Report: 81 Muslim-Americans Associated with Terror in 2015, Highest Total Since 9/11


Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 2, 2016:

Muslim-American terror in 2015 reached its highest point since the September 11, 2001 attacks against America, the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security (TCTHS) said in a report released Tuesday, documenting that 81 Muslim-Americans were associated with terror plots in the past year.

The report also documented that 41 additional Muslim-Americans over the past three years have traveled to Syria in order to join Islamic militants.

Since 9/11, 344 Muslim Americans have been involved in “violent extremism,” the terror research document said. “Half of these individuals plotted against targets overseas; 10 percent involved unknown targets; and 40 percent plotted against targets in the United States,” the report adds.

The Triangle Center’s research said of Americans who joined the jihad abroad:

According to court records, media reports, and social media postings, 41 Muslim-Americans have joined the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” in Syria, Iraq, or Libya, or the Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra), al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria, since the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011.

Twenty of these Americans have died, while 16 (11 men and five women) appear to be living in territory controlled by these groups. Five were arrested after their return to the United States; of these, one (Abdirahman S. Mohamud) was accused of planning an attack in the United States.

Duke University professor David Schanzer, who directs the terrorism research institute, said the U.S. government “estimates that 250 Americans have traveled to fight in Syria.”

Another one of the professors involved in the study, however, appeared to dismiss the troubling results of his own study, instead highlighting mass shootings as a more serious problem.

“Fortunately, the appeal of revolutionary violence remains very limited among Muslim-Americans,” said Charles Kurzman, a UNC professor and author of the report. “Muslim-American extremists have caused 69 deaths over 14 years, while 134 people were killed in mass shootings in the United States in 2015 alone.”

The Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security is a collaborative research center run by experts and scholars from Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and RTI International.

Read the full report here

Listen to great interview of Ryan Mauro on Voices of Global Freedom Radio

audio ryan mauro

Voices of Global Freedom, Jan. 29, 2016:

Today Roy Backpack Baron and Yoda have another interview with Professor Ryan Mauro is the National Security Analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the threat of Islamic extremism and provides a platform for voices of moderation and tolerance within the Muslim community. Clarion Project films have been seen by over 50 million people. Learn more at

Don’t miss this high energy, entertaining, informative show covering current threats to our liberty and how to survive and thrive in these dangerous troubled times.

‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010 Photo: Getty Images

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010
Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Jan. 31, 2016:

The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal e-mails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.

“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.

The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a e-mail address like previous secretaries.

“That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private e-mail server until later,” Krongard said in an exclusive interview. “How else was she supposed to do business without e-mail?”

He also points to the unusual absence of a permanent inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. He said the 5¹/₂-year vacancy was unprecedented.

“This is a major gap. In fact, it’s without precedent,” he said. “It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG.”

Inspectors general serve an essential and unique role in the federal government by independently investigating agency waste, fraud and abuse. Their oversight also covers violations of communications security procedures.

“It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,” Krongard said. An e-mail audit would have easily uncovered the secret information flowing from classified government networks to the private unprotected system she set up in her New York home.

He says “the key” to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal e-mails.

“The starting point of the investigation is the material going through SIPRNet. She couldn’t function without the information coming over SIPRNet,” Krongard said. “How did she get it on her home server? It can’t just jump from one system to the other. Someone had to move it, copy it. The question is who did that?”

As The Post first reported, the FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s deputies copied top-secret information from the department’s classified network to its unclassified network where it was sent to Hillary’s unsecured, unencrypted e-mail account.

FBI agents are focusing on three of Clinton’s top department aides. Most of the 1,340 Clinton e-mails deemed classified by intelligence agency reviewers were sent to her by her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, or her deputy chiefs, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who now hold high positions in Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“They are facing significant scrutiny now,” Krongard said, and are under “enormous pressure to cooperate” with investigators.

He says staffers who had access to secret material more than likely summarized it for Clinton in the e-mails they sent to her; but he doesn’t rule out the use of thumb drives to transfer classified information from one system to the other, which would be a serious security breach. Some of the classified computers at Foggy Bottom have ports for memory sticks.

Either way, there would be an audit trail for investigators to follow. The SIPRNet system maintains the identity of all users and their log-on and log-off times, among other activities.

“This totally eliminates the false premise that she got nothing marked classified,” Krongard said. “She’s hiding behind this defense. But they [e-mails] had to be classified, because otherwise [the information in them] wouldn’t be on the SIPRNet.”

Added Krongard: “She’s trying to distance herself from the conversion from SIPRNet to [the nonsecure] NIPRNet and to her server, but she’s throwing her staffers under the bus.”

Still, “It will never get to an indictment,” Krongard said.

For one, he says, any criminal referral to the Justice Department from the FBI “will have to go through four loyal Democrat women” — Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Even if they accept the referral, he says, the case quickly and quietly will be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors punishable by fines in a deal similar to the one Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, secured for Gen. David Petraeus. In other words, a big slap on the wrist.

“He knows the drill,” Krongard said of Kendall.

Paul Sperry, a visiting media fellow at the Hoover Institution, is author of “Infiltration.”

FBI going ‘right to the source’ in Clinton email probe, interviewing intel agencies

hillary clintontop397_20160126_154413Fox News, by Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne, January 26, 2016:

The FBI is going straight to the source in its investigation of classified emails that crossed Hillary Clinton’s personal server, speaking with the intelligence agencies – and in some cases, the individuals – that generated the information, two intelligence sources familiar with the probe told Fox News.

Investigators are meeting with the agencies and individuals to determine the classification level in the emails. The step speaks to the diligence with which the bureau is handling the investigation, despite the former secretary of state’s claims that the matter boils down to a mere interagency dispute.

“This is not merely a difference of opinion between the State Department and the Department of Justice,” one intelligence source, who is not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News, referring to comments on the Sunday talk shows and by the Clinton campaign downplaying the FBI’s investigation. “The bureau will go directly to depose specific individuals in agencies who generated the highly classified materials.”

The source added, “At the end of the day it will be a paper case. Emails never disappear because computers never forget.”

A former senior FBI intelligence officer, while not directly involved in the Clinton email investigation, previously told Fox News it was standard practice for the bureau to go directly to the originating source because it is cleaner and maintains the integrity of the investigation.

“You want to go right to the source,” Timothy Gill Sr., a former senior FBI intelligence officer, said. “Investigative protocol would demand that.”

Fox News first reported that intelligence beyond “Top Secret” known as “SAP,” or “Special Access Programs,” was identified in the Clinton emails on her unsecured private server. Access to SAP is restricted to only those with a “need to know” because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal a human asset or method of collection. The findings were shared with the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees in a Jan. 14 letter from the intelligence community inspector general.

Fox News also confirmed that at least one email contained intelligence from human spying, known as “HCS-0,” which is code for highly sensitive human intelligence operations.

The FBI investigation is centered around Clinton and members of her staff to determine if they deliberatively trafficked and shared information from highly classified sources onto an unsecure private email system.

“The bureau does not waive its primacy in espionage cases,” the intelligence source said, referring to USC 18 793 and 794. “The security investigation is now part and parcel with the criminal [public corruption] investigation.” The source said both tracks are being pursued “vigorously” and there is a sense of “incredulity as to what is being discovered.”

Violations of US 18 Section 793 fall under “gross mishandling” of national defense information. Potential violations under Section 794, “gathering or delivering defense information to aid” a foreign government, are more serious and challenging to prove.

Howard Krongard, former inspector general of the State Department, told Fox News, “I continue to believe the question of how [and from whom] material actually got from the classified network to Hillary Clinton’s server is the key to the puzzle.”

It is not possible to “cut and paste” from a classified network to an unclassified system, like Clinton’s personal email account, to perform what is known in intelligence circles as “jumping the gap.”

Paul Sperry, a media fellow at the Hoover Institution, reported Saturday in theNew York Post that Clinton and her top aides “had access to a Pentagon-run classified network that goes up to the Secret level as well as a separate system used for Top Secret communications.”

Former intelligence and law enforcement officers say one of the most likely scenarios is that an individual who had access to classified information summarized it in their own words or provided details during exchanges via email, which is a criminal violation and goes against non-disclosure agreements.

“The spillage could occur by somebody basically ignoring those guidelines. It would have to be that way. There’s no possible way she could transfer media off of an SCI high system … onto an unclassified server,” said Dan Maguire, a special operations veteran who spent 46 years handling highly classified information and being deeply engaged on special access programs.

“I think it reflects, probably two things — perhaps an ignorance on the part of the individuals involved who’ve been doing this who are trying to please their boss and don’t recognize the sensitivity and how that impacts on national security, and then an element of arrogance to even think or consider that you would pass information on an unclassified file server,” Maguire said.

A review of the Clinton emails has found at least 1,340 containing classified information. A State Department challenge to two emails classified at the “Top Secret” level failed, as Fox News first reported in December. The agency that gets the information in effect owns the information, and has final say over its classification.

In its most recent statement on classified information found on Clinton’s server, the Clinton campaign described the issue as an “interagency dispute.”

Spokesman Brian Fallon said, “It does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received. It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The Justice Department’s inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference.”

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.


What Would a Muslim American President Do?

upsidedownflagFaith Freedom, By Eric Allen Bell, Dec. 29, 2015:

Islam is now and has always been at war, with the civilized world. And the first casualty of war is the truth. Islam commands is followers to engage in Taqiyya, using deception to spread Islam. And here in the Western World, the Islamic agenda is spreading like wildfire, gaining influence and getting things done, by means of deception. And their first line of defense are the Liberal Lemmings who, by means of ignorance or well-meaning but uninformed sympathy, are lockstep with spreading the Islamic lies – and in doing so, spreading Islam – at the expense of our way of life.
Let us never lose sight of the fact that the goal of Islam is to FORCE the entire world to submit to Islamic Law.  Immigrate. Infiltrate. Caliphate. Some of us see where this is going. Others still do not.

I submit for your review the following. Below is a list of actions an American President would take, if he were the most influential advocate the Islamic world had ever seen:

  • Arm the Islamic Republic of Iran with a Nuclear Bomb
  • Give $150 billion to the largest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism
  • Release Islamic terrorists from GITMO in large numbers while we are at war with them
  • Usher in countless Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists though a refugee program
  • Instruct NASA to find ways to help Islamic Countries gain advantage in space
  • Make a speech to the Islamic world and invite the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, to sit in the front row
  • Whenever there is an Islamic terrorist attack in America, change the subject
  • Instruct American law enforcement not to use the word “Islamic” when referring to Jihadists
  • Instruct the FBI not to conduct surveillance on mosques in America
  • Bring Muslim Brotherhood members into his inner circle and appoint them to the Department of Homeland Security
  • Invite members of the HAMAS-linked group CAIR to the White House
  • Demand that Egypt keep it’s Muslim Brotherhood government
  • Use the military and his authority to help remove secular leaders in Islamic countries where Islamic Law (Sharia) will replace them
  • Deceive the American people by grossly exaggerating the number of bombs dropped on the Islamic State
  • Deceive the American people about the Islamic State not being a threat but a “JV Team”
  • Try to convince the American people that the Islamic State is contained while they prepare massive terrorist attacks on the Civilized World
  • Spend millions of American tax dollars to produce a TV ad, apologizing to the Islamic world for a YouTube video, which offended Muslims by satirizing the “prophet’ Muhammad
  • Hunt down the producer of the YouTube video that offended Muslims and announce to the Islamic world that the culprit has been put in prison
  • Tell the United Nations that, “The future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam”
  • Attempt to disarm the American people while incidents of Islamic terrorism are rapidly on the rise and expected to dramatically increase very soon
  • Attempt to scale down the authority and weapons police have while Islamic terrorism is just getting started with carrying out acts of Islamic jihad on American cities
  • After gruesome Islamic attacks in America, make speeches focused on the need to avoid criticizing the followers of Islam
  • Appoint an Attorney General to announce that the government’s main focus right now is to stop the criticism of Islam
  • Trade five of our top captured Jihadists for one American trader, returning those Jihadists to the battlefield, with the street cred of being in GITMO as they rise in the ranks of Jihadist armies
  • Quietly let in over 100,000 Islamic infiltrators into America, over the past 3 years, while announcing he is actually only about to let them in and it will only be 10,000, fully vetted
  • Lie to the American people about the government’s ability to do background checks on Islamists who are entering the country and create a Twitter campaign to drum up support for letting them in on the taxpayers dime
  • Fire or force retire all high level military personnel who document that the threat of Islamic terrorism is on the rise
  • Remove from all Federal Law enforcement training manuals any material designed to help them understand how Islam commands it’s followers to commit Jihad
  • Cut US Military spending while the Islamic State has declared war on the United States
  • Allow Leftist media stations access to classified sites to publicize how badly outdated American Nuclear arms and readiness are, in detail
  • Publicize that the United States military is running out of bombs to fight the Islamic State
  • Continually announce to the world that the United States has no strategy to defend itself from the Islamic State
  • Re-classify domestic acts of Islamic terrorism as “work place violence”
  • Arm Islamists who are building a Caliphate and pretend to think they were “moderates” while our weapons fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and ISIS
  • Cozy up to the leader of Turkey, who seeks to be the Calif in the Caliphate and is financing its growth by purchasing oil from the Islamic State
  • Deny having read what is in his daily intelligence briefing, about the growth of Islamic terrorist cells in America and change the subject to the need to stop Islamophobia and restrain our Second Amendment right to arm ourselves effectively
  • When meeting the Islamic King, in the land where the Mecca is located, bow down before him
  • And so much more…

NOW – What Would a Marxist American President Do? THE EXACT SAME THING !!!

So my question to you is this: Does it matter if Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim or if Barry, who announced his plan to be President, at the home of a sixties American terrorist, is a blatant Marxist? The net effect is the same. Whether Liberal Lemming, Islamic Apologist or a secret Islamist, the net effect is still the same.

Never judge a man by his words. Always judge a man by his actions. It is time to hang the American flag upside down, because our country is in distress.

Is Barack Hussein Obama Pro-American? The very question itself reads like a painful joke. But sadly, for so many millions of Liberal leaning American citizens, they just don’t get the punchline, no matter how many times you try to explain it to them. It’s like hitting your head up against the same wall, over and over again. It is time to tear down that wall.

If a person dies, it does not matter if it was a heart attack, a stroke, or if they got hit by a train. They’re dead. They’re gone. And if America dies, all that matters is that we are no more. We cannot let this happen to us. We cannot let this disease metastasize. We cannot sit passively by, while the sunlight of our free speech is slowly eclipsed by a crescent moon and star.

Our parents and grandparents and ancestors sacrificed so much, had so much courage, believed so strongly in a free America, in an America worth fighting for, that they fought. It has been said that our freedom is paid for in installments, by each generation. The payment is due. Our freedom is under attack. The Islamic world is and has always been at war with the civilized world. And now we have the fox guarding the hen house. The time for action is now.

We are stewards of our inherited freedom and our freedom is under attack. We simply cannot let this happen. This cannot and must not be our downfall. When a Saudi Prince has committed tens of billions of dollars to spread Islam in the United States, when the Islamic State has declared war on the United States, when the Islamic Republic of Iran is building a nuclear bomb while chanting, “Death to America” we need to wake up. We cannot afford to hit the snooze button even one more time.

Of course, if you’re already awake this is obvious to you. But it is not enough for us to simply understand that Islam presents an existential threat to our very way of life. We must take action. Knowledge without action is useless in these dark days of mass Islamic deception. We are not being called upon to fight upon the shores during D-Day, or ship out to the Pacific while Kamikaze fighters crash land on our boats and kill us all – at least not yet. If we tapped into a fraction of the courage our forefathers had, imagine what we could do. Imagine what we must do.

So what can we do? What must we do? The fact of the matter is that the Information Age can be the Death of Islam, if want it to be – if we are determined. But this will only work if we are willing to stick our necks out, to risk relationships, to risk being called bigots and racists and Islamophobes and actually spread the information that we have. In the Information Age, Information is our greatest weapon.

The Islamic agenda in the West is to gain influence by means of deception. And those of us who care about human rights and liberty and freedom must shine the light of truth into the darkest corners, where evil hides. And if we don’t, then goodness will be hiding in the dark corners, terrified of evil. It’s happened before and we must not allow this to happen ever again. We have it in our power to prevail, if we can only find the will to do so.

If enough of us spread information, telling the truth about the brutality of Islam, we will reach critical mass. So I ask you, I implore you, I BEG YOU – PLEASE get onto Facebook, Twitter, all of social media and spread the truth about Islam. Our knowledge and our anger is simply just not enough. The time for action is now – right now.

There is excellent information, powerful information to be found on and and and and so many more digital fountains of truth. Get on the mailing list of Act for America. When I’m not suspended at Facebook, I post this type of information regularly at: and on account.

Harness the truth and post it boldly, recklessly and with a vengeance. Be willing to sacrifice a little bit of your social standing at work, or among the parents of your kids friends, or among your own friends and become a digital warrior, determined to defeat Islam. You can save your ass or you can save face, but you cannot save both. You’re going to have to choose. And our choices determine our destiny.

Can we not honor those who gave their lives to protect our free speech by learning how to copy and paste?

Remember, the enemy of Islam is information. Share this information. Carpet bomb the internet with the truth about Islam because this information must grow, faster than Islam can spread its’s lies. Spread the dangerous truth about the Islamic agenda. The courage exists inside of you already. And if we tap into that courage, nothing can stop us. It never has and that is why we are still free.

The enemy of Islamic infiltration is information. Spread it far. Spread it wide. Spread it like Napalm.

The Information Age will be the death of Islam.

eric-allen-bell-21Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser, presently living in New York, NY. While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing Daily Kos and, after created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.

Naming the Muslim Brotherhood a National Security Threat

mb (1)

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 28,2015:

The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what a virus is to disease. Major terrorist leaders from the Caliph of ISIS to Arafat have the Muslim Brotherhood on their resume. And the current leader of Al Qaeda led a Muslim Brotherhood splinter terror group. But its linkages to Islamic terrorism are only a secondary aspect of the organization whose focus is on Islamizing nations through more subtle means.

Paradoxically the Brotherhood has met with far less success in the Muslim world than in the West. Its greatest victories in the Arab Spring would not have happened without Obama’s backing and its takeovers of Egypt and Tunisia were rolled back by popular uprisings while its efforts in Libya, Syria and Yemen were stymied by armed conflict with other Muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood is unpopular in Egypt these days. It’s also unpopular with Americans.

In one poll, 61 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 11 percent had a positive view of the Islamic supremacist organization. Only 5 percent of Americans saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt as a positive development.

Unfortunately Obama is at odds with the views of most Americans. The Muslim Brotherhood may have lost power in Cairo, but it still wields a great deal of power in Washington D.C. Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA have open access to the media and dominate all discussions about Islam. The MSA dominates American campuses despite its history of terror ties.

As David Horowitz has warned, “The principal institutions of Islam in this country, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, to name a few — are all fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

But not every country is equally willing to roll over for the Muslim Brotherhood’s hate network.

The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters was in London, but while Washington D.C. panders to the violent Islamic supremacist organization, the UK decided it did not want to host its Jihad. Last year, the British government authorized a report on the Muslim Brotherhood by veteran diplomat Sir John Jenkins. The report has been submitted to parliament and it’s making waves.

The British government report defines “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics” as “contrary to our national interests and our national security.”  It’s a striking contrast with a White House where the Muslim Brotherhood has its own revolving door and a rogue’s gallery of operatives.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States have been allowed to dismantle our counterterrorism training and replace it with Islamist propaganda. Even now, Obama pushes Countering Violent Extremism programs that encourage law enforcement to partner with Brotherhood front groups. Secretary of State Kerry urges including the Muslim Brotherhood in the political process.

Meanwhile the UK government has stepped forward to assert that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the solution to terrorism, instead it’s the source of the problem.

The Jenkins report rejects the “moderate” label so often slapped on the hate group by lazy media hacks. Instead it describes the Brotherhood as a clandestine group organized into a “secretive ‘cell’ structure” seeking to create a “Caliphate under sharia law” using a doctrine that allows “the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society”. That ideology inspired “Al Qaida and its offshoots”. The most obvious offshoot to employ this Takfiri approach is ISIS.

It’s quite a contrast from the claim by Obama’s Director of National Intelligence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence”.

The British report rejects the idea that the Brotherhood is peaceful. Instead it states that it is prepared to engage in violence, but prefers “incremental change on the grounds of expediency” because it believes that the “political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete”.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate or peaceful. It just thinks long term. Its endgame is the same as ISIS. It just has a slower and surer way of getting there. As fellow Islamist dictator Erdogan once said in Turkey, democracy is “a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”

The British report takes a hard look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for Hamas and its local organizations in the UK. It notes that, “much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programmes” but that its front groups “which have claimed to represent Muslim communities” wield “an influence here which is disproportionate to their size”.

It’s a vital observation that can’t even be voiced in the Senate here, let alone in the media or the White House. It is utterly inconceivable that Obama and Hillary, who have fought wars on behalf of the Brotherhood, would ever be willing to authorize the creation of a similar report on the Brotherhood.

And yet such a report is desperately needed. The Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups have hijacked our foreign policy, involved us in foreign wars, endangered our national security and undermined our ability to fight terrorism. They promote a program of mass Muslim migration while pushing anti-American agendas with the ultimate aim of destroying the Constitution and replacing it with Islamic law.

Changes are already taking places in the UK after the release of the Brotherhood report. The Board of Deputies of the Jewish community distanced itself from the Brotherhood’s Muslim Council of Britain. While the government will not currently ban the Brotherhood, Prime Minister Cameron has stated that “membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism”. That may sound mild, but it should be contrasted with the position of Democrats and even some Republicans in this country that the Muslim Brotherhood is our best friend.

Prime Minister Cameron warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.” He stated that “it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism.” He concluded that aspects of its activities “run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

This is a major development not only for the UK, but for the US where any criticism of the Islamic hate network has been banished as Islamophobic. The British finding is an important weapon in our own struggle with the Brotherhood and its collaborators on the left and the right.

Cameron has warned that the UK will keep a close watch to see “whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.” This is a clear warning to the Brotherhood not to abuse the hospitality of the UK or face government action. By taking this step, the UK is joining a diverse group of countries, from Egypt to the UAE to Israel, in confronting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama insists that his critics are isolated, but his affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the elements that isolated his foreign policy even in the Muslim world. Western countries are beginning to wake up to the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and his CVE policy will one day go down in history as a shameless whitewashing of a violently bigoted organization that has endangered our national security.

The UK has found that the Muslim Brotherhood is a national security threat. It’s time for Republicans and Democrats to start speaking the truth about the Brotherhood.

Republicans Take a Stand against the PC Jihad at the Terror Debate

jk (1)

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 16, 2015:

The Republican debate may have been taking place in Vegas, but over it hung the shadows of the killings in San Bernardino. And many of the Republican candidates stepped up vowing a tougher fight against the Islamic State and other foreign enemies of the United States, including Russia and North Korea.

There were divisions over many of the details, but there was also a consensus that the war had to be won, the military had to be rebuilt and that the truth about terrorism had to be told.

“The war that we are fighting now against radical Islamist jihadists is one that we must win. Our very existence is dependent upon that,” Ben Carson said, after calling for a moment of silence for the victims of the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack.

Throughout the debate, Carson made political correctness into his target. America was a patient, he warned, who “would not be cured by political correctness.” He urged us to “get rid of all this PC stuff” and argued that we must do the right thing without worried about being labeled “Islamophobic”.

Specifically referencing the Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum from the Holy Land Foundation trial by name, Carson suggested that one of its tactics entailed using our own political correctness against us.

Ted Cruz agreed that political correctness is crippling our resistance to Islamic terror, stating, “It is not a lack of competence stopping us, it is political correctness.” Referencing the San Bernardino Jihadists who pledged allegiance to ISIS, the Tsarnaev brothers and Nidal Malik Hassan, Cruz warned that, “Political correctness is killing people”.

“Our enemy is not violent extremism,” Cruz said. “It is radical Islamic terrorism. We have a president who is unwilling to utter its name.”

Trump, Cruz and some of the other candidates took a firm and politically incorrect stand against Syrian Muslim migrants. “They’re not coming to this country,” Trump stated flatly. “We will not be admitting Jihadists as refugees,” Cruz said.

Some candidates on the stage disagreed. Jeb Bush warned that such a proposal will push the Muslim world away. “It will push the Muslim world, the Arab world away from us,” he pleaded. Kasich also spoke of “Our Arab friends.” Christie claimed that he had fought Islamic terror “with the Muslim-American community”.

Jeb argued that the United States could not beat ISIS without Muslim aid. “We can’t disassociate ourselves from peace loving Muslims. If we expect to do this on our own, we will fail,” he claimed.

Ted Cruz however pointed out that the head of the FBI had admitted that the Syrian refugees could not be vetted. Christie and other candidates also referenced the FBI statement as a basis for halting the Syrian migrant resettlement program. Rand Paul even noted that every terror attack had occurred as a result of legal immigration. Though there were indeed illegalities in some of the major terror cases.

Cruz positioned immigration as a vital part of the War on Terror. “The front line with ISIS isn’t just in Iraq and Syria; it’s in Kennedy Airport and the Rio Grande”. He also pointed out that even Bill Clinton had “deported 12 million illegal aliens.”

“This is an issue we have to be 100 percent right on,” Rubio conceded, warning of the consequence, “If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who’s an ISIS killer — we just get one person wrong, we’ve got a serious problem.”

All the Republican candidates on stage vowed to be tough on ISIS, but they differed over topics such as the NSA, the treatment of terrorists who are American citizens and regime change.

“If you’re an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we’re not going to read you your Miranda rights. You’re going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country,” Rubio boldly warned.

“We have to put America’s security first,” Christie urged.

Defying boos over his suggestion that Syria’s access to the internet should be shut down or eavesdropped on, Trump challenged them, “These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you’re — you’re objecting to us infiltrating their conversations?”

Rand Paul stated that Trump’s proposals would “defy every norm that is America”. Trump however retorted, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?”

Speaking of broadening the scope of the attacks on ISIS, he said, “They may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives”.

Cruz called out Obama’s “photo op” campaign against ISIS of “launching between 15-30 air attacks a day”. He pointed out that, “In the first Persian Gulf War, we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day”.

Discussing the need for a decisive conclusion, Carson opined that with his medical background he believed that, “It’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job” in preference to a prolonged conflict.

He laid out a detailed plan for defeating ISIS by destroying their Caliphate, taking their oil and cutting off their command centers. “There will be boots on the ground and they’ll be over here, and they’ll be their boots if we don’t get them out of there now,” he said.

Ted Cruz suggested that Obama’s weakness fueled the perception that ISIS is winning. Jihadists had to face a scenario in which they would know that joining ISIS means “you are signing your death warrant.”

Carly Fiorina called for bringing back the “warrior class” of purged generals who were “retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear”.

There were heated exchanges over regime change in Libya and arming Sunni Islamist militias, some of which are allied with Al Qaeda.

Cruz spoke of searching “searching for these mythical moderate rebels. It’s like a purple unicorn. They never exist. These moderate rebels end up being jihadists.” Kasich however insisted that, “there are moderates in Syria.”

“We are backing people we have no idea who they are,” Trump said.

Cruz scathingly ridiculed the Arab Spring and its Libyan aftermath in which, “We were told then that there were these moderate rebels that would take over. Well, the result is, Libya is now a terrorist war zone run by jihadists.”

He became the second candidate to reference the Muslim Brotherhood when he discussed the coup against Mubarak and the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, a “terrorist organization.”

Instead of being democracy promoters, “we ought to hunt down our enemies,” Cruz argued.

However Rubio contended that Assad is one of our enemies, mentioning his role in bringing the IEDs to Iraq that killed American soldiers and his part in aiding Islamic terror groups such as Hezbollah.

“We need to start thinking about the needs of the American people before we go and solve everybody else’s problems,” Carson cautioned.

Trump argued that the biggest threat we face was not, as Obama said, Global Warming, but “nuclear proliferation.”

“Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the growth of ISIS because they precipitously withdrew from Iraq in 2011 against the advice of every single general,” Carly Fiorina said.

“Hillary Clinton has gotten every foreign policy challenge wrong,” she fiercely argued. “When she lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, she invited more terrorist attacks.”

There was widespread agreement that Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy was the root cause of the crisis.

“We’ve been betrayed by the leadership that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton have provided to this country over the last number of years,” Christie asserted, calling Obama a “feckless weakling”.

The Republican candidates were also united in a call for the return of American exceptionalism.

“Barack Obama does not believe America’s leadership in the world is a force for good,” Jeb Bush complained.

“There have always been people in American politics that wanted America to be more like the rest of the world. And In 2008, one of them was elected president,” Marco Rubio said.

While the debate did not settle many of the basic questions of theory and practice in the War on Terror, several candidates agreed that everyone on the stage would be a better president than Barack Obama.

“We’ve opened up a very big discussion that needed to be opened up.,” Trump said early on in the debate. And that may be the best description of this debate that continues, not only in Las Vegas or in San Bernardino, but around the tables of American households all across the country.

Ted Cruz Is the One Candidate Who Can Face down Washington — And Win


National Review, by Andrew McCarthy, Dec. 5, 2015:

To protect American national security we must first understand what threatens American national security. We must grasp who our enemies are, what animates them, and how they work together — despite their internecine rivalries — to destroy us from without and within. We must stop trying to define “true Islam” and start restoring our own principles as our guide: liberty, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and peace through strength.

The vast majority of Americans still believe in these principles. It is Washington that has lost faith. It is Washington that looks at liberty’s enemies and sees friends; that looks at anti-Western Islamic supremacists and sees “moderates” it can play ball with; that looks at lawbreakers and tut-tuts that “the system is broken.”

Reinvigorating American principles will require taming Washington. It calls for restoring the Constitution as a vital limit on government, not a relic . . . or an obstacle.

Ted Cruz gets this. Many Republicans talk the talk — we hear it in every election season, right up until it is time to stop campaigning and start governing. Senator Cruz walks the walk. That is why I believe he should be the next president of the United States.

Cruz understands that the most immediate enemy the United States confronts on the world stage is Islamic supremacism, which ignites jihadist violence through its state sponsors, terror networks, and activist organizations. The senator has not just fought against President Obama’s disastrous Iran deal, which enriches the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while making it a threshold nuclear power. Cruz has concurrently pushed for the designation, at long last, of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

RELATED: When Cruz Makes His Move, Watch Out

The Shiite and Sunni branches of radical Islam have their differences with each other, but they are united in opposition to America, Israel, and the West. They are tied together by a common ideology: Islamic supremacism and its totalitarian legal code, sharia. The Shiite supremacist regime in Iran, its Hezbollah militias, and its Syrian client, Bashar al-Assad, clash violently at times with the Brotherhood and the jihadists that its Sunni supremacist ideology breeds — the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and Hamas. Indeed, even within these factions there is bloodletting.

The rivalries are put aside, however, where America is concerned. That is why, for example, Iran has had a strategic alliance with al-Qaeda since the early 1990s. It is why Iran backs Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian jihadist branch. It is why Iran and Syria worked with Sunni terror cells to funnel jihadists to Iraq, where they attacked American soldiers. It is why the Brotherhood, for all its moderate pretensions, has preached and practiced jihadism and sharia encroachment against the West since its inception. It is why, when Washington plays with fire by aligning with “moderate Islamists,” it inevitably ends up arming violent jihadists.

Infighting inevitably breaks out between rival Islamic supremacist factions, as it has in Syria. When it does, it will often be the case that “the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.” That is how Senator Cruz recently put it in explaining that there is no American interest in the triumph of one set of our enemies over another.

It is disappointing to find Max Boot belittling this perfectly accurate observation as “simplistic.” But it is campaign season. Mr. Boot is an adviser to Senator Marco Rubio and, like much campaign rhetoric, his stumping is as incoherent as it is misleading: Just a few lines before implicitly conceding that Cruz regards Assad as America’s enemy, Boot bizarrely claims, based on nothing, that Cruz “imagines that Assad is a possible ally against ISIS.”

Speaking of imaginations run wild, noticeably absent from Boot’s critique of Cruz is the word “Libya.” That, you may recall, is where Senator Rubio and other Beltway Republicans decided it would be a fabulous idea to collude with President Obama and then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton to help Islamic supremacists oust the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. Up until the moment Washington switched sides, Qaddafi had been supported by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the bipartisan Beltway clerisy as a critical American counterterrorism ally.

RELATED: Ted Cruz Calculates a Path to the Nomination

A lot of us “simplistic” analysts who’d spent a bit of time studying radical Islam, and who are quite supportive of the use of U.S. power to quell jihadists (as opposed to, say, pursuing the illusion of sharia-democracy), objected that Washington’s “moderate Libyan rebels” were heavily infused with enemies of the United States — Muslim Brotherhood operatives and al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists prominent among them. We warned that if Qaddafi were overthrown, Libya would disintegrate into a jihadist haven.

Today, Libya is a failed state: a jihadist sanctuary where Americans have been murdered, where Western nations and institutions have fled after repeated attacks, and where, in Sirte, the Islamic State now controls a “colony” just 400 miles from Italy.

RELATED: How Ted Cruz Became a Sessions Republican

When Ted Cruz says “the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend,” he is saying we should resist in Syria a repetition of the Libya debacle, which begins with resisting the temptation — in Washington, the obsession — to presume that the Middle East teems with secular democrats. If that is simplistic, we could use a lot more simplicity.

National security is hard. I admire Senator Rubio, and I believe he was right to defend the NSA’s metadata collection, which can help us map terrorist cells and disrupt their plots while making no meaningful intrusion on the privacy of law-abiding Americans. I understand why, after seven years of the Obama administration, the public is suspicious that government will abuse its powers, and I’ve conceded that there is a weighty argument that indiscriminate bulk-data collection exceeds statutory (but not constitutional) limits. Still, I think it was a mistake for Congress to degrade the program in the USA Freedom Act. I wish Senator Cruz had not supported that legislation, but I expect that a President Cruz would be an effective advocate for counterterrorism surveillance efforts that (a) are concretely shown to enhance our security, and (b) are appropriately deferential to legitimate privacy concerns.

In any event, the erosion of a surveillance tool needs to be put in perspective. It is a relatively small problem compared with the promotion of illegal immigration: the undermining of the rule of law and the integrity of border enforcement for the dubious purpose of creating rights for alien lawbreakers. It is a relatively small problem compared with regarding Islamists as potential allies when they share the jihadist goal of implementing sharia — including the Islamist regime in Turkey which, when not championing Hamas and Hezbollah and providing a jihadist gateway to Syria, exhorts Muslim immigrants to resist assimilation in the West. At a time when Europe’s peril illustrates the danger of giving jihadists the advantage of unassimilated Islamic enclaves in which to meld, these are the policy errors that most demand our attention. Wednesday’s killing spree in San Bernardino is a painful reminder that jihad is not some faraway threat; it is here.

Addressing our policy errors will not be easy. It will require taking on Washington, which will fight tooth and nail against an overhaul of its Islamist-friendly ways. In this cycle, the Republican party is fortunate to have a stellar field of candidates. But only one of them can be depended on to face down Washington.

That candidate is Senator Ted Cruz. The office of the president is mandated to uphold our Constitution, pursue our interests, and protect our homeland. Ted Cruz’s extraordinary gifts give me confidence that he will execute these solemn duties faithfully and effectively. I am proud to support him.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a former U.S. attorney whose latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.The views expressed above are his own.

Cruz v. Rubio: Shots Fired, but What’s the Plan?

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Dr. Sebasria Gorka, Dec. 2, 2015:

As Donald Trump’s lead amongst Republic presidential candidates shows signs of faltering, conservative blue-on-blue attacks will exponentially increase as those who feel they have the most to gain from the fall of “the Donald” position themselves against their rivals for the candidacy crown.

The latest broadside – or rather fusillade, given its intensity – has come from Senator Ted Cruz and is aimed squarely at Sen. Marco Rubio.

In a lengthy interview for Bloomberg, Cruz attacks the fellow Cuban-American senator as a reckless adventurist as unfit to lead on matters of national security as Democrat frontrunner and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Cruz links Rubio support for Clinton’s involvement in the Obama administration’s policy to dethrone Muammar Gaddafi to the subsequent terrorist attack in Benghazi that led to the death of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and to a general “military adventurism” that does not serve American interests.

Whilst it is disheartening to see two young presidential candidates on the right battle each other given the greater target that the Democrat slate surely represents, the obvious fact is that the 2016 election will be fought in the arena of national security and this will not be the last duel of its kind.

After the recent ISIS attacks in Paris, the question must be asked (and answered): what does the right have in way of a plan that is better than the current White House approach, which apparently sees “climate change” as not only the most important threat to national security, but also somehow part of the explanation for the rise of jihadist violence in general?

Is Senator Cruz right in saying with regard to the rise of ISIS, as he does in the interview, that “we have no dog” in the war in Syria? Is the carnage unfolding day by day in the Middle East really just another version of the scenario in Libya, and is Rubio just “repeating the very same mistakes” Clinton and Obama committed?

It is actually easy to agree with Senator Cruz that any likely replacement for Assad will probably be far worse for Syria and America than if he retains control in Damascus. But does it naturally follow that Syria’s war has nothing to do with the safety of this nation, and the safety of Americans in America?

After the attacks in Paris, that is a very hard argument to make.

Senator Cruz appears to be resorting to the same type of straw-man argument that was used recently by the White House to bulldozer through the nuclear “non-treaty” with Iran. In that case, we were told that if America does not sign the deal, then the only other possibility is war with Iran. Why?

Why does the fact that removing Assad is a bad “neocon” idea (and yes Senator Cruz liberally uses the neocon label in a most pejorative sense, associating the putative “cabal” with Rubio’s policy stances), automatically mean America has no interests in Syria? No interests in a war in which one of the actors, namely ISIS, has established a Caliphate, declared America and the West its mortal enemy, and just sent its operatives to Europe to kill infidels?

And this is not even just about Syria, Iraq, or Paris.

As my wife and I have recently documented in our report on the domestic ISIS threat in America, ISIS is already here and intent on killing our citizens.

In the last 20 months, law enforcement authorities have killed or arrested 82 ISIS supporters in the U.S. Of these jihadists, half were planning to travel to the Middle East to fight for ISIS in Iraq or Syria. 19% were higher grade facilitators, the talentspotters who identified those willing to join the Holy War and effect their physical deployment into the warzones of the Middle East.

But a full 29% of those arrested or killed had no intention of traveling anywhere. They had decided by themselves, or under ISIS direction, that the best way to serve the new Caliph and the new “empire of Islam” was to kill American infidels here in the United States.

At the same time, the unclassified data is clear: we are arresting on average three times as many ISIS suspects per month here in the U.S. than we have arrested Al Qaeda suspects on average per month since 9/11.

In English: ISIS’s domestic recruiting here in America is 300% more successful that Al Qaeda’s has been, and fully a third of the people they recruit are planning to execute Paris-type atrocities in America’s cities.

In his attempt to define himself in contrast to his fellow presidential candidate, and in some form as a “third way” figure when it comes to national security, Senator Cruz offers a simple litmus test: military action should only be considered if there is “a real threat” to American security. Is the interdiction of ISIS jihadis in the U.S. planning to kill Americans in our own cities “a real threat?”

I would suggest it is rather difficult to answer that question in the negative.

As a result, the next question to Senator Cruz should be: what kind of military action do you propose? Destructive criticism is ever so easy. Constructive criticism less so.

I will be suggesting to the Senator’s team that if his test still stands, we now need to hear from him what his plan for military action is.

Just because Hillary and the neocons made things worse in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, does not mean that there is no right way to use force when faced by a threat that is committed to our destruction.

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D. holds the Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, Quantico, and is the Chairman of the Threat Knowledge Group. Follow him on Twitter @SebGorka.

A Practical Scenario for the GOP Nominee – Name Key Cabinet Officials!

campaign_2016-2By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo, Dec. 2, 2015:

The United States and the West are in a very precarious situation due to Islamic extremist inspired terrorism.  Obama’s administration has proved disastrous in many ways, but especially in their acquiescence to Islamic terror and its state sponsors (e.g. Iran).  To reduce the risk of another failed presidency, the Republican nominee should name key Cabinet officials some time ahead of the November 2016 election.

The 2016 election and post-Obama presidency will decide the direction of the country and the future of the West.  The Middle East and North and Central Africa are in chaos.  Islamic inspired terrorist organizations and their state sponsors are threatening to destabilize Europe and the United States through highly organized attacks and mass migration of so-called refugees. The Muslim Brotherhood is well-entrenched in the federal government and around the various states.  This situation has led to practical lawlessness in the country.

In light of this unprecedented world threat, the Republican nominee for President should take the unusual step of announcing the names of key members of his (or her) inner cabinet in advance of the 2016 election – timing of such an announcement to be decided.

Four key positions in particular should be named prior to Election Day.  They should include: the Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General.

Why?  As the last seven years have demonstrated (and should serve as a lesson), electing a president whose vision for the country is not well understood, nor spelled out, can prove disastrous.  Today’s situation is the unfortunate proof of that.  Key cabinet officials make and/or execute decisions on behalf of the president each day, and their political dispositions and worldview should be vetted and understood by the voting public prior to selecting a president.

By naming the specific individual, or individuals, who would be considered for these positions, the Republican nominee would send voters a clear signal of his priorities.  A strong pick for Vice President would solidify the conservative base, clarify the importance of national security, economic, and values voters.

The pick for Attorney General should have a very strong hands-on, law-and-order background, an understanding of the threat posed by domestic and external terrorist groups, and the resolve to resume and apply the Bush-era surveillance programs on radicalized mosques.  They must also confront an illegal immigration problem, including the problem of so-called refugees, that has been ignored for too long.

The pick for Secretary of Defense should be committed to rebuilding the military, and especially have a clear understanding of the Middle East, Iran, and the worldwide threat of Islamic extremism.

The next Secretary of State should be prepared on day one to re-engage allies whose trust Obama has totally lost (e.g. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Poland, etc.), and achieve a mutually beneficial understanding with Russia and China.  He must be prepared to apply pressure – including military action – to any and all state sponsors of terror.

We have to realize that the U.S.A., internationally speaking, is increasingly isolated.  Domestically, we are slowly becoming a nation with an economy that rewards sloth and punishes productivity, and whose Constitution is completely ignored.

To reverse this trend as quickly as only possible, it is imperative that the next president select the right cabinet.  The GOP nominee should take the unusual step of naming these key positions so that the public rightly understands the choice ahead in November 2016.

We have to fully realize that this approach could provide additional ammunition to the opposition – i.e. more digging up dirt on the suggested cabinet picks.  But, on the other hand, smart picks may attract additional voters who may not have been convinced to vote for the candidate alone.


Here is an interview Alan Kornman did of Wallace Bruschweiler last Feburary:

Right-Wing Domestic American Terrorists

The recent Planned Parenthood clinic shooting in Colorado has spurred the usual debates about gun control, the role of political rhetoric in triggering violence and the definition of Domestic Terrorism. Here is a very good article detailing the history of the movement ushered in by the Obama administration with the help of the SPLC to change the target of counterterrorism  policy from the real threat of Islamic jihad to a ginned up threat from “Right Wing Extremists”


441592Politically Short, by Nick Short, Oct. 17, 2015:

Delivering remarks on domestic terrorism at an event co-sponsored by the George Washington University’s program on extremism and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin announced on Wednesday the creation of a new position within the Department of Justice (DOJ) aimed at investigating violent extremism.

“We are here to talk about combating domestic terrorism, which the FBI has explained as ‘Americans attacking Americans based on U.S.-based extremist ideologies.’ The threat ranges from individuals motivated by anti-government animus, to eco-radicalism and racism,” stated Carlin. He continued, “Homegrown violent extremists can be motivated by any viewpoint on the full spectrum of hate. Anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs. When it comes to hate and intolerance, no single ideology governs. Carlin then went on to mention the following, “as our SPLC colleagues can attest, racial hatred motivates many of the violent extremist attacks. The Attorney General noted this summer that these kinds of hate crimes are the original domestic terrorism. Among domestic extremist movements active in the United States, white supremacists are the most violent.”

The new position at the Justice Department, dubbed the “Domestic Terrorism Counsel,” will serve as the main point of contact for U.S. attorney offices nationwide and will identify “trends across cases, help shape strategy and analyze legal gaps that need to be closed,” stated Carlin. Yet, as Leo Hohmann of World Net Daily writes, “while the FBI has confirmed it has active ISIS investigations in all 50 states and Islamic-inspired attacks have occurred in recent years in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Garland, Texas, and Fort Hood, the Justice Department sees Islamic jihadists as no more dangerous than mentally ill actors such as Dylann Roof, the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooter who killed nine black Christians.” In fact, Hohmann notes “Justice officials have indicated that home-grown ‘right wingers’ are possibly more numerous and dangerous than the jihadists. In announcing the new position Wednesday, Carlin referred to a study by the New America Foundation that found nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by ‘right-wing’ extremists since Sept. 11 than by Islamic terrorists.”

The New America Foundation lists the Charleston church shooting among 19 right-wing terrorist attacks while the study only lists seven jihadist attacks that killed 26 people since Sept. 11. “Nowhere to be found on the foundation’s list is the Chattanooga shooter, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who killed five U.S. servicemen. Also absent on the list is John Muhammad, the Washington, D.C., sniper who killed at least 10 people in 2002 with his young accomplice, Lee Malvo,” points out Hohmann. The reason for this is because the New America Foundation, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, defines threats not by reality but by a false narrative that selectively targets conservatives groups.

The threats are defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is working in conjunction with the Department of Justice to target those they label apart of the “radical right.” The SPLC labels organizations with conservative views as hate groups and has enjoyed premier access to our DOJ. The government watchdog agency Judicial Watch first exposed this in 2013 as they obtained emails from the Obama DOJ that revealed SPLC co-founder Morris Dees had conducted a “diversity training event” for the agency back in 2012. Furthermore, the Family Research Council along with a coalition of conservative groups exposed the wide ranging influence of the SPLC as they have also provided the U.S. military with training supplies and briefings as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In fact, the FBI actually endorsed the SPLC as a source and listed it as a resource on its “hate crime web page.”

The relationship between the SPLC and it’s influence on shaping who the federal government investigates as a “domestic terrorist” was fully disclosed in a 2014 Annual Report on the Southern Poverty Law Center. In part, the report boasts that the SPLC “investigative team exposed the growing threat from the radical right, trained thousands of law enforcement officials to counter the threat, and pushed the federal government to open its eyes to domestic terrorism.” The report specifically highlights that the SPLC “successfully pushed the federal government to reinstate a high-level task force on domestic terrorism.”

Under the title of “Fighting Hate“, the SPLC report notes the following work done by their very own Intelligence Project which monitors hate groups and extremist activity in all 50 states and provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement, government agencies, the media, scholars and policymakers. The following is an excerpt from the report:

In 2013, the Project documented 939 hate groups and 1,096 antigovernment “Patriot” groups, including armed militias. In addition, it fought the mainstreaming of hate and extremist propaganda by shining a spotlight on public officials who help legitimize groups such as the Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association (AFA).

In October, the Intelligence Project and a coalition of human rights groups called on members of Congress and other public officials not to speak at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., because the event host and its key co-sponsor – the Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association (AFA) – have long records of vilifying the LGBT community.

After the coalition sent letters urging speakers to forego the event, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal backed out. U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia also canceled his appearance at the Values Voter Summit, where he was set to headline a fundraising luncheon for the AFA.

Next, the SPLC highlights their work providing expertise to law enforcement:

The Intelligence Project also provides in-person training sessions to law enforcement officers to ensure they not only understand hate-related issues but are equipped with the latest intelligence on the radical right. In 2013, the Project provided training to more than 5,000 officers. Its staffers traveled extensively to share their expertise on hate groups and domestic terrorism with local, state and federal government agencies.

To get an idea of the role played by the SPLC within the DOJ’s new position on the Domestic Terrorism Counsel look no further than this October 12, 2015 headline that ran on the SPLC website, “Fifteen Confederate ‘flaggers’ indicted for terroristic threats and gang activity in Georgia.” The article highlights the role that the SPLC will be playing in future investigations working in conjunction with the DOJ. An excerpt reads:

A Georgia state prosecutor today announced the indictments of 15 people who threatened African Americans and used racial slurs when they stopped at a family party while cruising around in a convoy of pickup trucks flying Confederate flags. Ten men and five women were charged with issuing terroristic threats and participating in gang activity. Two of the men were also charged with battery for hitting a man at a gas station on the same day.

The SPLC launched an investigation immediately after the July 25 incident and turned over videos and other evidence to Douglasville District Attorney Brian K. Fortner. SPLC attorneys also brought witnesses to the prosecutor and have been representing some of the people at the party.

Knowing that the SPLC will now be given a larger role in our government to target “domestic extremists” is troubling, particularly when you look at the history under the Obama adminstration as they’re primarily focused on targeting “domestic right-wing extremists.” You may not think of yourself as a “domestic right-wing extremist” but the truth is that patriotic Americans and conservative Christians as well as returning veterans have been repeatedly labeled as “potential terrorists” since Barack Obama became president.

Michael Snyder of The Truth Wins, writes that in regards to this adminstration history of targeting those of us on the right had “just happened one time, it would be easy to dismiss. Sadly, there has been a steady pattern of this happening over the past several years. Large groups of people that are the heart and soul of this country have been systematically demonized over the past four years. When you consider what history has taught us, it is absolutely chilling to think about what this could eventually lead to.”

Looking at some examples of government documents released under this adminstration that identifies who and what this regime considers to be domestic terrorist, one can begin to realize why these reports are so frightening given the creation of the DOJ’s Domestic Terrorism Counsel.

The trend began shorty after Barack Obama became president in 2009 as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a report entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The report can be read in its entirety below.

View this document on Scribd

The report claimed that a belief in “Bible prophecy could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.” Among other things, here are some of the key highlights of the report in which the DHS was extremely concerned about:

“Rightwing extremists”

“Returning veterans”

Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

“Fear of communist regimes and related conspiracy theories”

From 2009 to 2011 the reports on “right-wing extremists” were few and far between, but in 2012 there was a resurgence of reports that continues to this day. Beginning on January 31, 2012, a new report was released by the DHS’ National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). The report was titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008.” This report identified characteristics of those that have committed terrorist attacks in the past and of those that are likely to do so in the future. The report can be read in full below.

View this document on Scribd

In describing the ideological motivation of “Extreme Right-Wing” groups in their profile of perpetrators of terrorism in the United States, the report notes the following:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that subscribe to aspects of the following ideals: they are fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty (especially theirright to own guns, be free of taxes), believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty and a belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (sometimes such beliefs are amorphous and vague, but for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.

In 2013, an internal FBI intelligence report on the “National Threat Assessment for Domestic Extremists” was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon in which the FBI concludes that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements — none motivated by radical Islam. They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists.

Then in 2014, another report was penned by START, which is the same cadre of professors at the University of Maryland who advised the DHS in their 2012 “Hot Spots of Terrorism” report mentioned earlier. The 2014 report titled “Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes” attempts to equivocate the threat posed by foreign terrorists being the same as that of people who love the Constitution, want to observe their Second Amendment rights, and love the flag and think America is a great nation. The report can be read below.

View this document on Scribd

Finally, in 2015, the FBI released it’s latest Intelligence Bulletin warning that “Militia Extremists Expand Target Sets To Include Muslims.” The report can be viewed in full by clicking on the picture below.


Here are a few key highlights of the report:
The FBI assesses militia extremist interest in Islam as a target is a product of ideology that views Muslims collectively with suspicion. Salient perceptions within militia extremism that contribute toward an anti-Muslim bias include the following: Islam represents a foreign threat, equivalent to those which emanate from illegal immigration or international terrorism; The President of the United States not only sympathizes with Islamic extremists but directs US Government policy to align with their goals.

The report goes on to cite two instances of “militia” leaders implying their anger at Muslims and that they may target them. No actual instances of this desire to attack Muslims has been seen, though. Yet, with this FBI assessment we finally see the agenda of this adminstration come full circle as intelligence agencies have warned since 2009 that the real threat to America is the one posed by conservative groups, tea partiers, military veterans, and militias. It has gotten to the point in which Islam is now the victim of a threat that literally does not even exist while the threat posed by Islamic jihadists is more real than we could ever imagine.

In fact, in a new report from the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee it is noted that there has been a sharp rise in jihadi terror attempts inside the USA, from the 38 that were identified in 2010 to 127 today. According to the Chairman of the Committee Michael McCaul, as of early October, the terrorist organization known as ISIS has inspired or directed 61 terror attack plots against Western targets, including 17 in the United States. There have been more than twice as many ISIS-linked attack plots against Western targets in 2015 (41) than in 2014 (20). To see the Committee’s latest Terror Threat Snapshot, click on the map below.


As the Committee notes, “there have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11. The number today is more than a three-fold increase in just five years.” Yet, with the creation of the Domestic Terrorism Counsel by the DOJ, Islamic terrorism is flat out denied as they have now become the victims of a fantasy of right-wing extremism that is now endorsed as reality aided by radical groups such as the SPLC. As Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch concludes, “if a totalitarian leftist had to write a description for a government operation to suppress his enemies, this would be it.”

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

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

Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ 

Email him at

Islam, Jihad, and our Ignorance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ 

Email him at

REPORT — ISIS: The Threat to the United States


The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka,Nov. 23, 2015:

ISIS’s attacks in Paris, the deadliest targeting of civilians in France since the end of World War II, will change the political and security landscape of Europe irrevocably.

President François Hollande has promised a merciless response. Borders have been sealed — in direct contravention of the Maastricht agreement signed more than 20 years ago that within the European Union, national boundaries would be dissolved.

And most consequential in the short term, since it now appears that at least one of the terrorists posed as a refugee, Western governments are reassessing their immigration policies.

But what does this mean for the United States? Is America less vulnerable because of the greater distance between our country and the ravaged territories of the Middle East and North Africa?

Recent trends in law enforcement and intelligence indicate that we aren’t safer. On the contrary: The probability of a Paris-style attack has dramatically increased.

As part of its support to law enforcement, my training and analysis company, Threat Knowledge Group, has been collecting and analyzing the open-source information on ISIS arrests in the United States.

This report, ISIS: The Threat to the United States, contains our findings.




With the November 13th attack in Paris that killed 130 people and injured 368, many are asking what the risk is of a similar attack on U.S. soil. While France has a proportionately larger Muslim population than the United States (7.5% of the total population in France compared with .6% – 2.2% in the U.S.), ISIS has already recruited supporters in the United States with the intent of executing domestic attacks here in America. Key evidence includes the following:

  • 82 individuals in the United States affiliating with ISIS have been interdicted by law enforcement since March 2014 (including 7 unnamed minors and 4 killed in the course of attacks).  (For a full list of those individuals
  • More than 250 individuals from the United States have joined or attempted to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq according to the Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel published by the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee in September 2015.
  • The FBI currently has nearly 1,000 ongoing ISIS probes in the United States, according to a recent report by Judicial Watch.
  • ISIS is recruiting within the U.S. at about three-times the rate of Al Qaeda.
  • Ali Shukri Amin, a 17 year-old Islamic State (IS) supporter from Manassas, Virginia, recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide support to ISIS, had nearly 4,000 Twitter followers, under the alias, ‘Amreeki Witness.’
  • Ahmad Musa Jibril, an Arab-American Islamist preacher living in Dearborn, Michigan, had 38,000 Twitter followers before his site went silent. A report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) found that 60% of surveyed foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria followed Jibril on Twitter.

What the numbers demonstrate is that ISIS has a significant base of support in the United States, including both those who have already traveled to Iraq and Syria to fight as jihadis, as well as terror suspects who have been interdicted for attempting to travel there, providing support to ISIS in other tangible ways, or attempting attacks.

Most importantly, nearly one third of the domestic ISIS cases in the past 18 months involved people who planned to carry out attacks against Americans on U.S. soil. In other words, one third of those interdicted calculated that the best way to serve the new Islamic State and its Caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is to wage jihad here on the soil of the infidel.

It is also essential to note the number of followers of ISIS propagandists Ali Shukri Amin and Ahmad Musa Jibril, which shows that domestic support for ISIS may reach well into the thousands. With Syrian refugees starting to arrive in the United States, these numbers may further increase.



Video Briefing: What Do You Need to Know About ISIS?

Sam Sorbo: Co-Existence is Futile

coexist-640x480 (1)

Breitbart, by Sam Sorbo, Nov. 18, 2015:

The following is a monologue presented in the opening of The Sam Sorbo Show on November 16, 2015. To listen to the segment, click below.

Not 10 hours before the attacks in Paris that killed 129 people and left 352 injured, President Obama claimed he had “contained” ISIS.

Now his apologists are rushing in to defend his misinformed assertion with explanations that he was referring to ISIS’ geographical containment, that they aren’t gaining more ground in Syria. But I’m fed up with this word play. Geographically, they are bigger than ever before, having now advanced as far as FRANCE! Let me ask you this, you forked-tongued, logic-lacking sycophants. Would he repeat his  assertion – that ISIS is contained – today, after the attacks in Paris? NO!

We currently face two threats on our way of life in a country that has offered mankind the most technological advances and created the most prosperity the world has ever seen: Political correctness, or secularism, and Medieval Islamists.

Medieval Islam seeks to challenge us, violently. They don’t just disagree with self-governance and this country’s dedication to the God of Abraham and our Judeo-Christian morals. If they did, those insipid, moronic bumper stickers would be true, and we would all co-exist. For all you bozos out there driving around with those co-exist stickers, you can’t coexist with someone who wants you dead, has the capacity to ensure that, and remains convicted that you lack any rights whatsoever. You can only shoot back in self-preservation. Co-existence is not an option because the other sides reject it outright. And by the way, those victims in the theater and restaurants in France complied with the restrictive gun laws, and were unable to shoot back. Their right to co-exist was summarily terminated by those lunatic jihadis who instead chose co-non-existence.

Hillary Clinton, the leading democrat candidate for president, cannot even name the enemy, vaguely referring to “violent extremism,” and “people using their religion for purposes of power and oppression.”

This is a woman who lacks understanding, who seeks to co-exist. She insists that this isn’t “our war.” This is like the “lone wolf” argument that all things occur in vacuums and remain unrelated. Somehow, she (and many others) magically separate fundamentalist Islamist doctrine from Islam, in uneducated, petulant defiance of what the leading Islamic theologians tell us. The people who adhere to the fundamentalist doctrine of Islam are at war with us, meaning freedom and the Judeo-Christian principles on which the West was founded. France is just the most recent example of that.

Isn’t it ironic that George W. Bush put together a coalition of 48 countries to take to take the fight to Al Queda, and France wasn’t even among them? Remember, France wouldn’t let the US fly over her airspace! So… Why attack France? I’ll tell you why. The terrorists aren’t examining the non-believers’ efforts at co-existence. They are simply looking to kill Western values, and the most expedient way to do that is by killing all human beings who hold those values: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. And Freedom!

Those are the things these barbarians want to snuff out, and you’re standing in their way.

Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, after his apology tour to the Middle East, as an appeasement move, to prove we were reasonable and non-interventionist. Remember the purple fingers in Iraq, when the people voted for their own government? Obama single-handedly destroyed their future. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He is paving the way for Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

Consider how the world might be, had the US stayed the course in Iraq, had Obama negotiated the Status of Forces agreement. Did you hear Hillary blame George Bush for that at the debate? As if Obama was too inept to negotiate one himself! No. Obama wanted OUT of the Middle East, and these are the consequences.

This is a failure of leadership that cannot be laid at anyone’s feet but the current administration’s, including the former Secretary of State — “That was a mistake, I’m sorry about that, I take responsibility…” — who is now under investigation by the FBI for putting US security at risk. Hillary presided over the “Arab Spring,” sent Ambassador Stevens into danger and then forgot him, and was downright gleeful at the horrific, brutal execution of Gaddafi. “We came; we saw; he died!

But while Radical Islam is a threat to Democracy and the American Way, it is not the greatest threat. Sen. Bernie Sanders believes that Climate change, something as yet unproven by science, is the greatest threat to this country. He’s completely wrong, but willing to sacrifice the world’s most impoverished people on the altar of Climate Change. Limiting access to cheap fossil fuels will hurt them the most. He is secularism and political correctness in a nut shell. A nut shell — get it?

Terrorists and secularists can both be likened to the communists, Nazis, and socialists who came before them, because they both choose which lives are valuable and which are expendable, or even offensive. Those poor excuses for human beings so love themselves they seek to destroy anyone who isn’t completely aligned with them, and sometimes even those who are. Make no mistake, they represent love of self over God. They choose to believe they should have power over life and death, like Mao and Pol Pot and Bin Ladin. But here in the West, for us to be against slavery and killing is to support a morality that condemns those things, and that is a morality unique to the Judeo-Christian God.

Political correctness, practiced by secularists, is our gravest potential undoing. If you cannot identify the enemy, and you may not criticize an enemy who by any account wants you dead, and you pointlessly struggle to co-exist with said enemy while they chant “Death to America,” and you argue for supplying that enemy with government subsidies and a place to live within your own borders, and with billions of dollars as in Iran; If you sacrifice yourself for your enemy because political correctness prevents you from doing otherwise for fear of reprisals from your politicians, the media, activist judges, and even the IRS, the enemy is no longer some fanatical guy with a knife or a gun. The enemy is your own inability to choose good over evil.

Political correctness has nearly completely eroded our discernment, and that is the greatest threat to America. Because, more than anything else, America is an idea, founded in the truth of Nature’s God, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all human beings are created equal, but lack equal outcomes. Political correctness is the end of that, because it insists on equal outcomes, in defiance of nature’s God. Political correctness is death to truth, defeat of America, and destruction to the western world.

Ben Carson was castigated for stating that he would not favor a Muslim to become president of the US. That is political correctness preventing us from understanding the very core of Islam, which is a political, religious and legal movement that stands in direct opposition to our Constitution. President Obama wants felons to have a better chance to obtain government jobs. That’s political correctness, surrendering our self-governance to proven criminals, in defiance of our Constitution. “Safe Spaces” and “Free Speech Zones” on College Campuses so delicate brain-washed students won’t feel insulted or threatened by ideas, or face the one thing they pretend to desire most: diversity, because they cannot tolerate diversity of thought. That’s political correctness on the level of a hallucinogenic.

Think about this: Everywhere there is Islamic rule, other religions have been virtually wiped out. Northern Africa used to be predominantly Christian. Not anymore. What’s the one thing the Muslim world cannot agree to? The existence of Israel. There is no “co-exist” in a Muslim-majority country. “Co-exist” is a fantasy of the illiterate and uninformed, and a contrivance to mislead the useful idiots of today.

Eisenhower said, “Democracy is nothing in the world but a spiritual conviction, a conviction that each of us is enormously valuable, because of a certain standing before our own God.” The Christian believes in equality and freedom because we are created in the image of God. This is why our legacy is the fight for freedom for all. Secularism believes in self above all, and supports only self-serving ends. Islam practices apartheid, slavery, and extermination against non-believers and women.

If you believe in equality and freedom, then you have inherited some of the moral capital of our great nation. A bill is coming due. I just hope we haven’t squandered too much of our inheritance on political correctness to pay it.

It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy

1092263568 (1)

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Jan. 16, 2015:

A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions.

The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah.

For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them.

Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.

Until now.

At the National Press Club at noon on January 16th, an ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals will unveil an alternative plan of action that has been proven effective in protecting us against relentlessly aggressive totalitarian ideologues in the one environment that matters: the real world. The resulting approach, called the “Secure Freedom Strategy,” is modeled after the one President Ronald Reagan successfully employed to take down Soviet communism and the Evil Empire it spawned.

The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers a detailed prescription for a clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront and actionable steps for vanquishing it. Its key components include:

Understanding the Enemy’s Threat Doctrine: Having conclusively demonstrated that Sun Tse’s admonition that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t know still operates, the United States must now abandon past practice by adopting a realistic understanding of the enemy and its doctrine. That requires, in particular, clarity concerning shariah, the jihad it impels, and the various ways in which such warfare is being waged against us.

The Tiger Team makes clear that its use of the term shariah is informed by the practice of Islamic law by the recognized authorities of the faith since at least the 10th Century. (It is noteworthy that, when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complained publicly and courageously about the jihadist character of contemporary Islam, he did not berate so-called “radical extremists” of al Qaeda or Islamic State. Rather, he took to task the leading imams in Sunni Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican, al-Azhar University.) Such use of the term shariah, therefore, does not refer to an idiosyncratic, personal, or purely pietistic observance of Islamic law which may or may not conform to the entirety of established Islamic doctrine.

The jihadism of shariah is being advanced by both violent techniques and by means other than terrorism. We must, accordingly, be prepared to deal kinetically where necessary with the perpetrators of violent jihad. But it is also imperative that we contend no less effectively with what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – its stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within…by [our own] hands.”

Establishing Our Objective: Next, the United States must enunciate a national commitment to – using a phrase President Reagan employed as the object of NSDD 75 – “contain and over time reverse” shariah-driven Islamic supremacism, including establishment of the Caliphate. The rising tide of shariah and various efforts to impose it here and abroad make abundantly clear an unalterable fact: America and, indeed, Western civilization cannot coexist with the Global Jihad Movement.

Reestablishing “Peace Through Strength”: Just as President Reagan did in his day, the contemporary hollowing out of the U.S. military must be reversed as a matter of the utmost priority. The perception of American weakness only reinforces our shariah-adherent enemies’ conviction that the time has come for intensifying jihad operations. It is also emboldening other adversaries, including Russia, China and North Korea.As the United States is not confronting simply terrorist organizations, or even their state-sponsors, but prospectively “peer competitors,” the rebuilding of American military power must be balanced across the spectrum of nuclear, missile defense, conventional and special operations forces. We must also continue to develop asymmetric capabilities (e.g., in space and cyber space) while correcting our most egregious vulnerabilities to these enemies’ asymmetric attacks (notably, electromagnetic pulse, cyberwarfare, counter-space, economic/financial warfare, smuggled weapons of mass destruction, etc.)

Counter-Ideological Warfare: As in the Cold War, America’s ability to challenge and neutralize its enemies’ animating ideology is at least as important as the task of countering their kinetic threats. Once we are clear about the nature and centrality of the shariah doctrine to the existential danger we currently face, the need for a serious and effective counter-ideological strategy becomes self-evident.Putting such a strategy into practice will require, first and foremost, identifying the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicitly jihadist organization it has always been and is now.

Continuing to treat its operatives and organizations (overt and covert) in America and overseas as “partners” because we are told they “eschew violence” is a formula for our incremental destruction. Wherever and as soon as possible, these foes should be neutralized as political forces. At a minimum, they must be denied access to U.S. government agencies, funds, arms and, via television cable packages, American household subscribers.

Intelligence Operations: We must take a page from the playbook developed during the Reagan administration by then-Director of Central Intelligence William Casey and use covert means wherever possible to counter, divide and undermine our enemies. To the traditional intelligence techniques should be added aggressive use of psychological operations, cyberwarfare and, where necessary, clandestine and special operations.

Economic Warfighting: As with the Reagan NSDD 75 plan, there must be a central economic/financial warfighting component to a new American strategy for defeating our time’s existential enemies. This component would include: constricting the principal source of revenues for the jihad – vast petrodollar transfers from Western nations to OPEC states; reversing the present practice of accommodating and even encouraging shariah finance, a technique employed by civilization jihadists to penetrate and subvert our capitalist system: and exposing shariah-inspired sovereign wealth funds as instruments of financial jihad.

Cyber Warfighting: Cyberspace is the new battlefield of asymmetric warfare where attacks across domains and technologies by the Global Jihad enemy, as well as peer adversaries, must be countered with 21st Century capabilities drawn from the best and brightest in the civilian, intelligence and military worlds.

Were these and similar policy priorities articulated by the Tiger Team to be adopted and executed appropriately, it should be possible to effect the necessary second step: the adoption by the nation of a true warfooting, a state of national commitment that will bring to bear the popular vigilance and support that will make it possible for the Secure Freedom Strategy to be fully executed.

If we are to have a prayer of bequeathing, as President Reagan put it, to our children and children’s children an America that is free – and not one that has submitted to the jihadists and shariah – we must get about the business of securing freedom in a strategic and time-tested way.

And we must begin to do it now.