Lawyers for Saudi Arabia deny any link to terrorism. They say there’s “no evidence the Saudis supported or caused the attacks,” calling Moussaoui’s comments colorful but immaterial hearsay from a convicted terrorist diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

The Saudi embassy declined our interview request and referred us to a 2003 statement that said any idea they “funded, organized or even knew about September 11th is malicious and blatantly false…We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages.”

Today, there’s bipartisan support in Congress for a bill urging President Obama to release the 28 pages. And Hoekstra says today, 14 years after 9/11, he’d have to come down on the side of disclosure.

“I mean, I really can’t come up with a good reason at this point in time any more to keep the pages classified,” said Hoekstra.

For now, when it comes to fully understanding the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil, what some view as a central chapter is written but remains untold.

“What do you think Tom would think, and what would he say about this particular issue?” we asked Strada.

“He would be laughing and saying ‘You go get ‘em Terry. You go get ‘em. Don’t let them get away with this. Don’t let them hide the truth. And don’t let the people that were behind it not pay. Not be held accountable,’” Strada replied.

“Information such as this on such a profound scale should definitely be in the custody of the American public,” argues Lynch. “We should know about this. This will inform us, this will help us. And there’s no reason why this information should not be made public.”

We contacted the White House to ask about the status of the 28 Pages and the prospect of their release to the public. What they offered was a release from a year ago. They “Requested that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence review the 28 pages from the joint inquiry for declassification. ODNI is currently coordinating the required interagency review and it is ongoing.”

“Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” debuts on Oct. 4, 2015, across Sinclair Broadcast Group’s television stations.

Also see:

Remembering 9/11: Defeating and Destroying Iran

2011-09-11-ap-towersjpg-6be5ddc322d0f239Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, September 11, 2015:

On this 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil by jihadi forces, it is right that we honor our war dead and commit ourselves to defeating those primarily responsible, including the government of Iran.

As detailed in the 9/11 report, the recent civil court case in which victims’ families are seeking damages from the government of Iran for 9/11, as well as numerous other reports from intelligence sources around the world, the evidence on the table is that Iran supported Al Qaeda in its preparation and execution of the 9/11 attacks.

Iran also continues to be the largest financial supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas terrorist group.

This should be of no surprise since the U.S. government determined the Iranian government was responsible for the 1996 bombings of the Khobar Towers complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia which killed 19 U.S. military service personnel.

Yet, none of this seems to matter to our current administration which calls Iran a “good faith partner” in the current negotiations surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Agreement.

Specifically, the 9/11 Report stated:  “In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support  – even if only training – for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.  Not long after, senior Al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives.  In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as intelligence and security.”

The U.S. intelligence community revealed senior Hizbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh worked directly with Al Qaeda operatives prior to 9/11.  Al Qaeda leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually lived in Iran with his family for periods of time.

Members of the 9/11 Commission staff testified Iran aided the hijackers by concealing their travel through Iran to access al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Iranian border inspectors refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report addressed these facts and called for further investigation. (pages 240-241)

Hizbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are arms of the Iranian government.  They are jihadi organizations directly supported and lead by the leadership of Iran.  There is no question about this.  The Iranian government has a clear and consistent doctrine – stated in their Constitution – of spreading Islamic rule across the planet and hating the United States.

Yet, American government leaders, including the President of the United States, continue down the path of negotiating with Iran to ensure it has access to more money and materials to support the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hizbollah, as well as its nuclear weapons program.

The souls of the victims of 9/11, and all of our men and women who fought and gave their lives overseas in the wars against the jihadis, cry out for real justice.  If it is to be had, real leaders in America must – for once since 9/11 – actually focus on the two nation states on the planet which are driving the global jihadi train including Iran.

We should be obliterating the Iranian government, not talking with them.

Also see:

Islamic Extremists Are Trying to Hasten the Coming of the Mahdi


To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it.

National Review, by JOEL C. ROSENBERG, September 11, 2015:

Fourteen years ago — on September 11, 2001 — America was blindsided by the forces of radical Islam. Pre-9/11, American leaders rightly understood that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims were generally peace-loving people who posed no threat to our homeland. But they failed to adequately comprehend, much less counter, the theology, political ideology, and operational strategy of men like Osama bin Laden.

The results were devastating. The attacks against the World Trade Center, against the Pentagon, and over Shanksville, Pa., killed nearly 3,000 Americans, along with individuals from 93 other nations, in the most devastating sneak attack since we were blindsided by the Imperial Japanese at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Today, President Obama and members of his administration still refuse to use the term “radical Islam,” even as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, candidly admits that the West is engaged in a “third world war” against Islamic terrorism. Abdullah adds that, at its core, “this is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong.”

The king is right. The threat of radical Islam to the U.S. and our allies is serious and ongoing.

That said, there is a dramatic shift underway in the Muslim world. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is no longer radical Islam but apocalyptic Islam.

We face not just one but two regional regimes whose rulers are driven not merely by violent political ideology, or by extremist theology, but by apocalyptic, genocidal eschatology, or End Times theology.

The first is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The second is the Islamic State, or ISIS. The leaders of the former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe that we are living in the End of Days as predicted in their ancient prophecies. Both believe that any moment now their messiah, the Mahdi, will be revealed on Earth as he establishes his global Islamic kingdom and impose sharia law. Both believe that Jesus will return not as the Savior or Son of God but as a lieutenant to the Mahdi, and that he will force non-Muslims to convert or die.

What’s more, both believe that the Mahdi will come only when the world is engulfed in chaos and carnage. They openly vow not simply to attack but to annihilate the United States and Israel. Iran and ISIS are both eager to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Both believe that the Day of Judgment is coming soon, when they will be either rewarded for their actions or condemned to hell for eternity. And both are receiving relatively minimal international opposition. Consequently, both believe that Allah is on their side, that the wind is at their back, and that victory is both assured and imminent.

Some in the West first became aware of the apocalyptic beliefs inside Iran through the speeches of then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has long held similar beliefs and openly expresses them.

“The coming of Imam Zaman [another name for the Mahdi] is the definite promise by Allah,” he declared in 2014. “The caravan of humanity from the Day of Creation has been moving . . . to the time of The Coming of Imam Mahdi. The awaiting for The Coming is a hopeful and powerful wait, providing the biggest opening for the Islamic society.”

But he adds that the “battle” to establish the Mahdi’s kingdom “will only end when the [Islamic] society can get rid of the oppressors’ front, with America at the head of it.”

As recently as July 18, 2015 — just four days after President Obama hailed his nuclear deal with Iran as a great achievement for world peace and security — Khamenei publicly reaffirmed Iran’s long-standing policy of destroying the U.S. and Israel. “The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Quds [Jerusalem] Day show what its position is,” he said in a speech. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement.”

“Even after this deal, our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change,” he added.

Even Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, widely hailed in the West as a “moderate,” has urged Iranians to act on that policy. “Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy,” he said when running for office in 2013. “We need to express ‘death to America’ with action.”

Consider, too, the words of the various leaders of ISIS.

“We perform jihad here [in Iraq] while our eyes are upon al-Quds,” declared Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the al-Qaeda division that morphed into ISIS. “We fight here, while our goal is Rome with good expectations concerning Allah that He makes us the keys for the prophetic good tidings and godly decrees.”

“The Mahdi will come any day,” Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the ISIS leader after Zarqawi’s death, constantly told his people, recruiting new followers with the promise of being glorious fighters in history’s Final Hour.

“Our last message is to the Americans,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, another ISIS leader, declared in an audio recording on January 21, 2014. “Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day.”

By summer of 2014, Baghdadi, a fervent apostle of Sunni apocalyptic eschatology, had officially declared the caliphate, laying the groundwork for the Mahdi’s return. “Rush, O Muslims, to your state,” he said in July 2014. “This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.” From his reading of Sunni End Times prophecies, Baghdadi saw Rome not only as the historic center of Christendom but as a symbol of the apostate Western powers, led by the United States, which would soon be vanquished by Muslim forces.

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” vowed an official ISIS spokesman in Dabiq, the magazine of the Islamic State, named after the Syrian town where Sunnis believe one of history’s final battles will occur.

While Iranian and ISIS leaders share similar eschatological beliefs, they are by no means the same. Indeed, each considers the other “infidel.” They are warring against one another in Iraq and Syria.

They are also pursuing very different strategies. The leaders of ISIS are focused on developing the territorial, financial, and administrative infrastructure required to build the caliphate. The leaders of Iran are focused on developing the scientific, technological, and financial capacities they need to build a nuclear bomb. The leaders of ISIS believe in committing genocide now, and for them simple swords and AK-47s suffice. The leaders of Iran are preparing to commit genocide later and so are investing enormous sums of time and money on their nuclear program.

In the near term, ISIS is more dangerous because it is on a jihadist rampage now — robbing, killing, destroying, enslaving, raping, torturing, and beheading Christians, Muslims and others. In the longer term, Iran’s leaders are more dangerous. Owing to the numerous loopholes in the recent nuclear deal, they will be able to bide their time and, at a time of their choosing, build a nuclear arsenal capable of killing millions of people in a matter of minutes.

Iranian and ISIS leaders are not alone in their fascination with End Times matters. Such interest runs deep through the Muslim world. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, most Muslimsbelieve they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.” In Egypt, 40 percent of Muslims believe expect to see the Mahdi in their lifetime. In Jordan, it’s 41 percent; among Palestinians, 46 percent; in Iraq, a stunning 72 percent.

A large number of Muslims also believe that Jesus will return to Earth in the final battle for Jerusalem. According to Pew, 29 percent of Muslims in Jordan believe this; in Egypt, 39 percent; among Palestinians, 46 percent; in Iraq, 64 percent.

Not all Muslims who hold these views also believe in launching genocidal attacks against the West. However, it does mean that the pool from which those who do pursue apocalyptic Islam can recruit is large and growing.

While the threat of radical Islam remains high and serious, the greater threat to the United States, Israel, and our Arab allies is now posed by the forces of apocalyptic Islam, those who seek not simply to attack us but to annihilate us in order to hasten the coming of their messiah. Do U.S. policymakers and the presidential candidates understand the nature of this threat? If they do, they should explain how they would counter it before it’s too late.

Joel C. Rosenberg is the best-selling author of novels, including The Twelfth Imam (Tyndale, 2013) and The Third Target (2015), and of non-fiction books about Iran, ISIS, and other Mideast issues. 

Former CIA and DIA Operatives Warn of Another 9/11 Attack

Plumes of smoke pour from the World Trade Center buildings in New York on Sept. 11, 2001.

Plumes of smoke pour from the World Trade Center buildings in New York on Sept. 11, 2001.

US News, By Sara Carter, Sept. 11, 2015:

The United States could be facing another 9/11 attack as factions grow deeper among the Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, especially with the recently confirmed death of the Taliban’s one-eyed leader Mullah Omar, according to a senior U.S. lawmaker, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials.

The tensions between Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and the Taliban is as dangerous a national security threat to the United States as it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said Brian Fairchild, who spent two decades with the CIA and has testified before Congress on terrorism.

“Right now, al-Qaida, under Zawahiri, needs the Khorasan group or some affiliated group to attack the U.S. again like 9/11 in order to lift up his stature and that of the organization,” Fairchild said. “He doesn’t want something small but something big – a big-scale attack like 9/11 to make him relevant again. This is an extremely dangerous time as Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban fight and compete for dominance.”

A 32-page Islamic State recruiting document obtained in Pakistan by American Media Institute detailed the growing division between the Islamic State group and al-Qaida. The document — authenticated by retired Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and two other senior U.S. intelligence officers — called for the Islamic State group to launch a war with India that would draw the United States into battle and end the world.

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) also issued two threatening communications in August calling on believers to take action in the U.S. through more lone-wolf attacks, according to SITE Intelligence Group and Middle-East Research Institute, both of which track terror activity.

“Despite many years since 9/11, our enemies in the now Islamic State still see anniversaries as important times to stage attacks,” Flynn said. “And regardless of how far away we get from the original attack against America in 2001, our need to remain vigilant on this coming anniversary is as high as it has ever been. We have had more than sufficient warnings from our FBI in the past few weeks and months. Our nation must never back down from these vicious murderers.”

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told AMI on Sept. 3, the threat emanating from terrorist organizations has evolved since 2001.

“Since the 9/11 attacks we’ve seen the spread of jihadi ideology and the vacuum created under failed states,” McCaul said. “ISIS in Syria and Iraq is an example of that and the growth of the jihad movement has increased exponentially.”

The threat, however, has changed, McCaul said.

“Islamic State has enormous reach through the Internet and its dark space that allows the group to conduct and plan operations,” he said. “It is an area that leaves most of law enforcement and the intelligence community in the dark and its difficult, if not impossible, to combat…We call it terrorism gone viral. Bin Laden had cadres and couriers but with the Internet, they can radicalize thousands of fighters in a matter of minutes.”

BF quote on threatThe issue of “foreign fighters returning and hitting the homeland, which is a similar concern our European allies are facing at the moment, is something we are deeply concerned about as well,” he added.

Flynn explains that the failure to target the radical religious ideas behind the Islamic State group has given the terrorist group room to spread – not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.

The threat of a “major war in South Asia goes beyond the scale that we have been dealing with in the wars we’ve fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The likelihood of far more deadly weapons of mass destruction being applied certainly goes up,” Flynn said.

Fairchild said that since 2001, U.S. policy to dismantle safe-havens for terrorist organizations has failed.

“If you look at the world today there are sanctuaries all across the world. ISIS and al-Qaida affiliates are all over the world, in Yemen, Sinai, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Africa to name a few. The very premise of our counterterrorism policy has failed and our domestic security is being directly threatened,” he said.

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron declined to comment on the current threats or the steps being taken by DHS to mitigate the threats.

Although the Islamic State group’s recruiting document details the deep divisions within the jihadi terror groups, it also states its reverence for Mullah Omar, who had escaped on a motorcycle following a United States mission to capture him in Afghanistan in 2001 and refused to turn Osama bin Laden over to authorities.

Known as the Emir of the Afghan Taliban, Omar rose to power in 1995 and aided and harbored members of al-Qaida before and after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He reportedly died in 2013, but his death remained a secret until July 29, when the Afghanistan government acknowledged his death just two days before peace talks between the terrorist groups were scheduled to begin.

“In the past, well before the attack on the World Trade Center, the Americans tried to bribe the Emir of the Muslims of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Mullah Muhammad Omar with wealth, power, and better relations with the anti-messianic global brotherhood in exchange for Sheikh Osama bin Laden,” the document states. “After 9/11, when the U.S threatened to attack, the pious Emir of the Muslims of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan said, ‘A momin’s (one who believes in God) honor cannot allow him to hand over his momin brother to infidels, even at the cost of power; a momin’s insurance is his faith which cannot be bargained.'”

Despite the apparent reverence for Omar, the Islamic State group wants to usurp the power in the region by encouraging al-Qaida’s fighters to defect and join their movement, the document said.

A Taliban official told the American Media Institute that Islamic State group leadership in the region is struggling to build recruitment and that the Taliban is engaged in continued fighting with its members.

When asked how the Afghan Taliban views the Islamic State group compared to the U.S. and NATO, the official said, “yes, [Islamic State] is much worse than [U.S. and NATO] – they are like a cancerous cell within the jihadi groups.”

“Mainly we have our alliances with al-Qaida and we host their core leadership in Afghanistan – we have support of Al Nusrah, AQAP and al-Shabab,” the official says. “But only the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria is our sworn enemy. Taliban and al-Qaida has a single enemy among the Jihadi groups worldwide and that is the so-called Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, which is not according to Islam — they are deviants.”

U.S. Intelligence officials, who have direct knowledge of the region, said it is this competition between the various extremist groups has increased the threat to U.S. security both at home and abroad.

“Mullah Omar’s death could present opportunities for other terrorist organizations to recruit disenchanted Taliban members; create splinter groups who may seek peace settlements with the Afghanistan government; or possibly incentivize the Taliban to continue its fighting efforts,” a U.S. Intelligence official said on condition of anonymity.

The threat against U.S. assets, personnel overseas and the possibility of another 911 attack against the homeland “has increased since the rise of ISIL and intelligence agencies are monitoring it closely,” the intelligence official added.

Sara A. Carter is a writer for the American Media Institute. Follow her on Twitter: @SaraCarterDC

The long history of September 11 Muslim atrocities


WND, by William Federer, September 11, 2015:

In 1565, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent dominated the Mediterranean, with intentions of not only taking Sicily, Sardinia, Majorca and southern Spain, but Rome itself. The only thing standing in his way was the small rocky island of Malta just south of Sicily, defended by the Knights of Malta.

In March of 1565, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent sent Algerian Admiral Dragut to Malta with 200 ships and 40,000 Muslim soldiers, including 6,500 elite Janissary troops.

Dragut stated: “Unless you have smoked out this nest of vipers, you can do no good anywhere.”

Queen Elizabeth I of England is said to have remarked: “If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what further peril might follow to the rest of Christendom.”

The Knights of Malta were led by a 70-year-old Frenchmen, Jean Parisot de la Valette. Pleas for reinforcements went out across Europe, but defense seemed futile. La Valette addressed his men: “A formidable army composed of audacious barbarians is descending on this island. These persons, my brothers, are the enemies of Jesus Christ. …”

La Valette continued: “Today it is a question of the defense of our faith – as to whether the Gospels are to be superseded by the Koran. God on this occasion demands of us our lives, already vowed to his service. Happy will be those who first consummate this sacrifice.”

The Turks attacked again and again, even reducing one of their fortresses to rubble, but the Knights kept fighting, resolved to save Western Civilization. Finally, Dragut was killed and the Muslims sailed away on Sept. 11, 1565.

Another major event was in 1683. Sultan Mehmed IV sent over 138,000 Muslim Ottoman Turks to surround Vienna, Austria, led by General Mustafa Pasha. For two months they had starved the 11,000 Hapsburg-Austrian defenders. Sultan Mehmed IV sent the message to Austrian King, Leopold I: “Await us in your residence … so we can decapitate you.”

Polish King Jan Sobieski gathered 81,000 Polish, Austrian and German troops and on Sept. 11, 1683, led a surprise attack. In one of the largest charges in history, 38,350 cavalry and dragoons, with many wearing wings which made a thunderous sound, caused the Turks to flee in confusion.

Upon entering the abandoned Turkish tents, Sobieski found bags of beans – coffee beans – revealing how Turks could fight day and night. The beans came from Ethiopia, the one African country which stayed Christian, and the Muslims called them infidels or “kafir,” from which the word “coffee” was derived.

The legend is that Pope Clement VIII was petitioned to declare coffee “the drink of the devil” due to its association with Muslims, but the pontiff tasted it and stated: “This devil’s drink is so good, we should cheat the devil by baptizing it.”

Shortly after the victory of Vienna, Polish General Kulczycki opened Vienna’s first coffeehouses and coffee quickly spread across Europe. The pope and European leaders hailed Jan Sobieski as the “savior of Western Civilization.” The humiliated Muslim army beheaded General Mustafa Pasha and sent his head back to Sultan Mehmed IV in a velvet bag.

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) wrote in “The Great Heresies” (1938): “Less than 100 years before the American War of Independence a Mohammedan army was threatening to overrun and destroy Christian civilization. … Vienna was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history – Sept. 11, 1683.”

Muslim Ottoman Turks dominated Belgrade, Serbia, since 1521. In 1691, Austria helped free Belgrade, but Muslim Ottoman Turks recaptured it and razed the city’s buildings to the ground.

The Serbian Orthodox patriarch led thousands to flee to the Austrian Hapsburg Empire in the first “Great Serbian Migration.” Habsburg Prince Eugene of Savoy led the Holy League to counter-attack. Losing 500 men, they killed 30,000 Turks in one of the Ottoman empire’s worsts defeats in history – the Battle of Zenta, Sept. 11, 1697.

President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his 1916 book, “Fear God and Take Your Own Part”: “From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Jan Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact it … could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.”

On Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists hijacked passenger jets. Two were flown into New York’s World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in Pennsylvania.

President Bush stated: “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended,”

That evening, President Bush stated: “Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. Pictures of planes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger.”

President Bush continued: “America was targeted … because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. … I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve. … I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: ‘Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.’”

On Sept. 13, 2001, President Bush stated: “In the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, ‘One Nation Under God.’”


Secure Freedom Radio with BILL FEDERER, President of Amerisearch, Inc. and host of “The American Minute” broadcast:

  • Historical importance of September 11thto jihadists
  • Roots of the Hijra in Islam
  • Modern day Hijra into Europe and the United States

Also see:

STUNNING PHOTOS: Rainbow begins at World Trade Center day before 14th year since 9/11 attacks


Thursday, September 10, 2015:

Stunning photos show a rainbow coming from the World Trade Center in New York City Thursday, one day before the city marks the 14th year since an attack on Lower Manhattan.

The rainbow made its debut at about 8 a.m. between rain showers.

Many photos were posted to social media from throughout the city, but the most remarkable were those showing the WTC.

Ben Sturner was positioned just right to capture the rainbow starting at the World Trade Center:




Frontpage, by Bruce Thornton, September 11, 2015:

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 should have been a rude awakening from the dogmatic slumbers of the previous decade. Instead, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West went on a vacation from history. The seeming triumph of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism convinced many that all we had left to do was to oversee the inevitable triumph of the Western paradigm throughout the world. Unfortunately, the “world,” especially the Islamic ummah, had other plans, ones that our own bad ideas and cultural dogmas have advanced.

Most broadly, the centuries-long belief that all peoples everywhere are embryonic Westerners should have been shattered by the slaughter in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. The attacks were a horrifically graphic reminder that our core ideals––human rights, sex equality, tolerance of difference, peaceful coexistence, personal and political freedom, material prosperity, the separation of church and state, free speech, and consensual government founded on law––were historical anomalies rather than the destiny of all humanity.

The 19 murderers were acting on a radically different set of ideals and principles––the doctrines of Islam that had destroyed the mighty Byzantine and Persian Empires, and that had invaded, plundered, and occupied southern Europe for 1000 years. We should have learned that nearly a quarter of the world’s people still take seriously what we have reduced to a life-style choice––faith in a transcendent power for whose commands the believer will kill and die, and whose spiritual imperatives trump freedom, human rights, and all the other goods we desire.

At the same time we indulged this universalism, we incoherently endorsed multiculturalism, a doctrine of cultural relativism­­––the idea that all cultures and their differences are equally good and admirable, that no basis exists for judging a culture or saying one is better than another, and that to say one is better is insensitive ethnocentrism or even racism. September 11 should have exposed this superstition as a dangerous lie, and reminded us that all cultures and social practices are not equal. Islamic sharia law, which codifies beliefs founded on fossilized tradition, intolerance, sex apartheid, and justified violence against infidels, are not just “different,” but inferior, for they limit human potential and flourishing by restricting individual freedom.

The next lesson of September 11 should have been the dangerous consequences of the anti-Americanism rife not just in the Middle East and Third World, but among many Europeans and Americans themselves. In the months after the attack numerous American and European intellectuals opined that America had in one way or another “deserved” the attacks. As Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright put it, the attacks were “chickens coming home to roost,” and America was paying for its numerous imperialist and racist crimes. This fashionable superstition, whose ultimate origins lie in communist propaganda, had hardened into stale clichés and an unthinking reflex triggered by international envy and resentment of America’s success, and by self-loathing and guilt on the part of Americans who enjoy biting the hand that fattens them.

In fact, there has never been a great power with the cultural, economic, and military resources of America that has been as restrained in using that power. Muslims in particular have benefited from America’s dominance, which saved hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Balkans and Iraq, and even after 9/11, liberated millions more from the psychopathic Saddam Hussein and the vicious Taliban. Contrary to anti-American propaganda, the U.S. wasn’t targeted by al Qaeda for its alleged “crimes” against Islam, a specious pretext bin Laden cooked up to appeal to self-hating Westerners and rally disaffected Muslims, but for being the world hegemon that wields the power and influence the faithful believe Allah has destined for his believers. We should have learned on 9/11 that as a great power, we will be hated, envied, and resented merely for our existence, and that there is no number of good deeds we can perform to make like us those whose culture and traditions teach that they must hate us.

We also should have learned that our abysmal ignorance of history lies behind the demonization of the United States and our blindness to the reality of Islam. Too many of us endorse the lie that the U.S. has been a racist colonial and imperial power, oppressing and exploiting people across the globe, even as we gush over myths about Islamic “tolerance” and cultural achievements, and ignore the 1000-year record of Imperial Islam’s invasion, conquest, colonization, slaving, slaughter, raiding, and plundering of Christian lands. No better example of this ignorance has been the President, who has decried the Crusades––an attempt to liberate lands that had been Christian for over six centuries from their Muslim conquerors and overlords––and the Spanish Inquisition, whose toll of dead in its whole existence is about the same as the 5000 Jews slaughtered over a few days in Muslim Granada in 1066. Without history to provide the context for evaluating human behavior, we are vulnerable to the propaganda and duplicitous pretexts of the jihadists.

Finally, we should have connected the ignorance of history to the delusional utopianism that infects the West. The carnage on 9/11 should have restored the tragic vision of human existence, the recognition that humans flawed by destructive passions in a brutal indifferent world of chance, change, and death will never create heaven on earth. We should have relearned what our fathers and grandfather knew in World War II: that good men sometimes have to do things they’d rather not in order to keep bad men from prevailing; that the question is not whether people live or die, but whether some people die today so more people don’t die later; that hard, brutal choices have to be made in order to protect our civilization and its cherished goods like freedom and human rights. The simple fact is, if we had fought World War II the way we are fighting the war against jihadists and the states that nourish them, we would have lost.

The last decade and a half, especially the presidency of Barack Obama, has confirmed that many Americans, most on the left, did not learn those lessons. They still think the Middle East can be fixed by more democracy or economic development, since those peoples just want what we want, freedom, peace, and prosperity. Perhaps some do, but millions want more to live in obedience to Allah and restore the dominance Muslims enjoyed for 1000 years.

These Americans still practice a morally idiotic multiculturalism that idealizes the enemy, rationalizes or ignores Islam’s illiberal beliefs and sanctified violence, and proscribes as “hate speech” anybody who speaks the truth about Islam based on its 14 centuries of doctrine and practice. Even the terms “Islamic” and “jihadist” have been erased from our government’s discourse, and jihadist attacks described as “workplace violence” or their perpetrators called vague “extremists.”

These willfully ignorant Americans still indulge a self-loathing that reflexively blames America for all the world’s ills, and as such emboldens our enemies to persevere in the face of our civilizational failure of nerve. They still know nothing of history, refusing to put America’s actions in the context of what other great powers have done, and remaining oblivious to the bloodstained history of Islamic aggression. There is no better example of this cultural neurosis than Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, in which he apologized for “colonialism” and flattered the mythic achievements of Muslim Cordoba for the benefit of the jihadist Muslim Brothers sitting in the front row.

Finally, the unschooled pursue utopian ideals that claim civilizational order and peace can be maintained without brutal violence, that wars can be fought without all the permanent horrible consequences of mass violence, that conflict with inveterate enemies can be resolved with talk or material rewards, and that economic development and esteem-boosting flattery of an illiberal religion and culture can transform the faith-based identity of the jihadist into something more like us––all delusions evident in Obama’s disastrous deal with Iran.

Three thousand dead and a multi-billion dollar hit to our economy on 9/11 were not enough to school those still clinging to their delusions. But as the Romans said, experience is the teacher of fools. The implosion of the Middle East and the probability of a nuclear-armed Iran suggest that class is still in session, and more hard lessons are on the way.

Islamic State-linked Twitter Account Threatens New Attacks In US For 9/11

IPT, by John Rossomando,  Sep. 1, 2015:

Several tweets from an Islamic State follower identifying himself as Abu Mohammed al-Khorasani hint that the terror group could be plotting new attacks inside the U.S. on the upcoming anniversary of 9/11.

A tweet featuring the Twitter hashtags ILLINOIS#, #11septmber and #KillAllAmericans went out at 12:04 p.m. Monday Aug. 31 saying, “Peace on the P.K. [a kind Russian machine gun] Its shots are thematic (rhymes) It strikes America. Our State is victorious.” A photo of the second airliner just before it hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001 appeared in the tweet.

Six minutes later, al-Khorasani tweeted the same hashtags together with a muddled Arabic phrase saying, “If you say to me, Dushka (a kind of Russian machine gun) Oh God, You have a petitioner (Masha, rhymes with Dushka) He strikes America [sic] and our State is victorious.” A graphic saying, “every American citizen is a legitimate target for us,” followed the text.

On Sunday, al-Khorasani wrote a similar threat, saying “SOON,” accompanied by an image of Osama Bin Laden and images of the Sept. 11 hijackers.


He showed his affection for Bin Laden in a tweet today, taunting Americans, “When you killed Sheikh Osama thrown his pure body in the sea for fear of Dead But U did not know that we have millions of #Sheikh Osama.”

Talk and images of what appeared to be a suicide vest or vests immediately followed the threats which included the #ISIS and #IslamicState hashtags.

Al-Khorasani wrote in a tweet at 12:38 p.m., “You have the aircraft You have the rockets You have the launchers We have explosive belts to kill U #IslamicState.” He tweeted again at 12:44 p.m.: “You have F22 You have tanks You have guns But we have Belts #IslamicState #ISIS.”

These tweets follow a summer of Islamic State followers posting images of the Statue of Liberty in ruins, with New York in flames in the background, and saying, “Coming Soon.” Additionally, the image depicting the aftermath of an attack on an American city has not been isolated to New York. One such image tweeted from an Islamic State account on July 28 addressed to Lone Wolves showed a masked jihadist running from an explosion in an unnamed American city.


A statement ominously saying, “O Cross Worshipers Lone Wolves Will Hunt You In America’s Streets” overlaid the graphic. Another tweet by Islamic State supporter nightwalker/lonewolfe posted Aug. 21 depicted jihadists in Times Square with the script, “We Are Everywhere.”

In April, the New York Post reported that Islamic State supporters released a video threatening to unleash a new September 11-style attack, saying that the group’s fighters are stronger than those who brought down the Twin Towers.”Thus they are able to burn United States again,” the video said.

One thing is clear, Islamic State supporters want to remind Americans the group wants to strike against Americans on their own soil at a time and place of the terrorists’ choosing.



Philos Project, by Andrew Harrod, August 15, 2015:

“What are Western policymakers frequently talking about when they are talking about religion? Islam.”

So wrote Transatlantic Academy Senior Fellow Michael Barnett in his report “Faith, Freedom and Foreign Policy: Challenges for the Transatlantic Community,” which was presented during a recent Georgetown University Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs panel that focused on Islam while unconvincingly minimizing that religion’s fundamental differences with other faiths.

Elaborating on Barnett’s report, George Mason University professor Peter Mandaville spoke about the globally popular opinion that religion is superfluous in world affairs, and pointed to a “secular bias” in modern bureaucracies, noting that the American Constitution’s establishment clause often raises questions about the government’s involvement in religion. Berkley Center Senior Fellow Jocelyne Cesari cited Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin’s famous quote, “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?”

Claiming that the common viewpoint of Islam as the “religion of the sword” stemmed from such ignorance, Cesari said that today’s global discourse on Islam resembles the historic views of the Catholic Church by emphasizing aggressive and authoritarian elements. This concept was echoed in the TA report’s repeated equivalences between Islam and other faiths. The fact that South African Muslims once argued against apartheid with Islamic texts that are now claimed by terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda supposedly indicate that societal context – not scriptural text – is the critical variable.

Mandaville questioned Islam’s current status as a violent religion and asked that a distinction be made between the “mainstream nonviolent Islamism” seen in groups like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the brutal Islamic State. He attributed the rise of ISIS in Iraq to “decades and centuries of old political and economic tensions among different demographic groups, not Islamic sectarian divisions.” He dismissively spoke about the infamous article “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood in The Atlantic – an insightful examination of ISIS Islamic ideology – but caveated that American officials “have no standing or creditability to define Islam for Muslims.”

Evelyn Finger, the religion editor for Germany’s leading newspaper weekly Die Zeit, deviated from her fellow panelists’ discussions and called for an analysis of the Islamic sources that underlie the numerous ISIS atrocities. She even warned that – although Islam as a whole is broader than the Islamic State – it is dangerous to get stuck in politically correct discussions that defend this religion.

In his report, Barnett claimed that “the Middle East provides an object lesson of what happens when religion goes wild and spills out of the private and into the public. If peace is going to have a fighting chance, then religion needs to go back to where it belongs – in in the private realm.” He also claimed that it made no sense to speak of a “political” Islam when referencing the traditional Islamic faith, “because Islam already incorporates politics.” He then brought up what he called the “Christian definition of religion, in which religion is part of the private,” adding that the average Muslim looks at the promotion of religious freedom as a campaign against religion.

Barnett said that to call the Western liberal order a “Christian liberal order” a century ago – when “Western, liberal states wore their religions on their shirtsleeves” – would have been stating the obvious. For example, the Red Cross’s cross logo indicates that organization’s Christian roots. While he said that religious figures worldwide have led some of the great moral campaigns to counterbalance religious violence, he failed to identify most of these individuals as Christian.

Barnett’s fellow contributor, Turkish commentator Mustafa Akyol, critiqued “politically correct, but factually wrong” platitudes including the ideas that “Islam is a religion of peace” and “violent jihadists have nothing to do with Islam.” Past reformers tended to incorporate their wishful thinking into their interpretations of Islamic texts. This led to the idea that apostasy is a crime that deserves capital punishment in all classical schools of sharia, for example. He pointed out that a tension now exists between democratically elected Islamists who have intolerant goals and liberals whose views are not popular enough to win them democratic elections.

Janice Gross Stein’s chapter spoke of ISIS as part of a “long tradition of movements that seek to purify Islam.” She said that throughout Islam’s history, enemies such as the MB and Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda and ISIS have clashed about the “true voice” of Islam. To face these entities, she said that the West will need “resolve, stoicism, patience and intelligence in a struggle that will go on for generations.”

In all, the TA’s senior fellow contributors did not seem fazed by Islamic doctrine. Clifford Bob cited the discredited book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” and its thesis of undue Israeli influence on American policy, and repeated the increasingly common fallacy that “anti-Islam activism has – in recent years – joined anti-Semitism as a dangerous form of politics.” Instead of focusing on Islamic doctrine, Sir Michael Leigh asked Western schools to emphasize past Western misdeeds with an “understanding of the lasting legacy of imperial expansion, including perceptions of the role of missionaries.”

The writers in residence at the German-American TA indicated the muddled state of elite thinking regarding Islam. Almost 15 years after the Taliban’s Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, politically correct Western guilt and cultural relativism continue to cloud policy analysis. As the TA writers demonstrated, though, Islam’s stark realities are gradually becoming all too apparent.

How the FBI is whitewashing the Saudi connection to 9/11

DECADE-US DOMESTIC NEWSNew York Post, by Paul Sperry, April 12, 2015:

Just 15 days before the 9/11 attacks, a well-connected Saudi family suddenly abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Fla., leaving behind jewelry, clothes, opulent furniture, a driveway full of cars — including a brand new Chrysler PT Cruiser — and even a refrigerator full of food.

About the only thing not left behind was a forwarding address. The occupants simply vanished without notifying their neighbors, realtor or even mail carrier.

The 3,300-square-foot home on Escondito Circle belonged to Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of then-King Fahd. But at the time, it was occupied by his daughter and son-in-law, who beat a hasty retreat back to Saudi Arabia just two weeks before the attacks after nearly a six-year stay here.

Neighbors took note of the troubling coincidence and called the FBI, which opened an investigation that led to the startling discovery that at least one “family member” trained at the same flight school as some of the 9/11 hijackers in nearby Venice, Fla.

The investigation into the prominent Saudi family’s ties to the hijackers started on Sept. 19, 2001, and remained active for several years. It was led by the FBI’s Tampa field office but also involved the bureau’s field offices in New York and Washington, and also the Southwest Florida Domestic Security Task Force.

Agents identified persons of interest in the case, establishing their ties to other terrorists, sympathies with Osama bin Laden and anti-American remarks. They looked into their bank accounts, colleges and places of employment. They tracked at least one suspect’s re-entry into the US.

The Saudi-9/11 connection in Florida was no small part of the overall 9/11 investigation. Yet it was never shared with Congress. Nor was it mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Now it’s being whitewashed again, in a newly released report by the 9/11 Review Commission, set up last year by Congress to assess “any evidence now known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission.” Though the FBI acknowledges the Saudi family was investigated, it maintains the probe was a dead end.

The review panel highlighted one local FBI report generated from the investigation that said Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji, the prominent Saudi couple who “fled” their home, had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

But: “The FBI told the Review Commission that the communication was ‘poorly written’ and wholly unsubstantiated,” the panel noted in its 128-page report. “When questioned later by others in the FBI, the special agent who wrote (it) was unable to provide any basis for the contents of the document or explain why he wrote it as he did.”

How strange. Yet panelists did not interview the unidentified agent for themselves. They just accepted headquarters’ impeachment of his work.

Odder still, the agent’s report was just one of many other FBI communications detailing ties between the Saudi family and the hijackers. In fact, the Tampa office of the FBI recently was ordered to turn over more than 80,000 pages of documents filling some 27 boxes from its 9/11 investigation to a federal judge hearing a Freedom of Information Act case filed by local journalists over the Sarasota angle. The judge is sorting through the boxes to determine which documents should remain classified. Most are marked “SECRET/NOFORN,” meaning no foreign nationals — a classification reserved for highly sensitive materials.

“The report provides no plausible explanation for the contradiction between the FBI’s current claim that it found nothing and its 2002 memo finding ‘many connections’ between the Sarasota family and the 9/11 terrorists,” Thomas Julin, the attorney who filed the FOIA lawsuit against the FBI, told the Miami Herald.

The panel’s report also doesn’t explain why visitor security logs for the gated Sarasota community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers, including 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta.

The three-member review panel was appointed by FBI Director James Comey, who also officially released the findings.

Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers. He says the al-Hijjis’ “urgent” pre-9/11 exit suggests “someone may have tipped them off” about the coming attacks.

Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify 28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President George W. Bush.

“The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” he said, adding, “I am speaking of the kingdom,” or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.

Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks — which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government. The section allegedly identifies high-level Saudi officials and intelligence agents by name, and details their financial transactions and other dealings with the San Diego hijackers. It zeroes in on the Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi Embassy, among other Saudi entities.

The review commission, however, concludes there is “no evidence” that any Saudi official provided assistance to the hijackers, even though the panel failed to interview Graham or his two key investigators — former Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann and FBI investigator Michael Jacobson — who ran down FBI leads tying Saudi officials to the San Diego hijackers and documented their findings in the 28 pages.

Graham smells a rat: “This is a pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 by all of the agencies of the federal government which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.”

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Also see:

Was George W. Bush Scheduled to Meet With ‘Islamists Linked to the Muslim Brotherhood’ on 9/11?

Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project appears on The Glenn Beck Program April 6, 2015. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project appears on The Glenn Beck Program April 6, 2015. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

The Blaze, by Erica Ritz,April 6, 2015:

Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project claims his organization has uncovered evidence that former President George W. Bush was scheduled to meet with “Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood” on 9/11. Because of the devastating attacks of the day, the meetings didn’t happen.

But Mauro says the new documents show how “the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gained access to the highest levels of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, partly due to the help of Grover Norquist.”

Speaking on The Glenn Beck Program Monday, Mauro said Bush had two meetings scheduled with a total of 16 people, 14 of whom had “links to this Brotherhood political influence network.”

Mauro said it is certainly possible that White House officials didn’t know the beliefs of those they were meeting with, but the meetings “tell a shocking story of an Islamist political influence operation that reached the highest levels of the U.S. government.”

“It’s difficult to know who knows the background of these individuals and who doesn’t,” Mauro told Beck. “But for me the bottom line is that when you look at these documents, what you see is Karl Rove was supposed to attend this meeting with President Bush with very radical people. … We’ve got to figure out for the sake of our national security, how does that happen?”

Bush was to Meet Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates on 9/11


By Ryan Mauro:

The Clarion Project has received White House documents that show that President Bush was scheduled to meet with Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood on September 11, 2001. In a remarkably ironic turn of events, it was Islamist terrorism that stopped the meeting with Islamist radicals at the White House from happening.

The never-before-published documents substantiate the assertions that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gained access to the highest levels of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, partly due to the help of Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The files help tell a shocking story of an Islamist political influence operation that reached the highest levels of the U.S. government.

The Center for Security Policy has a meticulously documented dossier on the topic, including first-hand testimony from the think-tank’s president. The Clarion Project has also told the story, including the history of Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute and its links to Islamists including the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The White House documents show that President George W. Bush was scheduled to meet with U.S.-based Islamists on September 11, 2001 after a previous meeting on March 5 was cancelled.

Bush and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham would meet privately with a select group of six Muslim and Arab “supporters” at 3:05 PM in the White House Oval Office, including two officials from Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute. Every single one of those six has strong connections to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

This would be followed by a larger meeting with 16 activists who are described as representatives of the top 12 Muslim and Arab organizations, including four created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Also in attendance would have been 7 additional White House officials; three of which have served as officials with Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute.

We will examine the activists with this treasured high-level access in a moment. The purpose of the scheduled meetings with President Bush on 9/11 must first be understood to appreciate their significance.

Islamist Engagement with the GOP and Bush Campaign

The topics to be addressed in this meeting and with the larger group were classified evidence, racial profiling and the Middle East conflict. The agenda also emphasized that Muslims and Arabs are victimized by negative stereotypes, showing that the Islamists’ “Islamophobia” strategy was well underway before the 9/11 attacks.

The reference to “classified evidence” is important to be put into context.

Sami Al-Arian and the Islamist lobby successfully pressured the Bush presidential campaign and the Republican party into opposing the Clinton Administration’s use of classified evidence to detain immigrants on national security grounds. Al-Arian was later convicted of being a secret Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operative. The practice was responsible for the detainment of Al-Arian’s brother-in-law and fellow Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative, Mazen al-Najjar.

Al-Arian was described as a “master manipulator” by the judge during his trial. The indictment of Al-Arian says he and his co-conspirators “did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights.”

A document in his possession shows he ordered colleagues to “collect information from those relatives and friends who work in sensitive positions in government.”

Al-Arian’s operation, by his own admission, was essentially one with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity whose offices were raided in 2002 as part of a terrorism investigation. He later refused to testify to a grand jury investigating the group.

[Also see: IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank by Kyle Shideler]

The FBI was warned in 1987 by an informant in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood that IIIT was secretly working through “political action front groups” and planned “to peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” According to former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, the group decided that accusations of “Islamophobia” would be thrown at opponents standing in their way.

IIIT is linked to the Islamic Free Market Institute founded by Grover Norquist. The St. Petersburg Times observed that “more than 50 targets of the raid were people and organizations connected to Norquist and the Islamic Institute.”

Al-Arian honored prominent Republicans including Norquist for joining his political causes including a ban on the classified evidence practice. Al-Arian repeatedly met with Norquist’s group, had a photo-op with then-Governor Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign and visited the White House.

The other key player was Abdurrahman Alamoudi, founder and board member of the American Muslim Council (AMC) that also lobbied heavily for Al-Arian’s cause. Alamoudi was later convicted on terrorism-related charges and was specifically linked to a Libyan regime plot to assassinate the king of Saudi Arabia.

AMC was part of a coalition named the American Muslim Political Coordination Council-Political Action Committee that endorsed Bush’s candidacy. The coalition said Bush “promised to address Muslim concerns on domestic and foreign policy issues.” It said one of the major reasons for the endorsement was the “accessibility” they had and his adoption of their position on the secret evidence issue.

The Bush presidential campaign returned a $1,000 donation from Alamoudi after he was videotaped declaring his support for the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups. He later wrote in a letter from prison that  was featured in the Grand Deception documentary that, “I am, I hopestill a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S.A.”

You can read more about the story of Islamist-GOP engagement and the Islamic Free Market Institute during this period here.

Bush’s First Meeting with Six “Supporters”

The Bush Administration documents do not specify what qualified the six attendees at the 3:05 meeting as “supporters” but presumably it was their work for the presidential campaign. The Islamist Money in Politics project shows that the Islamist lobby financially favored the Bush candidacy in 2000.



The Bush White House documents obtained by the Clarion Projectare shocking in how they display the historical irony of President Bush’s scheduled meeting with terrorist-allied Islamists on 9/11 of all days, but there are equally-shocking broader conclusions to be made.

The episode is reflective of a successful Islamist political influence operation and a seriously flawed vetting process that continues until present, with the Islamists at President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit and the choice of Muslim Brotherhood promoter Mohamed Elibiary as a senior Department of Homeland Security advisor serving as two examples.

The conclusion should not be that everyone involved is a secret Islamist conspirator or terrorist. It’s that skillful Islamists use relationships with persons of influence in both parties to promote themselves, advance their causes and impact policy.

On the Glenn Beck Show on March 26, Norquist said he formed the Institute to promote a progressive reformation in Islam that is more pro-American and against Sharia governance. Yet, it worked closely with the Islamists who are the exact opposite of that.

Norquist said he probably didn’t even know what the Muslim Brotherhood was at the time. It’s very hard to believe that anyone involved in Islamic issues would be ignorant of that very basic fact. The Islamism of many of Norquist’s partners was already public knowledge then and was almost definitely expressed in their private dealings.

If Norquist was ignorant then, he certainly he is not now. Unknowing partners of these Islamists should renounce them and detail their dealings so as to prevent them in the future. They should thank those who exposed them and make up for their errors by embracing Muslim activists who stand against Islamism.

To this day, Norquist has not expressed regret about working with the Islamists. He has not even conceded that their histories are unsettling. He acts as if the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t even exist and ridicules those who say it does.

There is a bi-partisan problem when it comes to mistaking Islamists for “moderates.” The fight against Islamic extremism requires that those who made such mistakes wake up and act to correct their errors by challenging Islamism.

The treatment of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as treasured “moderates” must come to an end.

Much more at Clarion Project