How DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist Operations

Image: Abdirahman Sheik MohamudFrontpage, April 20, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

On April 16, 2015 Fox News posted an Associated Press report, “Ohio man accused of traveling to Syria, plotting terror act.” [1]

My focus today will be on the way that the alleged terrorist was provided with United States citizenship and consequently, a United States passport. The adjudications process failed to uncover material facts that would have barred the individual, Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, from becoming a naturalized citizen and hence receive that highly valuable United States passport.

The immigration component of this story and similar stories, has been largely ignored by the media, although the issue about his having immigrated to the United States from Somalia and then becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen was raised in some news reports.

The complete immigration component of this case is extremely important, as you will see — indeed, this element, had it worked as it should have, could have thwarted the ability of this alleged terrorist to have traveled to Syria to join his brother who was killed in combat while fighting on the side of terrorists. This is why I frequently make the point that our borders and our immigration laws are our first and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.

While the Fox News headline simply identified Mohamud as being an “Ohio man” the body of the article did provide solid information about his country of birth and his having become a naturalized citizen, unlike many other news reports that were content to simply describe the alleged terrorist as simply being “An Ohio Man.”

Here is how the Fox News news report began:

COLUMBUS, Ohio – An Ohio man traveled to Syria and trained alongside terrorists, then returned to the U.S. with plans to attack a military base or a prison, according to a federal indictment announced Thursday.

Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, a U.S. citizen originally from Somalia, wanted to “kill three or four American soldiers execution style,” according to the indictment. Attacking the prison was part of a backup plan if that didn’t work, the charges said.

The indictment also says Mohamud’s brother, Abdifatah Aden, fought with Jabhat al-Nusrah, a State Department-designated terrorist group, until he was killed in battle in Syria in June 2014.

Mohamud, 23, of Columbus was charged with supporting terrorism, supporting the same terrorist group and making a false statement involving international terrorism when he allegedly lied to an Ohio FBI agent by saying he was in Istanbul when authorities say he was in Syria.

Here is critical bit information contained in the report:

Mohamud became a U.S. citizen in February 2014, according to the government.

The government didn’t say how it learned of the plot, but the indictment mentions two “unnamed” associates of Mohamud in the U.S. to whom he gave information about his activities, including a video of Mohamud carrying an AK-47.

One of them said he believed Mohamud was trying to recruit him to participate in the plot, according to the indictment. The government also said Mohamud made terrorism-related Facebook posts in 2013.

An April 16, 2015 New York Post article. “ISIS-trained Ohio man was ordered to attack US: feds [2]” pinned down the nexus between Mohamud becoming a United States citizen and his departure for the Middle East in these paragraphs:

An Ohio man who left the US a year ago to train with Islamic State jihadists was nabbed by the feds Thursday for allegedly plotting to unleash terror in the country, authorities said.

Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, 23, of Columbus, left in April 2014 — two months after becoming a naturalized citizen —to train and fight with the extremists in Syria, the Justice Department said, ABC News reported.

Islamic State wannabe Mohamud — who has posted the group’s propaganda online — was charged with providing material support to al Nusrah, an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, according to the feds.

The jihadists trained him in shooting, home break-ins, explosives and hand-to-hand combat, authorities said. He was then ordered to return to the US and commit a terror act, an indictment said.

He returned in June 2014.

A review of his indictment [3] will dispel any doubts (should any exist) as to whether or not Mohamud made acquiring United States citizenship and a U.S. passport an integral part of his plans, you need to review in which it is alleged that he had communicated with his brother Aden who asked him how his “papers” were coming along. He responded by saying that, having obtained his U.S. citizenship, he was waiting to receive his U.S. passport before traveling to meet Aden. The indictment states that Aden was killed in combat in Syria in June 2014.

When disclosures were made about the NSA spying on Americans the argument was made that this was done to protect our citizens and our nation. I am cautiously supportive of appropriate measures, within reason, being taken to protect us, however, for the NSA to scrutinize U.S. citizens, yet apparently failing to uncover the postings of the alleged terrorist in this case, raises many serious questions.

If the NSA did have this information, was it shared with the DHS?

The indictment states that Mohamud was posting material online about his desire to carry out terror attacks in 2013. How did USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services), an agency that is under the aegis of the DHS, conduct its investigation into his application to become a naturalized American citizen at least six months later and then approve that application?

Back when I was an INS Special Agent, applications for naturalization required that a GMC (Good Moral Conduct) investigation was conducted to determine that the alien not only had no criminal convictions but also met other, more stringent standards. Today our government makes a big deal about running fingerprints to verify criminal histories.

A critical question is whether or not any GMC field investigations are still being conducted by USCIS. Indeed, how are applications for citizenship vetted? The likelihood is that there are no such field investigations being conducted. Even without knowing about the FaceBook postings noted in the indictment, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that individuals who know Mohamud would have potentially raised some questions about his hostility to the United States.

Let’s in fact consider the obvious in this specific case: Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud immigrated to the United States from Somalia, a country that has a strong association with terrorist organizations. In point of fact, there have been a succession of reports of young members of the Somali community, from Minnesota and elsewhere, abruptly leaving the United States to join terror groups in the Middle East. At the time he applied for naturalization Mohamud was in his early twenties, an age often shared by terrorists. USCIS adjudicates hundreds of thousands of applications for naturalization each and every year and consequently there is an abject lack of resources available to thoroughly screen each application.

However given the ongoing concerns about terrorism, it would certainly seem that applications filed by those who may be prone to involvement with terrorism should come under extra scrutiny including an actual field investigation.

There is ample justification for such investigation. The USCIS Policy Manual, contains specific guidelines about how the naturalization process is to be conducted. The obvious question hopefully that will be asked at a hearing that should be conducted by Congress is whether or not USCIS is meeting these standards. The consequences can, as we have seen, be of grave significance.

***

Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.

Read more

LISTEN: A leading national security advisor and Islamic law expert explains how and why America is losing to jihadists

Major Stephen Coughlin

Major Stephen Coughlin

The Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 13, 2015:

Major Stephen Coughlin (Ret.), a decorated intelligence officer known as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law has authored a forthcoming book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of the Jihad,” that serves as a damning indictment of America’s national security establishment in the face of the global jihad, and provides a chilling message to the American people.

We had the opportunity to discuss Coughlin’s new book in a wide-ranging interview that you can find below.

 

During our discussion, Coughlin goes into great depth on the thesis of his book, providing keen insights into the nature and doctrinal basis of the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, America’s conscious purging of the very lexicon necessary to describe the nature of the threat on its own terms, and as a result of postmodernism, political correctness and the pervasiveness of what Coughlin describes as culturally Marxist narratives — along with the gentle prodding of Muslim Brotherhood influences on our media and other core institutions — the ignorance, incoherence and willful blindness of America’s “stupid” national security establishment.

The end result that Coughlin sees is a completely compromised security situation in which America is able to win in military engagements, while completely losing — to the degree to which it is even fighting — on the ideological warfare battleground where the Muslim Brotherhood and its Western proxies devote a significant amount of their efforts.

This civilizational jihad effort, and Western ignorance of principles like jihad, abrogation and dawah, which Coughlin describes during our interview, evidences itself in everything from what Coughlin sees as the disastrous policy of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), to the Fort Hood shooting, to Iranian nuclear negotiations, which we examine through the lens of the 7th century Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Below are several of the more critical portions of our interview, but for those concerned about the state of national security as it relates to the global jihad, we urge you to listen to the conversation in full.

The Three Words the National Security Establishment Won’t Use Essential to Understanding the Enemy

 

How the Muslim Brotherhood is Working Its Way Towards Civilizational Jihad in America

 

How CVE Supports the Postmodernist Narrative, and Deems Veterans Returning from War a Threat

 

The Derelection of Duty of America’s National Security Establishment

 

How Ignorance of Islam Deceives Our National Security Leaders to Our Detriment

 

What a 7th Century Treaty Tells Us About the Iran Nuclear “Deal”

 

How Left Wing Narratives Have Created a “Stupid” National Security Establishment and Aided the Jihad

The Greatest Threat to Our National Security

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, April 10, 2015:

When President-elect Obama declared that he was going to “fundamentally transform” America, not many Americans understood what that meant. They certainly did not understand that he did not believe in America’s exceptionalism and greatness. They were also unaware of his past Marxist indoctrination, blaming America for many of the world’s problems. Therefore, anything that undercuts and withdraws America’s power and influence is seen as being objectively progressive. This is fundamental to understanding why President Obama shows empathy with American’s enemies, e.g., Iran, Cuba, Russia, and China.

It is also key to understanding our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, as well as the loss of our influence in the region with the rise of Islam. President Obama apparently shares the view that the colonial powers unjustifiably suppressed Islam for the better part of two centuries. Therefore, the best way to rectify that situation is to withdraw the U.S. and let Islam rise again. Of course, this actually started under the Carter administration with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism when the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Complicating the current Mid-East chaos is the fact that the administration has great difficulty in identifying the enemy. The President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said it best, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Make no mistake – ISIS is Islam. The barbarism and atrocities they commit are sanctioned by the Quran and Islam’s Shariah law. We must face facts, ISIS is impervious to any rational dialogue. They must be killed into submission.

As I have previously stated, symbols matter throughout the world, but no more so than in the Middle East. When President Obama delivered his June 4, 2009 Cairo “Outreach to Muslims” speech, with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood leadership sitting in the front row, and declared that it was part of his responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear – that said it all!

Furthermore, there should have been no doubt remaining after his September 2012 UN General Assembly speech when he stated in reference to the Benghazi tragedy, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Islam.” No matter how many excuses President Obama makes for Islam and Muslim sensitivities, freedom of speech for the civilized world will not be silenced.

In yet another indication, the Obama Administration continues to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood even though their creed is to destroy the United States from within (silent jihad) by our own hands and substitute our Constitution with Islam’s Shariah law. The Muslim Brotherhood have been able to successfully penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. They are now institutionalized. Their impact on our policies cannot be overstated.

The Kabuki dance just completed in Switzerland produced a “framework” of “understandings” which is supposed to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons program is already being disputed by Iran. Of course, this is to be expected with no agreed upon text.

According to Fred Fleitz of the Center For Security Policy, the framework as now understood legitimizes and actually advances Iran’s uranium-enrichment program. All the core elements of Iran’s program remain in place. They do not have to dismantle anything and be allowed to keep their heavily fortified Fordow underground enrichment facilities — a major, unbelievable, concession by the United States. In effect, we have rewarded Iran for ignoring (plus lying and cheating) UN Security Council resolutions for a decade. They do not have to destroy any of their ICBMs nor stop their aggression throughout the Middle East. More importantly, the Obama administration has dismissed the fact that the Iranian government has caused the loss of life of thousands of Americans. At the end of the day, there is only one option that guarantees Iran will not achieve a nuclear weapon capability, and that is a military strike.

To show their disdain for President Obama, an Iranian spokesperson stated that the destruction of Israel is “non-negotiable.” So much for the two state peace process! Of course, death to America is a recurring theme.

The Middle East is not the only place our influence is being challenged. We are being challenged by China in the Western Pacific. In Europe, we are standing idly by as NATO is being emasculated by Putin’s aggression in the Ukraine. Many believe the “reset button” with Russia has failed. Actually, it is working quite well – for Russia.

The Obama administration has allowed the KGB thug Putin to conduct a policy of aggression in the Ukraine unopposed. President Obama’s refusal to provide legitimate defensive military equipment to Kiev appears to be part of the reset button “understanding.” It is the same understanding that applies to the withdrawal of our commitment to place anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Furthermore, President Obama’s refusal to meet with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (during his 3 days visit to Washington) was another signal to Putin.

There is no doubt our influence and status as a great power and reliable ally is being challenged. Our enemies don’t fear us and our allies don’t trust us – a formula for disaster. President Obama’s refusal to call for a reformation of Islam, plus his empathy with our enemies, combined with our unilateral disarmament, place our national security in jeopardy. The greatest threat to our national security today clearly is the Obama administration policies, which must be reversed. Americans must stand up and demand that Congress act now.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Jeh Johnson’s Quranic “Quintessential American Values” and his Department of Insecurity

DHS Secretary Lauds U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Islam

UTT, by John Guandolo, April  3, 2015:

Is it treason for a Public Official to publicly laud an enemy of the United States?  The DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson did so last week.

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 10.20.05 AM

At the “Empowering Voices” conference (3/20/2015) held by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was not only given an award by our enemy for his outreach and engagement activities with them – for which DHS brags – he said, at the event, “The reading of the Quran reminded me of two things that MLK said a lot, which are quintessentially American values.”

Secretary Jeh Johnson is the same guy who declared the “War on Terror” over in 2012.

jeh-johnson

It seems that Sedition, Treason, and Aiding and Abetting the Enemy are all in play here.  Where are the calls to the Department of Justice from our elected officials to charge Secretary Johnson?

***

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson talks about the evolving role of the DHS with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes which aired on April 5, 2015: (first 13 minutes of the video)

Transcript

Lesley Stahl: The FBI says it has a homegrown, extremist investigations going on in every single state. How serious, how serious is this threat? Is it hair on fire? Every state…

Jeh Johnson: I certainly don’t believe in the hair on fire phenomenon.

These five potentially banned pages tell you everything you need to know about the disastrous state of America’s national security

The Blaze:

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and the man known as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law has been warning America for years about our inability or unwillingness to know, let alone define our enemy, and the disastrous consequences we will face as a result.

Catastrophic-Failure-ShrunkIn spite of his groundbreaking work for the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center, the National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Directorate, along with lectures at practically all of America’s leading national security institutions, by his own admission Coughlin’s work is no longer welcomed in much of Washington D.C.

Fearing such censorship, he has decided to bring his critical work to the public, in the form of a forthcoming book titled ”Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”

Below is a Blaze exclusive excerpt from “Catastrophic Failure,” illustrating the dire state of America’s national security and what the country can and must understand to effectively counter our enemies.

Introduction

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny. All of those may be turned against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.

Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, Illinois

September 13, 1858

Why Me?

I did not set out in life to be a student of jihad and Islamic-based terrorism. In the fall of 2001, I was a reserve officer in the United States Army, called to active duty from the private sector due to the events of September 11.

My posting was to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Directorate (JS-J2). As I watched America respond to events across the world, I noticed with alarm that decisionmaking seemed to be increasingly less focused on the threat as it presented itself and more on the narratives that reduced the threat to a nameless abstraction.

As a mobilized officer brought into the heart of the strategic intelligence world, I knew there would be a large learning curve involved in formulating the threat doctrine of an enemy that had brought down the Twin Towers in the name of Islam and according to Islamic law.

I made a point of going to the source. I found actual books of Islamic law. I read them and found they could be mapped, with repeatable precision, to the stated doctrines and information that groups like al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood disclosed about themselves and used when speaking to each other. My analysis helped me develop a threat doctrine, an understanding of the enemy as he understands himself unconstrained by the influences of the environment – Sun Tzu’s “Know your enemy.” That threat analysis was in line with all the standard doctrines on threat development I had been taught when I learned to do intelligence analysis. Because the declared enemy stated that his fighting doctrine was based on the Islamic law of jihad, Islamic law had to be incorporated into any competent threat analysis. When assessing al-Qaeda in light of the jihad doctrines that the group’s members actually cite, I came to realize that such doctrines did exist, they are generally cited properly, and that al-Qaeda made plausible claims to be actually following those doctrines. In legal parlance, al-Qaeda’s claims to be operating in accordance with mainstream Islamic law could at least survive summary judgment. By the same token, any analysis of al-Qaeda that failed to account for such a self-disclosed component of an identified threat doctrine could not be competent. I assumed everyone with whom I worked in the intelligence directorate was aware of the most basic aspects of intelligence, such as threat identification.

I was wrong. I had entered the Intelligence Directorate adhering to the traditional methods of analysis. Soon, however, I discovered that within the division there seemed to be a preference for political correctness over accuracy and for models that were generated not by what the enemy said he was, but on what academics and “cultural advisors” said the enemy needed to be, based on contrived social science theories.

It seemed the enemy was aware of this as well. Forces hostile to the United States in the War on Terror appeared to have successfully calculated that they could win the war by convincing our national security leaders of the immorality of studying and knowing the enemy. It is not our fault that the threat we face identifies its doctrine along Islamic lines, but it is our fault that we refuse to look at that doctrine simply because our enemy wishes to blind us to its strategic design.

Some time ago, I had an opportunity to analyze the Muslim Brotherhood in North America’s strategic documents, which were entered into evidence in a federal terrorism trial. In those documents, the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly states its designs for “civilization-jihad” and its intent to sabotage America by getting us to do the job for them. This doctrine of subversion could likewise be mapped to mainstream Islamic law. Individuals and organizations named in the Brotherhood’s documents were shown in the government’s investigative files, surveillance photos, audio recordings, and wiretaps to have been aligned with or members of the Muslim Brotherhood. But while the government was identifying many of these people and entities as providing material support to terrorism in a federal court, it was also seeking out those same people as cultural experts, “moderates,” and community outreach partners.

As early as 2003, I began putting together briefings that easily outperformed competing explanations for the enemy’s doctrinal motivations. My briefings have always spoken to verifiable and authoritative facts. Others, however, were based on social science modeling and depended on dubious academic constructs—which, of course, were needed to satisfy the overriding requirement that we avoid associating the war we were fighting with the very Islamic concepts that the enemy self identified as the justification and basis for their actions.

Before demobilizing from the Joint Staff in 2004, I wrote a forecast of adverse events that would occur because of our refusal to undertake evidentiary threat analysis. Eighteen months later, while standing on a Metro platform in downtown Washington, D.C., I happened to run into the senior civilian in the Joint Staff Intelligence Directorate, retired Marine Corps Colonel David Kiffer. He told me he was impressed by my briefs, particularly by how the presentations accurately frame emerging events to that day.

When asked how I could identify emerging threats with such precision, I explained that there is no crystal ball. It’s just that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others have knowable threat doctrines. Forecasting is as simple as mapping their stated objectives to the doctrines they follow in conjunction with their known capabilities. At the core of those doctrines, of course, was Islamic law.

As a retired Marine Corps officer, the senior civilian intelligence officer understood my concern for the lack of basic analysis. He asked me to come to the Pentagon and brief the Flag and General officers on the J2 Staff. I accepted the offer but insisted that I be able to present what I believed to be the central problem in the War on Terror. He agreed, so I put a briefing together and spoke at the Pentagon around Christmastime in 2005. The briefing culminated in a slide that raised two central questions:

Can overdependence on “moderates” to explain non-Western motivations and beliefs lead us to (overly) depend on them for the decisions we make?

Is there a point where the outsourcing of an understanding of events leads to the outsourcing of the decisionmaking associated with those events?

Underlying both questions was my concern that decisions central to the warfighting effort are based solely on the inputs of experts on subjects that the decisionmakers themselves do not understand. When such a practice becomes chronic, actual decisionmaking shifts from those responsible for making decisions to the experts they rely on for information. It is a subversion of both the decisionmaking and the warfighting processes.

At the Pentagon, after I had expressed my opinion on these issues directly, I was asked to join the Intelligence Directorate as a full-time consultant. Since then, while I repackaged my presentations and restated them in many ways with greater demonstrated foreseeability, the central issue has remained the same: Senior leaders remain profoundly unaware of the Islamic doctrines that frame the War on Terror. Tragically, not knowing these doctrines kills Americans and undermines our security.

Read more at The Blaze

‘Huge surge’ of ‘unscreened’ Muslims flooding U.S.

Muslims_Capitol (1)WND, by GREG COROMBOS, March 27, 2015:

Muslim immigration from dangerous nations is dramatically higher in recent years, and government assurances that immigrants are being properly screened is “a farce,” according to accomplished author and columnist Paul Sperry.

“It’s a huge surge under Obama. In the last three years, he’s averaged 100,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations a year. That is very alarming. It’s more than we’re importing both from Central America and Mexico combined. This is a big shift in immigration flows,” said Sperry, who is the author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” and co-author of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

“It’s really insane what we’re doing. No one’s really talking about it, but this mass immigration from Muslim countries poses a serious national security threat,” said Sperry, who is also a Hoover Institution media fellow and former Washington bureau chief of WND. Sperry frequently writes for the New York Post and Investor’s Business Daily.

The stated reason for the influx in recent years is the rise in refugees from war-torn nations like Syria and Iraq. The number of people accepted from Syria in particular baffles Sperry, who said there is a long standing policy of keeping Syrians at bay.

“Syria has always been on our terrorist list,” he said. “We have had very strict restrictions on Syrian immigration. Since Syria’s become a failed state, Obama’s increased the number of refugees. By the time he leaves office, we will be importing over 10,000 Syrians into this country. This is a concern because Iraq and Syria are now controlled by the Islamic State.”

The government insists the case of each refugee is carefully scrutinized before he or she is allowed into the U.S. But Sperry said that claim is laughable.

“At the top levels of the administration, DHS and so forth, they claim that these refugees are being vetted,” Sperry said. “But it’s a complete farce. We know that from testimony from the FBI officials who are in charge of that type of vetting process for terrorists coming in under visas and these refugee programs.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Paul Sperry

What has the FBI testimony shown?

“They admit, under oath, that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have, criminal, terrorism or otherwise, because there is no vetting opportunities,” Sperry said. “You can’t vet somebody if you don’t have documentation, police records, etc.”

He said, “Of course, Iraq and Syria are now failed states and the police. There are no police records, so we are not vetting these folks.”

Sperry said it’s a huge gamble to let people from hostile nations enter the U.S. without any meaningful background check.

“We have no idea if they’re going to come into this country to escape terrorism or to carry out terrorism. We have no idea, and they admit as much. For all we know, they could be joining a sleeper cell here,” said Sperry, who noted that Obama has also greatly increased the number of Saudis in the U.S. on student visas.

According to Sperry, the U.S. should be feverishly dialing back its acceptance of Muslims from questionable nations. He said Western Europe is a glaring example of what happens when more scrutiny is not paid to who enters the country. Sperry cites recent terror attacks and plots in Paris, Copenhagen and Brussels as proof that liberal immigration standards and refusal to demand assimilation is a breeding ground for disaster.

“They opened the floodgates for North African Muslims,” he said. “Now they regret it, of course, but it’s too late. Europe regrets doing what we’re doing now. We’re the ones who are rolling out the welcome mat for Muslims from these hostile nations.”

While Sperry is quick to clarify that the U.S. contains none of the no-go zones for police that are found in some major European cities, he said political figures in the U.S. are naive to think that Muslims are not effecting major change in communities across the country, including some just a stone’s throw from the nation’s capital.

“That’s just nonsense on stilts,” he said. “These politicians need to get out and go out into some of the communities just in their backyard. Alexandria, Virginia, for example, Bailey’s Crossroad. They actually call that area Northern Virginia-stan.”

Two major Midwestern cities are also cause for major concern to Sperry.

“Then you have Dearbornistan, Michigan, and Minneapolis,” he said. “We’ve brought in so many Somalian refugees that they’ve turned Minneapolis into a terror hot spot. They are very belligerent, very aggressive about asserting their culture onto the West. The Minneapolis mayor is now wearing a hijab when she meets with Muslim leaders.”

Asserting the culture leads to a litany of other problems, Sperry said law enforcement has a tough time arresting Muslims in some areas for spousal abuse because it is allowed by the Quran if the wife is disobedient to her husband. He also said honor killings are on the rise, where fathers or brothers are permitted to murder Muslim girls for wearing Western clothing or dating a non-Muslim. Female genital mutilation is also a growing problem.

Sperry said it’s time to stop pretending America is not at war and take concrete measures to keep out people from suspect nations. He believes there’s an obvious place to start.

“They have a list of Muslim countries who are most hostile to the U.S. and the West,” Sperry said. “They rank them. We can start with those countries for a moratorium, putting some curbs on immigration from these countries.”

If the lack of solid background information were not enough, Sperry said the FBI is hopelessly overwhelmed in trying to vet immigrants already in the country, so opening the doors to hundreds of thousands more makes the nation even more vulnerable.

“Our FBI doesn’t even have the resources to get a handle on all of the ISIS/jihadist threat in the Muslim community,” he said. “Now we’re going to lay on top of that all of these new immigrants who are even potentially more radical on top of that threat matrix. I mean that’s just ridiculous.”

But is it fair to let no one in from those countries when surely a sizable percentage has no interest in attacking the U.S.? Sperry said there’s no other choice.

“We just don’t have the information,” he said. “The FBI admits they don’t have the information on the ground that they need, unless the FBI is going to go into these failed states, which isn’t going to happen. They do not have the police records, the police reports that they can make objective decisions on these folks coming in.

“It’s a pure sympathy play to let all these folks in on blind trust. We just cannot do that.”

We Are Our Own Obstacle in Fighting al Qaeda

Army Magazine, By Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, U.S. Army retired: (h/t Fortuna’s Corner)

The U.S. and others have been fighting al Qaeda and their ilk for going on 15 years. After countless drone strikes, special operations raids and two invasions, we have killed Osama bin Laden and scores of other key leaders. Our enemy may be disrupted periodically, but they are far from being dismantled or defeated. Why is that? Partly, it’s because they have proven to be more resilient and adaptive than we expected, but it is also partly because we are our own obstacle to taking effective counteraction. We still don’t understand the kind of war we’re in, haven’t structured a proper strategy to prevail and remain institutionally misaligned. Our self-imposed obstacles are three: intellectual, organizational and institutional.

Intellectually, our model for understanding war remains a conventional one: armies facing armies. We treat everything else as “not war” or “pseudo-war.” If we acknowledged we were at war, for example, we would identify a proper set of aims, ones that were neither expansive and unachievable, given the means available, nor so restrictive that achieving them accomplishes nothing worth the sacrifice. Then we would identify a set of military and nonmilitary strategies, policies and campaigns, all of which would contribute to attaining those aims. We would create the necessary set of organizations to make sure our decisions, and those of our allies and partners, could be translated into properly coordinated plans, executed in a coherent way and adapted quickly enough to address the uncertainties of war as it unfolds. We would see evidence of these behaviors if we were waging a war, but no objective assessment of the past decade and a half would conclude that this description fits our actual behavior. Rather, the more reasonable conclusion is that we are not really waging a war.

A decade and a half of fighting has been insufficient to move us from our default setting. Sometimes, the language our senior political and military leaders use is war language; at other times, it’s the language of law enforcement. We have yet to understand that, as Carl von Clausewitz says, “war is more than a true chameleon.” We have yet to follow his first principle: “The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish … the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.” It’s no wonder, therefore, that we have been more successful tactically than we have been strategically.

When will we finally conclude that the enemies we face are waging some form of a global insurgency, a revolutionary war that seeks to seize the territory from those they call apostate governments and replace those “apostates” with a caliphate? Perhaps it was difficult to see this clearly at the start, but after 15 years of watching our enemies attempt to overthrow the government in Iraq, weaken Pakistan’s government, retake Afghanistan, create an Islamic state out of parts of Syria and Iraq, expand their influence in Somalia and other African states, and seize Yemen and Libya, the patterns of their war should be clearer. While they do not form a monolith, there is a pattern.

If we can put our intellectual bias behind us, perhaps we will be able to see reality as it is and set ourselves and our allies on a better strategic path. As long as our enemies wage some form of an insurgency or revolutionary war and we respond with a mixture of either a counterterrorist leadership decapitation and law-enforcement approach or an invade-and-rebuild approach—the two strategies that have gotten us to where we are—the strategic advantage will stay with our enemies.

Organizationally, we seem locked in a model that limits understanding organizational behavior as hierarchical: the higher-ups directing the underlings through echelons of leaders—the chain of command. The enemies we are fighting also have chains of command and sometimes work that way. An operation is planned, prepared and supported by “central al Qaeda” or the “headquarters” of an affiliate or spinoff. Then the attack is executed using the tools, money, training and equipment provided by the higher-ups. There are other forms of organizational behavior at play, however.

Discipleship is another way to understand how individual members of a group act on behalf of that group. In this model, individual members or small groups are inspired to take action by the power of the group’s narrative and belief in the group’s ideology. They don’t have to be directed to do anything; they act on the strength of their belief. Their commitment to their beliefs encourages them to act—even drives them to act in some cases—because not to do something would be a manifestation of the weakness of their beliefs. This kind of behavior is hardly “lone wolf”; rather, it is inspired by the pack. Often, there are no hierarchical command-and-control dots to connect in these kinds of cases other than the dots that create and grow a belief strong enough to form a determined and dedicated disciple.

Over 60 years ago, Eric Hoffer, when analyzing mass movements in The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, said that “many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life.” He goes on to say that the chief preoccupation of the leaders of a mass revolutionary movement, therefore, is to “kindle and fan an extravagant hope” and “foster, perfect, and perpetuate a facility for united action and self-sacrifice”; that is, they seek to create disciples, true believers, who will act—even alone, if necessary—to advance the cause.

Disciples and true believers are connected by “dots,” just not in the same way that conventional hierarchies are connected. Disciples and true believers still need motivation, leadership or inspiration, and they still need money, supplies, equipment or training. Some of these dots are vague and are often not clear except in retrospect, after an attack of some sort. We’re seeing this phenomenon in the wake of the Paris attacks. All too often, even if partially detected beforehand, the connection is insufficient for probable cause, let alone arrest. Even when disciples or true believers are arrested, the available evidence may not be strong enough to hold them very long. No crime has been committed. Therein we return to the first obstacle: Are we waging a war or fighting crime?

The intellectual model we select has practical consequences. If we are waging war, then the threshold for action is actionable intelligence, but if we are fighting crime, the threshold is sufficient evidence, which may never emerge. The difference between actionable intelligence and sufficient evidence is real. This leads to the last self-imposed obstacle: institutional.

We have separate, stovepiped institutions to deal with crime and war. This separateness rests upon an important understanding of the balance between civil liberties and common good. Departments or ministers of defense and intelligence agencies deal with war; departments or ministers of interior or justice and police agencies attend to crime. We also have another level of institutions that we hold responsible for our common safety and security: sovereign states. Such separation normally serves a democracy well.

The global insurgents or revolutionaries that we are fighting, however, like so many before them, slip back and forth from using criminal action, low-level terrorism, insurgency and formal military action, depending upon which tactic is most useful to attain their political aim. They operate in the institutional space between war and crime, using this gap to their advantage. They weave criminal and military action into one coherent whole. Our law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies—and those of our allies—have done yeoman’s work trying to stitch this gap, balancing the protection of their nation’s citizens with individual civil rights, but the gap remains.

If we were fighting a war, the stitching would be less ad hoc both internally to our nation and externally among the set of nations that face a common threat. We would have formed a real coalition or alliance, one in which the members of the alliance have a voice in the creation and execution of a long-term strategy, not one in which members are treated as if they were a posse going after bad guys with a U.S. sheriff. In addition, we would have sought to establish the kind of robust conventions, authorities and coordinative bodies that would facilitate coherent transnational action among allies. We would have conducted a counternarrative campaign aimed to erode the attractiveness of the insurgents’ motivational ideology. Finally, we would have educated the American people beyond bumper-sticker slogans.

Over the past 15 years, all of us have seen the common threat grow—not just in size, but also in modus operandi. How many more Paris-style attacks are necessary to convince us that we are at war and our mutual enemies are more than just criminals, even if they are not conventional soldiers? While the insurgency we face is not an existential threat to the U.S. in one sense, who can argue that their actions have not already altered the way we live at home and especially abroad? Who doubts that if they create the world they envision, it would be counter to the security and economic interests of the U.S. and our allies?

We have gotten better at killing those whom we identify as an enemy and uncovering some plots before they are hatched, but we have not yet reached “good enough”—not for ourselves as individual nations or as a set of sovereign bodies. Until we heed Clausewitz’ advice to fully adapt to the form of war that has been thrust upon us, we will continue to be our own impediment to effectively countering our enemies, thus allowing them to expand their influence and grow even stronger.

* * * *

Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, USA Ret., is a former commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq and a senior fellow of AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare.

McCaul: ISIS Linked to 29 Terror Plots, Attacks Against West Since Obama’s ‘JV Team’ Comments

jihadi-car-parade-videoshotBreitbart, by EDWIN MORA, March 24, 2015:

WASHINGTON, DC — The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) has been linked to “29 terrorist plots or attacks” against the West nearly a year after President Obama called the jihadist group a “JV team,” revealed House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX).

As ISIS stormed Iraq in January 2014, President Obama dismissed the brutal jihadist organization as a junior varsity (“jayvee team”) terrorist group.

“A year after the president called ISIS the ‘JV team,’ the organization can draw on over 20,000 foreign fighters and has been linked to 29 terrorist plots or attacks targeting the West,” said Chairman McCaul in his opening remarks at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing today.  “And the day the president said the global war on terror was effectively over was the day al Baghdadi created ISIS.”

“ISIS now controls territory the size of Belgium, governs millions of people, draws on billions of dollars in revenue, and commands tens of thousands of foot soldiers,” he added. “Terrorist safe havens have spread across the Middle East and North Africa.”

The chairman went on to note that ISIS claimed responsibility for the deadly terrorist attack at a museum in Tunisia, which is located next to Libya where the jihadist group hasestablished a presence.

McCaul said, “The gunmen involved had received training in Libyan terror camps.”

Nearly 20 people were killed in the attack.

Furthermore, the Texas Republican pointed out that ISIS, a Sunni group, has also claimed to be behind the coordinated attack against two Shiite mosques in Yemen, which he said, “killed more than 150 people.”

“Yemen’s instability has led to the evacuation of our remaining forces and will further empower extremists,” he added. “This situation is alarming given that al Qaeda’s premier bomb-makers in [Yemen-based] AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] have been targeting the homeland and Western interests for years.”

“Over the past year, Islamist terrorists have struck Western cities, including Paris, Sydney, Ottawa, Copenhagen, and Brussels. We have witnessed the reach of extremists here at home as well,” noted McCaul. “An Ohio-based ISIS sympathizer was arrested in January for plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol. Last week, an ISIS-aligned hacking group posted the names, photos, and addresses of 100 American service members, calling their ‘brothers residing in America’ to attack these individuals.”

Today’s House panel hearing was titled, “A Global Battleground: The Fight Against Islamist Extremism at Home and Abroad.” [statement pdf’s available at hearing link]

Also see:

America Demands the Truth

11-hillary-clinton-press-conference.w529.h352.2xBy Justin O. Smith:

Orchestrating lawless secrecy, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, prevaricator extraordinaire, broke U.S. law and compromised national security by diverting State Department records to Bill Clinton’s private and unsecured email server and by also exposing classified secrets to enemies of the United States. She didn’t want anyone in the government or the public to see her records, which she knew would contain damning evidence that would derail any successful run for the U.S. Presidency.

Although the Federal Records Act of 1950 makes it clear that all records received and generated by any employee of the federal government belong to the government, Hillary Clinton and her aides decided not to preserve her emails on State Department servers, during her four years as Secretary of State. They also performed their own review of these emails, in order to determine which ones to return and which ones to destroy, turning the law on its head and illegally destroying 33,000 emails.

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” observed Jason Baron, a former National Archives director of litigation (2000 – 2013).

On March 3rd, Judge Andrew Napolitano asserted that Clinton committed a felony by using her personal email address, which essentially concealed the government documents she generated from the U.S. government. This is an offense punishable by three years in prison and permanent disqualification from holding office. And holding classified secrets in a non-secure facility outside the government’s control is punishable by a large fine and a year in jail.

Since the story broke (NYT) on March 2nd, Clinton has argued that she turned over all the proper documents, but she just did it two years after leaving office; however, the State Dept Records Management Handbook explains that officials who fail to turn over documents can face “fines, imprisonment or both for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code.”

DOJ attorney Shannen Coffin told viewers on the Kelly File, “State Department regulations also say that departing officials have to make sure that all their official records are in the files of the Dept of State upon departure. That couldn’t be any clearer.”

Will the Obama administration’s Dept of Justice prosecute Clinton for keeping four years of classified records on her non-secure server after she left office, just as Eric Holder prosecuted Gen. David Patraeus, who kept 15 months of classified records in his home in a desk after he left office?

Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker Boehner, noted that Hillary Clinton didn’t hand over 55,000 emails “out of the goodness of her heart” last year. Steel recently stated, “She was forced to by smart, determined and effective oversight … The American people deserve the truth.”

The existence of Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, as it investigated the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and sought correspondence between Clinton and her aides about the attack. Clinton’s correspondence could provide pivotal clues concerning the terrorist attacks and the following days, whether Clinton wants it to or not.

A review of approximately 300 emails in February made Rep. Trey Gowdy realize that the State Dept records were seriously incomplete. He explained to Chris Wallace (Fox News) that “huge gaps” existed in Clinton’s email records, and this was debilitating the House Select Committee’s efforts to get to the bottom of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi.

texts-from-hillary-640x480These huge gaps became apparent in light of the photograph of Clinton on a C-17, with blackberry in hand, and on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy. There are not any emails for several weeks on either side of that trip, including the trip itself, according to Rep. Gowdy.

Can anyone actually believe that such a trip wouldn’t have generated a single document?

Clinton_AbedinIt is also of the utmost importance to find any existing emails between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, her top aide and confidant, since it has long been known that Abedin’s family is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Huma’s mother, Dr Saleha Abedin, still edits the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which was founded by an associate of Osama bin Laden’s, Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the secretary of the Muslim World League, a front for financing terrorism. Huma worked for JMMA from 1996 to 2008.

How did Huma Abedin receive a security clearance to work at the State Dept, which allowed her access to top-secret documents?

The Abedins were deeply involved in plans to use the Muslim Minority Affairs to create a fiery cauldron of Islamic revolution, and it was while Huma Abedin was advising Hillary that the State Dept dropped its “terrorist” designator for the Muslim Brotherhood and its policy of refusing to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. One must wonder how many top-secret files Huma Abedin transferred to various Islamic nations, not necessarily our friends, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Clinton’s top two aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, used personal emails while working for Clinton at the State Dept. Were they all transmitting sensitive, classified State Dept information and information about Benghazi on their personal emails?

The foreign policy implications surrounding former Sec. of State Clinton’s emails are significant, especially once one reviews El-Mogaz News reports (Aug 2014) that Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian President Morsi, was “threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton,” through letters in her possession. One email sent to Clinton, by former Clinton White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal, quotes an intelligence source asserting that the attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi was funded by “wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.”

On March 20th, Chairman Trey Gowdy gave Hillary Clinton until April 3rd to respond to the following formal request in a letter to her lawyer, David Kendall, or face a subpoena: “I am asking Secretary Clinton to relinquish her server to a neutral, detached and independent third-party, such as the Inspector General for the State Department, for review and independent accounting of any records contained on the server … .”

America demands answers for the families of the four brave Americans who perished horribly in the attacks in Benghazi. They deserve the truth surrounding the decision to leave them to die, and the answers must be mercilessly retrieved from Clinton’s emails by Congress, the independent third-party and a Special Prosecutor. Other truths are certain to come to light concerning the Obama administration’s numerous Middle East policy failures. But the terrible images of our fallen Americans, unnecessary deaths, remain fresh, and Obama and Clinton must be held accountable for this one betrayal and act of treason, if nothing else: America demands the truth.

Benghazi panel head Gowdy asks Clinton to ‘relinquish’ personal server

hillary-clinton-blasts-republicans-over-iran-nuclear-letter-2015-3Fox News, March 20, 2015:

The chairman of the congressional committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks has formally asked that Hillary Clinton turn over her personal server — warning that the House could take steps to pressure her if she refuses.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sent a letter, released Friday, to Clinton’s attorney requesting that the former secretary of state “relinquish” the server to a “neutral, detached and independent third-party” for review.

The server has become a point of controversy after she admitted to exclusively using a private email account and a personal server while secretary — yet insisted her server would remain private, though some lawmakers want access to it to ensure she’s turned over all official emails during her tenure.

Gowdy’s letter suggested that Clinton could turn the server over to the State Department inspector general for review. He said it’s important for a third party to look over the contents to ensure any public documents are released.

“Her arrangement places her as the sole arbiter of what she considers private and what is beyond the view of the public,” Gowdy said in the letter addressed to her Washington attorney Friday.

One source told Fox News that Gowdy’s committee does not have the statutory authority to subpoena the server itself — only witnesses and documents. However, the full House does, should it escalate to that point.

At the end of his letter, Gowdy asked for a response by April 3. He pointedly warned that if Clinton won’t comply, he will tell House Speaker John Boehner so he can use the “full powers” of the House to take the “necessary steps.”

Gowdy has expressed concern that because Clinton was using a personal email to conduct business as America’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013, lawmakers cannot be confident that the official Benghazi investigation has received all pertinent communications involving Clinton and other government officials at the time.

Her office has turned over more than 30,000 “work-related” emails and, responding to the media uproar caused by the revelations this month, asked the State Department to make them public. Her office acknowledged that she established a private server, and that she deleted what she described as personal emails from the account.

She said that in hindsight, it would have been better to use the government account. But she assured that all the official emails were saved and turned over to the State Department for their official archives.

Gowdy voiced doubts in a written statement Friday, separate from the letter.

“An independent analysis of the private server Secretary Clinton used for the official conduct of U.S. government business is the best way to remove politics and personal consideration from the equation,” he said in the statement.

“Having a neutral, third-party arbiter such as the State Department IG do a forensic analysis and document review is an eminently fair and reasonable means to determine what should be made public. ”

Fox News’ James Rosen contributed to this report.

***

Search warrant needed to get a hold of Hillary Clinton’s server?

There are many reasons Hillary doesn’t want us to see her email. Read this eye popping account of her corrupt money raising schemes: (h/t Wayne Simmons)

Also see:

The Question of Obama’s Allegiances

lk1-450x261Frontpage, March 20, 2015 by David Meir-Levi:

Since before his first term, our President’s words and deeds regarding the Middle East, Jihad, and the Israel-Arab conflict have been confusing.

At first some thought him an incompetent amateur, especially regarding his heavy-handed “reset” of America’s relationship with the Muslim world and with Russia. But many of our presidents have made errors at the onset and then later matured into office.

Then he seemed to be merely a self-absorbed ego-centric narcissist, especially regarding his proclivity for golf vacations during crises.  But most of our presidents seem to have been able to separate their personal predilections from their role as leader of the free world.

Then some opined that he was blinded by political correctness, especially regarding his ex-cathedra pronouncements about not implying any connection between Islam and terrorism. But many seemed to think that his concern for the well-being of our Muslim-American citizens, and for the otherwise globally besmirched reputation of supposedly peace-loving Islam, was an appropriate and necessary position in order to uphold American values of tolerance and protection for minorities.

Then he appeared to be simply ignorant of the historical realities of Islam’s commitment to global jihad “…until there is no worship except for Allah,” or perhaps too easily swayed by the gaggle of advisors who surround him. But here one must stop and ask the obvious question: How ignorant about Islam could he be, having himself grown up as a Muslim in a majority-Muslim country?

And one must also note that it was he who selected those advisors.

Nearly a dozen of his appointees to important and even critical government posts are people with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition there is Huma Abedin, a very close confidant to Hillary Clinton, and her connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are well documented. And then there is Valerie Jarrett,“Obama’s Rasputin” (who is neither Iranian nor Muslim, but seems to hold unconscionable sway over the Obama White House and may be the real brains behind Obama’s current policy toward Iran). How deeply have they penetrated, what secrets do they know, how badly has our country’s security been compromised?

And he appointed them. No “guilt by association” here.

The confusion regarding our President’s lax and accommodating attitude and policy toward individuals, terrorist organizations and governments that are unequivocally aligned with our nation’s enemies, some of which have declared war on us, can be dispelled if we analyze his behavior over the last two years.

During the “Arab Spring” he promptly abandoned Hosni Mubarak, a long-time American ally. Then he supported Mohammed Morsi who became President of Egypt in 2012, even though Morsi represented the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas and other Arab anti-American and anti-Israel terror organizations, and which has as its eternal mission the subjugation of all non-Muslim nations and peoples to Islam, via jihad. He then did his best to undermine Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, who took over from Morsi in a wildly popular coup, even though el-Sisi quickly proved himself the enemy of the Brotherhood and of the Al-Qaeda and of the ISIS forces that had ensconced themselves in the Sinai Peninsula.

He retreated repeatedly from his “red lines” in Syria, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians and facilitating the extension of Iranian hegemony from Iraq to Syria and the Mediterranean Sea, thus bringing into Iran’s cross-hairs the countries of North Africa, Israel, Turkey, Eastern Europe and even the eastern flank of Western Europe.

As quickly as he abandoned Mubarak in Egypt, he abandoned the Yemeni government to a Houthi victory. The Houthi are supported by Iran, whose victory in Yemen means the extension of Iranian control to both sides of the Persian Gulf, the waterway through which half of the world’s oil flows.

In July, 2014, during Israel’s defensive operation against Hamas, Obama telephoned Netanyahu to announce that he wanted an unconditional “humanitarian” cease-fire that would lead to a permanent one. The terms of such a cease-fire would include opening Gaza’s borders with Egypt and Israel and ending Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza coast. Such terms would allow Hamas to quickly rebuild its arsenal, starting with $47 million dollars of US financial support, purchase more missiles from North Korea, and import more building materials to reconstruct its tunnels. In short, Obama sided openly, intentionally, willfully, and forcefully with Hamas, against Israel, and against America’s long-time Sunni Arab allies – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Such an agreement means that Hamas wins big-time; and Israel, America’s ally, loses.

This past February, our President openly supported Qatar despite Qatar’s long history of supporting Hamas with arms and money, hosting al-Jazeera, and recently supplying arms to ISIS terrorists in Libya. But John Kerry said that he was aware of Qatar’s history, so Obama must also be aware, and chooses to support Qatar anyway. That is a choice in favor of America’s enemies.

And our President has made a similar choice in his prolonged negotiations with Iran, even as the Ayatollahs crossed one after another of Obama’s “red lines” and announced repeatedly their intention to develop their nuclear capacities and their missile delivery system. Rather than preventing Iran’s quest for deployable nuclear arms, Obama has facilitated it.

And now he is further facilitating Iran’s ascension to regional hegemony and nuclear power by ignoring Iran’s backing of the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and the growing number of Iranian generals and military experts who are operating in the Golan Heights along the border with Israel. That is another choice in favors our allies’ enemy.

Finally, his recently proposed strategy to combat global Jihad’s threat to Western Civilization offers the last and perhaps most important insight into what Obama is really doing. A full-jihadist-employment program that will bring “Hope and Change” to the world’s worst psychopathic murderers, even as they extend their hegemony over Libya which they promise will be their launching pad for their invasion of the rest of Western Europe, is not his “..lamest attempt at some sort of strategy.” It is not his “entry into the twilight zone.” Rather it is an overt statement of his true ideology, an ideology of which he gave only an obscure hint in a speech last year in which he warned us all that America must be careful to always be “…on the right side of history…” when it comes to our dealings with the Muslim world; but in Muslim parlance the right side of history is Allah’s side.

His is an ideology that requires that he whitewash the most horrific manifestations of Islamofascism, explain them away, excuse, or deny their very existence in order to direct our attention away from the dire existential threat that they pose. But whitewashing evil is complicity with evil, and complicity with evil is evil. How can our Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the Western World, the single most powerful person on the planet, collude so openly with those who are working so furiously to obliterate us?

He cannot be so naïve or so ignorant that he does not know that ISIS is indeed an Islamic terrorist organization, that Islamic terrorism arises not from unemployment but from Islamic ideology, and that an Iran armed with nuclear warheads and a 2,500-kilometer missile delivery system poses a threat to the entire world: a threat that has already begun to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could end in “mutually assured destruction,” the threat of which reined in the world’s nuclear powers during the Cold War but seems irrelevant to the Armageddon mentality of the Ayatollahs. And if he is neither naïve nor ignorant about the dangers to our country and to the world that his policy toward Islamic fascism has helped to create, then why does he support those who pose that threat?

Caroline Glick came the closest to connecting the dots to their terrifying but undeniable conclusion when she opined that Obama may be acting out of anti-Semitism, or perhaps even out of sympathy for Islamic fascism. But “acting out of sympathy” does not quite connect us to that final dot. Sympathy alone is inadequate to explain his facilitating, enabling, obfuscating, whitewashing, and congenially interacting with Islamofascist extremists. There can be only one explanation for his otherwise unexplainable series of decisions and statements that have supported or even facilitated Islamic fascism’s expansion.

What other explanation can there be other than that he wants the Jihadists to win?

What other explanation can there be but that he actually wants Iran to achieve nuclear capacity, to surround Sunni Islam in the Fertile Crescent, to reign as a supreme regional hegemon, armed with atomic weapons, controlling the Straits of Hormuz, and equipped to fulfill the jihadist dream of obliterating Israel and annihilating another 6,000,000 Jews?

What other explanation can there be but that he does not merely sympathize with Islamic fascism, but that he is at one with the ideologically driven psychotic murderers who seek to destroy all of western civilization and replace it with the 7th century barbarism that they call “true Islam”?

What other explanation can there be but that our president is fighting on the side of our enemies, and that he is, therefore, committing treason?

New Security Concerns from Hillary Clinton’s Email and Cell Phone

texts-from-hillary-640x480CSP, by Fred Fleitz, March 19, 2015:

Ambassador John Bolton just issued this statement about the Hillary Clinton email scandal:

“Revelations about former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account have also raised another issue. Her use of an insecure cellphone could also compromise national security by its vulnerability to capture by unfriendly sources.”

“We know that many hostile intelligence services have the capability to turn cellphones — even if they are turned off — into microphones that can be used to eavesdrop on conversations and meetings. If Secretary Clinton did not use a State Department-provided cellphone for official business she would not have had the benefit of monitoring by State security experts to ensure that her cellphone was not being exploited for this purpose.  There is an urgent need to understand and evaluate this threat through an independent review and a forensic assessment of Clinton’s cellphone and server either by Congress, the State Department Inspector General, or the National Security Agency.”

Hillary Clinton decided to use a private email server and private cell phone for official business while she was Secretary of State to avoid having over to turn over records of these communications to judicial and congressional inquiries.  This decision was a blatant violation of State Department rules and probably the law.  Concerns also have been raised that Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed U.S. adversaries to hack her email.

Adding to this scandal was Clinton’s statements that she will not turn over her email server to the Benghazi Commission and her staff unilaterally deleted 30,000 emails that they deemed personal.

Clinton_AbedinA separate scandal is brewing concerning Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide while she was Secretary of State.  Andrew McCarthy and Frank Gaffney have written about Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  We now know Abedin had an email account on Clinton’s private server and simultaneously worked at State as Clinton’s aide and in positions with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm whose president is Doug Band, a former top aide to Bill Clinton.  Reports of million-dollar contributions from foreign countries to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State – including from Qatar, Oman and Kuwait – coupled with Abedin’s Clinton email account, her Muslim Brotherhood ties and her consulting work for the Clinton Foundation, could be the makings of an extraordinary conflict of interest scandal.

In addition to these concerns, John Bolton believes Clinton’s use of a private cell phone created a serious security vulnerability that may have allowed hostile powers to eavesdrop on her official conversations.

Hillary Clinton did not comply with State Department guidelines on official email and cell phones because she thought the rules didn’t apply to her.  It is becoming apparent that Clinton’s arrogance may also have endangered U.S. national security.

A Call to Action at the South Carolina National Security Summit

NSAC-BannerCJR: Here is the Summit hosted by Breitbart, Center for Security Policy and High Frontier in it’s entirety. I will post clips as they become available. Scott Cooper is to be commended for his role in organizing and promoting this very urgent CALL TO ACTION. And I will pass on to you what I thought was a very moving tribute to Frank Gaffney by Dymphna at Gates of Vienna. Frank Gaffney is indeed a national treasure and his efforts over the years to help educate the public and inform our leaders on National Security issues have no doubt contributed greatly towards “Securing Freedom

What you will hear from the various speakers, as well as the very informative comments from members in the audience, is a comprehensive assessment of our National Security vulnerabilities due to the Islamic Global Jihad Movement and our present administration’s willful blindness amounting to complicity in aiding our enemies.

Obama’s rush to withdraw from Iraq without a status of forces agreement has given us the rise of ISIS. With the empowerment of Iran through the appeasement of their nuclear program we are witnessing the beginning of a Middle East nuclear arms race and continued bloody sectarian battles between Shia and Sunni that will likely rage on for generations and create thousands of battle hardened jihadis ready to export their violence across the globe.

Clare Lopez reminds us that we have, through captured documents such as The Project, The Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding and the seven phase al-Qaeda master plan, proof that there is a decades old plan to infiltrate and subvert Western secular governments and replace them with Islamic Sharia theocracy. And as Clare ominously notes, they are amazingly on schedule in achieving their goals.

As John Guandolo explains, what is actually taking place is an Islamic insurgency. What is needed is for the counterjihad movement to mount a counter-insurgency. It is at the local level where we can make the most difference. Watch and learn about the extent of the problem and what we as citizens MUST DO in order to fight back. The hour is late and the enemy is inside the gate!

Here is the intro at Breitbart:

COLUMBIA, SC — On Saturday, Secure Freedom (formerly known as the Center for Security Policy), in partnership with Breitbart News and High Frontier, will host the South Carolina National Security Action Summit.

The conference will feature many of the most influential national security practitioners of our day addressing the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policy in an increasingly perilous world. Specifically, the event will cover four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of South Carolina:

* The Hollowing Out of The U.S. Military
* America’s Electrical Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure
* The Threat from Shariah and The Global Jihad Movement
* Border Insecurity and Illegal Immigration

The noteworthy participants in this summit include:

* Dr. George H. Baker
* Ambassador John R. Bolton
* LTG (Ret). William G. “Jerry” Boykin
* LTC (Ret.) David Bores
* Bill Connor
* Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper
* Scott Cooper
* U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
* Frank Gaffney
* John Guandolo
* Peter Huessy
* Van Hipp Jr.
* Rosemary Jenks
* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
* Rick Joyner
* Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
* Javier Manjarres
* Dr. Peter Vincent Pry
* Senator Rick Santorum
* Phyllis Schlafly
* Michael S. Smith II
* Danny Strickland
* Ann Corcoran

The South Carolina National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, alike – both at the federal level, AND the state level.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of Secure Freedom, formerly known as the Center for Security Policy said:

“Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place. They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world. The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that. At the state-level, these summits are an invaluable method of connecting a concerned citizenry to the forefront of policymaking at both the state and federal levels. This weekend’s program could not be more timely, more content-rich or more important.”

***

Sen. Ted Cruz at the South Carolina National Security Action Summit

Bobby Jindal addresses South Carolina National Security Action Summit

Amb. John Bolton speaks at South Carolina NSAS

Conservative stars offer crash-course in saving America

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

WND, by GARTH KANT, March 12, 2015:

WASHINGTON – Some of the top minds and leaders in the nation are asking for the help of ordinary citizens to protect America.

Conservative stars such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., want to spread word among the grassroots about the greatest dangers America faces and what people can do to effect solutions on a local level.

The South Carolina National Security Action Summit is open to the public and will be held Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Brookland Baptist Banquet and Conference Center at 1066 Sunset Blvd., West Columbia, South Carolina.

Those who can’t attend in person may watch a livestream broadcast of the event on the website of High Frontier, which is co-sponsoring the event with the Center for Security Policy and Breitbart.

The four topics to be discussed will be:

  • The threat from Shariah and the global jihad movement
  • America’s electrical power grid and threats to critical infrastructure
  • Border insecurity and illegal immigration
  • The hollowing out of America’s military

The impressive list of speakers will include:

  • Sen. Ted Cruz, Republican senator from Texas
  • Gov. Bobby Jindal, Republican governor of Louisiana
  • Ambassador John Bolton, U.S. representative to the United Nations from 2005-to-2006
  • Sen. Rick Santorum, former Republican senator from Pennsylvania and presidential candidate
  • Phyllis Schlafly, best-selling author, attorney and conservative icon who has testified before more than 50 congressional and state legislative committees on constitutional, national defense and family issues
  • Ambassador Henry (Hank) Cooper, chairman of High Frontier, former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative under President George H. W. Bush, President Ronald Reagan’s chief negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union
  • Retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, former deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, former commander of the Army’s Green Berets and Special Warfare Center and School
  • Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
  • Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy and deputy assistant secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, both under President Reagan
  • Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, Middle East expert, former CIA operations officer
  • Ann Corcoran, editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch blog

Scott Cooper, executive director of High Frontier, told WND this will be a “solutions-based event, but we need the help” of ordinary Americans.

“Just like in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was ridiculed for his ambition to defeat the evil empire, the reality is, the ideology of radical Islam and those who want to kill us in this generation isn’t much different than the ideology that threatened out parents’ generation.”

“We stood up and defeated them then, and we can do it again,” Cooper emphasized.

President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

He explained that High Frontier was originally started in 1981 by Daniel Graham, who is considered the father of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, sometimes referred to as Star Wars.

Graham was a scientific and military adviser to Ronald Reagan in the 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns.

Cooper said the foundation of High Frontier concepts was the abandonment of the suicidal and immoral strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, for the concept of Assured Survival through the creation of effective defenses against ballistic missiles carrying nuclear payloads.

“Reagan was able to take the advice of this group of scientists and sell it to the American people, and High Frontier was instrumental in that as a grassroots organization at that time,” said Cooper.

Many Cold War analysts believe SDI helped bankrupt the Soviet Union by baiting it into a futile arms race and convincing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that the communist way was doomed.

Those analysts also credit Reagan for abandoning the Kissinger-Nixon policy of détente, or coexistence, with the Soviet Union, in favor of actively working to create the demise of the communist state.

Reagan famously quipped, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.”

Cooper sees the need for the current American president to adopt the same approach toward global jihad.

But he also sees the need for support at the grassroots level that Reagan enjoyed.

“We want to help inform and educate people at the state level with solutions that the state can implement on these four issues even though the federal government isn’t leading.”

The summit will focus on four issues, what Cooper called “the insecurity of America’s borders; the insecurity of the nation’s electric grid; the decline and hollowing-out of the military; and how Islamic law is in direct opposition to constitutional law, and the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“We believe states can do things to protect themselves, but we also need to educate grassroots activists. If activists and ordinary citizens stand up and lead, it will encourage our elected leadership to address these issues.

“We hope to impact the dialogue in all elections in 2016, not just the presidential election. All elected officials should be concerned because these are not left or right issues; they are American issues.”

What can be done on the state level about the threat from Shariah and global jihad?

Cooper said people should tell their elected representatives to support a piece of legislation called American Laws for American Courts.

“It doesn’t mention the word Shariah,” he said. “It just mentions the fact that, in a constitutional republic, the rule of law applies equally to all people. Any type of foreign law or international law, or U.N.-backed law, really isn’t what our founders intended, and we need to protect our rule of law in the U.S.”

How did High Frontier attract such a stellar lineup of big names to attend the summit?

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn.

“The folks who are coming are concerned about these issues,” he said. “For instance, Rick Santorum was speaking about these issues directly to the George W. Bush administration when it wanted to call it a war on terror. He said to President Bush, you know, terrorism is a tactic. It’s not an ideology, which is what we are fighting.

“Again, it’s not a right or left issue; it’s an American issue, and both sides are struggling with defining our enemies. The speakers are individuals who understand the problems, and they want to be involved in the solutions.”

Would you say a threat to the grid is the greatest threat America likely faces? The most probable way jihadists might cripple the nation?

“It’s an excellent question,” Cooper said. “I think our system is being overwhelmed, and they’re hitting us on multiple avenues. It’s almost like we don’t know which direction to look at any given moment. But it is a key area and, if it happens, it effectively could kill 90 percent of our country within the first year of it happening, unless we start taking steps and talk about building resiliency, such as supporting local agriculture.

“I do think there are resiliency solutions that can be built at the local level in the event the federal government does not solve it in time.”

When asked if he meant fortifying the grid against attacks or solar flares, Cooper instead spoke about agriculture as a national security issue.

“I’m actually talking about supporting local food chains,” he said. “One of the problems in our country is just-in-time delivery systems for food. If there’s an ice storm in my county in South Carolina, Walmart will be out of goods within 24 hours. If there’s a major snowstorm in the D.C. area, the same thing happens to all the big box retailers there.

“We are getting our food supply from big, industrial agriculture – not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, we’ve done great things with that – but if we can start thinking locally and support local agriculture, that helps stimulate local economies, which builds up resiliency at the local level. So, if there is a problem, there is a food supply.”

Does Obama have America on the brink of mortal danger?

“I just take him at his word. When he said, five days before he was elected in 2008, that we were five days away from fundamentally transforming America, I took him at his word. Looking at his background, who raised him, who his mentors were, I do believe he wants to fundamentally transform America,” Cooper said.

“Yes we have situations we need to repair and make better. But, the question I would ask is, if you love something, why do you want to fundamentally transform it?”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Ignoring the 9/11 Commission’s Warnings

the_9-11_commission_reportBy Michael Cutler:

The threats posed by terrorist organizations to the safety and security of America and Americans continue to grow.

Congress just voted to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security even as it is gearing up to provide millions of illegal aliens with temporary lawful status and official identity documents without in-person interviews — violating commonsense, making a mockery of our legal immigration system and violating the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We will revisit this issue later in this article.

The Nigeria-based terror organization Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to ISIS as both terrorist groups continue to expand through the Middle East and north Africa. This apparent development was reported in the Fox News report, “Boko Haram swears formal allegiance to ISIS” that was published on March 8, 2015.

Meanwhile terrorists continue to increase their efforts to recruit new members in European countries. On February 13, 2015 Fox News in association with AP published a report, “6 men of Chechen origin face terror charges in France; said to help recruit jihadis for Syria” that reported on how individuals from terror-sponsoring countries and regions are using the lawful immigration system to enter European countries for nefarious purposes — to recruit terrorists and perhaps, carry out attacks in the countries willing to admit them.

For the United States the issue of Europeans being recruited by terror organizations raises the issue of the way that visas are issued and how, increasingly, aliens from an ever growing list of countries are no longer required to apply for a visa before seeking to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.

It is worth noting that the U.S. Visa Waiver Program puts a premium on terror recruits in Europe and a handful of other countries that participate in this program. Eliminating the visa requirement for the citizens of these countries make them particularly appealing to ISIS and other terrorist organizations that ultimately want to attack the United States.

On May 18, 2004, I testified before a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic: “PUSHING THE BORDER OUT ON ALIEN SMUGGLING: NEW TOOLS AND INTELLIGENCE INITIATIVES.”

There is a bit of a “back story” concerning that hearing. Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas was preparing to conduct a hearing into alien smuggling and I was asked to possibly participate in that hearing as a witness. I made the case for including visa fraud as an issue to be considered during that hearing. What most folks, including our politicians seem to not realize is that those who facilitate the entry of aliens into the United States in violation of our immigration laws do not only help such aliens to enter the United States without inspection but may also engage in enabling aliens who intend to work illegally or, perhaps, have far more nefarious goals in mind for coming to the United States to secure visas to enter the United States via the legal system.

Ultimately Ms. Jackson Lee agreed with my proposal that the hearing include visa fraud and I was happy to testify at that hearing.

On May 11, 2006 I testified at a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on International Relations on the topic, “VISA OVERSTAYS:CAN WE BAR THE TERRORIST DOOR?”

This hearing examined a number of issues ranging from the routine enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States including locating and arresting aliens who overstayed their temporary (non-immigrant) visas or otherwise violating their terms of admission into the United States and the impact that the Visa Waiver Program has on these issues.

A properly administered visa process can offer a significant layer of security- in essence, pushing America’s borders out to the U.S. embassies and consulates where visas are issued. However, when aliens are able to apply for admission into the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program, we no only lose that important layer of security but also miss other benefits that such an effective visa program can provide.

I have compiled a list of the six ways in which the visa process can be helpful to law enforcement and bolster our nation’s efforts to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence on our country may prove harmful to our nation and our citizens. Under the Visa Waiver Program, not one of these important benefits applies:

1. By requiring visas of aliens who seek to enter the United States, this process helps to screen potential passengers on airliners that are destined to the United States.

2. The CBP inspectors are supposed to make a decision in one minute or less as to the admissibility of an alien seeking to enter the United States. The visa requirement helps them to do a more effective job. There’s is a tough job I can certainly relate to, I began my career at the former INS as an immigration inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and worked there for four years before I became a special agent.

3. The application for a nonimmigrant visa contains roughly 40 questions that could provide invaluable information to law enforcement officials should that alien become the target of a criminal or terrorist investigation. The information could provide intelligence as well as investigative leads. You can check out the application for a nonimmigrant (tourist) visa by clicking on this link:

4. If an alien applicant lies on the application for a visa that lie is called “visa fraud.” The maximum penalty for visa fraud starts out at 10 years in jail for those who commit this crime simply in order to come to the United States, ostensibly to seek unlawful employment or other such purpose. The penalty increases to 15 years in jail for those aliens who obtain a visa to commit a felony. For aliens who engage in visa fraud to traffic in narcotics or commit another narcotics-related crime, the maximum jail sentence that can be imposes rises to 20 years. Finally, when an alien can be proven to have engaged in visa fraud in furtherance of terrorism, the maximum penalty climbs to 25 years in prison. It is important to note that while it may be difficult to prove that an individual is a terrorist, it is usually relatively simple to prove that the alien has committed visa fraud when there is fraud involved in the visa application. Indeed, terror suspects are often charged with visa fraud.

5. The charge of visa fraud can also be extremely helpful to law enforcement authorities who want to take a “bad guy” off the street without tipping their hand to the other members of a criminal conspiracy or terrorism conspiracy that the individual arrested was being arrested for his involvement in terrorism or a criminal organization. An alien who commits visa fraud can be arrested and prosecuted for that violation of law and not for other charges that might make it clear that the investigation underway is targeting a criminal or terrorist organization.

6. Even when an alien applies for a visa and his application is denied, the application he filed remains available for law enforcement and intelligence personnel to review to seek to glean intelligence from that application.

Our government is apparently responding to the extreme pressure being brought to bear by the United States Chamber of Commerce and executives of the travel, hospitality and related industries under the auspices of a program known as the “Discover America Partnership.” That consortium has been joined by the National Retailers Federation.

On February 1, 2015 Progressives For Immigration Reform (PFIR) published my article, “Senator Addresses Immigration-Related Threat to National Security Not Related to US-Mexican Border” in which I discussed Senator Dianne Feinstein’s statements about the Visa Waiver Program.

In writing my article I quoted from a January 11, 2015 article that appeared in The Hill, a Washington-based website under the title, “Visa Waiver Program Poses Security Threat, Dem Senator Says.” Among the statements attributed to Ms Feinstein in that article was, “The visa waiver program is the Achilles heel of America.” She went on to state that “the U.S. visa waiver program poses a threat to national security by making it easier for terrorists to enter the United States.” Finally she noted, “[Terrorists] could come back from training, they go to a visa waiver country and they could come into this country.”

However, rather than calling for the termination or at least curtailment of this dangerous and wrong-headed program, she simply “urged Congress to examine the program.”

We are in the midst of a “War on Terror.” Time is not on our side and our “leaders” are moving glacially even as our adversaries who would seek to destroy our nation and our way of life are moving rapidly to seize ever more territory.

We have an administration that refuses to consider violations of our borders and immigration laws to be serious crimes and utterly ignores the threats that a lack of border security and lack of integrity to the immigration benefits program creates for national security. This failure to “connect these dots” is infuriating, yet, as I noted at the beginning of my commentary, Congress still agreed to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security even as the administration ramps up a new massive amnesty program that will provide five million or more illegal aliens with lawful status and identity documents without so much as a face-to-face interview or field investigations to seek to uncover and thus deter immigration fraud.

Read more at Frontpage