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.

ISIS Supporter To Breitbart: ‘We’re Coming For The U.S.’ – ‘We’ll Shake Your Existence’

nusra-front-black-flag-AP-640x480Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Nov. 17, 2015:

Abu Al-Ayna al-Ansari, leader of an ISIS-aligned Salafi jihadist group in the Gaza Strip, said he believes ISIS will strike the home fronts of “all countries that participate in the anti-Islamic State coalition” in Syria and Iraq.

“The [Islamic] State will not leave these countries alone without them having to suffer from the blows of the Mujahideen in a way that will let them understand that their war is lost,” the terrorist said. “There is no way that ISIS territory remains under aerial bombardment without a violent retaliation deep in the capitals of those countries.”

Ansari addressed the possibility of attacks inside the U.S., saying, “Certainly the Mujahideen of the Islamic State will not hesitate to attack the head of the infidel states and the head of global terrorism – America – and all those who support the U.S. and back it in its crusade war against the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.”

Ansari further stated that “the Mujahideen of the Islamic state are waiting for every opportunity in order to carry out attacks in all countries of the crusader coalition.”

The gunman continued with a diatribe against “America and the Jewish enemy, as well as Russia and all the infidel Western countries that take part in the crusade against our brothers, the Mujahideen.”

He warned that these countries “must wait for more of our strikes that will shake their existence. Wars are dynamic and the battle will move soon to the depth of their homes, it will happen sooner or later.”

Al Ansari added that “the little drop of the Russian plane was the beginning and the blessed invasion of Paris will not be the end. … Our Mujahideen are scattered everywhere and will not hesitate to offer their lives for the sake of Allah.”

He was asked how ISIS can justify the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Paris, some of whom may have been Muslims.

Ansari sidestepped the question, asking, “Does France and America and their followers of the Cross alliance differentiate between civilians and armed Mujahideen when they bombard innocent civilians in Raqqa, in Aleppo and in Mosul?”

When Breitbart Jerusalem persisted, Ansari claimed that “dozens of civilians” are killed in “the daily raids of the crusader coalition and then you lie to the world by saying the raids target the headquarters and sites of the Islamic State.”

“The civilian victims and the areas targeted prove that it has nothing to do with the ISIS infrastructure,” he claimed.

Ansari went on to bash reports that Middle Eastern refugees may have participated in the Paris massacres. The passport of a Syrian refugee was found on or near the body of one of the suicide bombers, and Greece subsequently confirmed that it was used by a refugee registered on the island of Leros in early October. The same passport was used to cross the southern border of Serbia a few days later.

Nonetheless, Ansari said that “Such claims have nothing to do with reality and are not true. No refugee is among the brothers who carried out these blessed attack. … No refugee who wanted to come and live in France was chosen for this attack.

“Some political forces are trying to exploit the incident in a campaign against the refugees. Even before the Paris attack, those political forces were against the migrants for numerous reasons that are connected to the nature of their countries and to their general position on the migration phenomenon.”

Ansari failed to mention that ISIS documents released in February announced that the group was planning to use Libya as a “gateway” to smuggle refugees into Europe.

The ISIS material further raised the possibility of storming southern European cities to cause “pandemonium” or attempting to close international shipping lines in the Mediterranean Sea.

Obama’s Dead Wrong About the Paris Attacks


It can happen here too.

First off the president should acknowledge that this atrocity was committed by Islamic jihadis

US News, by Christopher Hull, Nov. 14, 2015:

Paris is my favorite city in the world.

Ernest Hemingway once wrote “if you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” I was lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, and Hemingway, if only on this, was right.

So during the Paris attacks my heart broke watching helplessly as reports came from the scene of the Bataclan club massacre. One apparent club-goer, who was himself wounded, posted on Facebook that the terrorists were slaughtering people, “one by one.”

But we are not helpless. Not yet, anyway.

[READ Reaction from around the world to Paris attacks]

President Barack Obama would have you believe, “This is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”

But he’s flat, dead wrong. All of humanity does not share Western values, or the Paris attack wouldn’t have happened.

Specifically, though the president painfully and repeatedly refuses to say so, Islamic jihadis do not share Western values.

If they did, President Obama’s cowardly withdrawal from Iraq and refusal to enforce his own red line in Syria would not have led to Islamic State’s rise in the first place – and the resultant surge of refugees into Europe, including, reportedly, at least one Paris attacker.

Yet President Obama would also have you believe that his limp and increasingly unpopular response to Islamic State has “contained” the jihadi army and kept it from “gaining strength,” as he claimed literally hours before the Paris attacks.

Of course, he would also have you believe that climate change is a bigger threat than (Islamic) terror. He insists, “There’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.” Well, Paris – and New Yorkon 9/11 and Beirut in 1983 and well, New York in 1993 and Beirut last week and Paris earlier this year – are trying over and over to teach us different. The truth is, and the Western world is united in believing it, here’s no greater threat to our planet than Islamic jihad.

And here’s where this matters to you. The Obama White House would also have you believe that the 10,000 Syrian refugees the president is in the process of bringing to America this year alone will “go through the most robust security process of anybody who’s contemplating travel to the United States.” Just last week, the administration acknowledged that it was bringing online refugee screening outposts in the Middle East to “push out really ambitious goals” to “increase the channels” for bringing Syrians to America.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s own FBI director, James Comey, says the U.S. can’t properly vet Syrians for ties to Islamic jihad. Likewise, the assistant director for the FBI, Michael Steinback, has told Congress that when it comes to Syrian refugees, “We don’t have it under control.”

“Absolutely, we’re doing the best we can,” he testified in February before the House. “If I were to say that we had it under control, then I would say I know of every single individual traveling. I don’t. And I don’t know every person there and I don’t know everyone coming back. So it’s not even close to being under control.”

Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, who chairs the Senate Immigration and the National Interest subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, repeatedly asked Matthew Emrich, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to confirm or deny Mr. Steinback’s claim that Syrian refugees were “clearly a population of concern” and that U.S. databases don’t have information on them. Emmrich eventually fell silent.

[MORE: Editorial Cartoons on the Islamic State Group]

But you don’t have to. This is where we are not yet helpless.

Refugees – amusingly called “migrants” by sympathetic news outlets trying to finesse that they are generally both illegal and immigrants – have swept through Europe and permeated the national media, as well. The image of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Kurdish refugee washed up on a Turkish beach touched heartstrings around the world, including mine. He looked painfully like my two-year-old boy Thomas.

However, in a sadly goofy way, so did little Richard Martin, the boy killed in the Boston Marathon Bombing by Chechen refugees. In fact, refugees and asylees have played key roles in terror activities from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the ongoing flow of al-Shabab recruits from Minnesota.

And it will get worse if we ignore the threat, as Paris suggests. “Just wait,” says an Islamic State group operative, who claims that ISIS has successfully smuggled 4,000 jihadis into Europe hidden among refugees. More to come – in Paris, and if we make the mistake of believing our president, here as well.

So what is to be done?

First, we need to acknowledge that the Ted Kennedy-drafted 1980 law that governs refugee resettlement was, like his 1965 Immigration Act and the Immigration Act of 1990, designed more to maximize the influx of potential Democrats to the United States than to keep it secure in the face of an enemy like the global Islamic jihad.

So, second, Congress should include in the omnibus spending bill required by December 11, 2015some variation of Texas GOP Rep. Brian Babin’s Refugee Accountability National Security Act, which would place a moratorium on refugee resettlement until Congress deems the program has been adequately reviewed, as well as a Government Accountability Office audit of its costs. Even simply defunding all refugee resettlement from Syria would be a start, though the problem of jihadis posing as refugees extends far beyond Syria.

Third, Congress should pass and President Obama should sign the bill sponsored by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, which would restore control over how many refugees the U.S. admits each year to the legislative branch, where it belongs.

Fourth, Congress should pass and President Obama should sign the bill sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Florida GOP Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization, just as have Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and arguably even Syria.

[MORE Paris Terror Attacks by ISIS Called ‘Act of War’]

Fifth, the U.S. should militarize its southern border. Attempts to “secure the border” started as early as the late 1800s and have by and large failed. After 9/11, however, George W. Bush ordered 6,000 national guardsmen to the border to at long last seal it for security reasons. Yet as the 2004 elections approached, Bush, who favored immigration expansion for political and business interest reasons, gradually relaxed his grip on the border. President Obama, who favored it to pack the country with left-leaning voters, has literally broken the law to bring people across the border and keep them in the country. Today we have what Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, then acting commander of the U.S. Southern Command, called an “existential” threat to America.

Sixth, the president (and this could not possibly be Barack Obama) should unite the world around a hard-nosed, realist foreign policy that supports Western civilization’s allies and devastates its enemies – not just in what we now think of as Syria and Iraq, the source of the current refugee tidal wave, but around the world.

Finally, Congress should pass comprehensive immigration reform – and not the amnesty that both the U.S. Chamber and the Democratic Party use that term to describe. A real reform that would:

  1. Reverse the Obama administration’s suicidal (not to mention illegal) decision to unilaterally change the law to allow in immigrants with “limited” terror contact
  2. Eliminate funding for the so-called voluntary agencies which have turned into lobbies to expand the number of refugees ad infinitum
  3. Stop chain migration that immigration forces dub “family reunification” (think about it – why can’t families remain unified in the countries where they start out?) and that could be used to expand President Obama’s 10,000 Syrians exponentially
  4. Give the U.S. control over whom we deem a refugee, not the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which has a rotten record that has led some to speculate about how closely it cooperates with the Organization of Islamic Countries.
  5. Eliminate politically correct, politically driven, problem-prone and wildly unsafediversity visas” dreamed up by (who else?) the late Senator Kennedy
  6. Follow the lead of then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who once proposed eliminating citizenship for those who join foreign terror organizations
  7. Wipe out President Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty to align the rule of law and perceived incentives to break it
  8. Likewise, end the practice of having anchor babies that those who otherwise disdain and ignore the Constitution incorrectly call the constitutional guarantee of “birthright citizenship,” and which Obama has stood on its head by granting illegal amnesty to parents of these tiny citizens
  9. Finally, let’s give those from native English speaking countries higher priority in immigration law. They put less of a strain on schools, do better over the long term and, well, are less likely to kill us: 83 percent of alleged terrorist attacks take place outside of native English-speaking countries.

That’s a pretty hefty agenda. To even move in that direction, here’s one thing that we as a nation – and the entire Western World – must do before anything else: acknowledge that we are in a war with Islamic jihadis who want us dead for ideological reasons and will stop at nothing to kill us.

Otherwise, not only my favorite city will continue to face an ever-greater risk of senseless slaughter at the hands of blood-thirsty Islamic jihadis.

Yours will too.

Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., a former adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University, is the immediate past chief of staff for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. He works with clients including the Center for Security Policy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit national security think tank.

Also see:

U.S. Worries About Airport Security After Possible ISIS ‘Inside Job’ in Egypt

TSA-agents-Getty-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, Nov. 10, 2015:

Mounting suspicion that a Russian Metrojet airliner was destroyed over Egypt by a terrorist bomb, planted by an ISIS “inside man” at the airport, has led to concerns by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over possible security flaws at American airports.

This is somewhat unusual since, as CNN points out, “The U.S. has spent billions of dollars beefing-up screening of passengers with scanners and background checks.” Transportation Security Agency receives an annual budget of over $7 billion. It is fair enough to perform a review of security practices, to increase public confidence that nothing like the appalling situation at Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh airport exists here, but the concerns cited by CNN run considerably deeper than that:

The worries in the U.S. lie partly in the fact that the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees air travel security, relies on the operators of the nation’s more than 450 airports to do the vetting of aviation workers. The airports use TSA contractors to do background checks, including checking terrorism databases, legal immigration status and criminal histories.

A U.S. official with knowledge of American aviation security and its vulnerabilities says that while U.S. security is viewed as the gold standard, the screening of workers poses cause for worry.

“(The TSA) checkpoint is only one part of it. You can lock that front door all you want, if you’ve left the back window open it doesn’t really matter,” the official said.

CNN cites a Homeland Security Inspector General report from June that worried the TSA “lacked effective controls to ensure that aviation workers did not have disqualifying criminal histories and that they possessed lawful status and the authorization to work in the United States.”

The inspector found 73 airport workers who passed background checks, but “should have been flagged for terrorism-related categories.” TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger later argued before Congress that the true number of questionable workers was 69, not 73, and the troubling information about them “wasn’t sufficient to raise known or suspected terrorist status.”

Every review of the TSA’s actual performance argues the concerns may be valid. Screeners have consistently failed to detect explosives and weapons in security tests. Now there are serious concerns about the agency’s ability to maintain personnel security at airports.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, made this point on ABC’s This Week last Sunday. “This is a problem here at home. When we test the TSA, they fail,” said Schiff. “And I think we really need to step up our security here.”

ABC News notes that Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced on Friday that enhanced security measures would be be taken with “commercial flights bound for the U.S. from certain foreign airports.” A source told CNN those airports include Cairo, Kuwait City, and Amman, Jordan.

One official who spoke with CNN said the background checks on airport workers are comparable to those for “passengers who qualify for the TSA Precheck program, which typically allows passengers to board by walking through metal detectors instead of more invasive screening machines.”

Also see:



ISIS Bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268 poses a Global Airline Security Threat

download (9)New English Review, by Jerry Gordon, Nov. 5, 2015:


The downing of the Metrojet with its innocent Russian victims  has more than just Russian, Egyptian and Israeli concerns. From investigations by the Wall Street Journal ,  CNN and others,   security clearances for  baggage handlers, catering, and cleaning personnel with access to the tarmac and aircraft here in the US is lax.  Further investigations by the Lisa Benson Radio Show National Security Task Force of America  have revealed employment of Somali refugees  by major international groups  like ISS Worldwide A/S headquartered in Copenhagen. The US subsidiary  ISS Facility Services, Inc. is based in San Antonio.  ISS Worldwide  employs  over  a half million through their outsourced network of  airport and commercial  facilities  maintenance contracts.  ISS specializes in a broad range of facility management services including janitorial services, especially for airport authorities and major manufacturing  companies.

The Somali Muslim émigré population has been the source of both Al Shabaab and increasingly ISIS recruitment in the US.  One illustration of the inherent ISIS risk among US Somalis employed at US airports was  the reported death in September 2014  of  American Somali Émigré ISIS  Jihadi

download (8)

Abdirahmaan Muhumed, 29.  That revealed his employment as a cleaner for Delta Global Services, Inc.  that gave him security access to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.  Muhumed left behind 9 children in the Twin Cities to become an ISIS jihadi, before his death in Syria.  Muhumed had unfettered access to jetliners at the airport, which handles 90,000 passengers a day. He also had access to the tarmac and special security clearance to other parts of the airport. Muhumed had no criminal record in the United States that would have prevented him from getting a job at the airport.  This revelation following the death of Somali émigré ISIS fighter Muhumed, should raise the concerns of both the TSA and Homeland Security regarding screening of airport and aircraft maintenance personnel at US. Many of who have contracts with groups like ISS Worldwide A/S and Delta Global Services, Inc.  Moreover, without active community policing programs in the major US communities recruitment of Muhumed and other ISIS recruits could not have been detected.  Thus, the downing of the Metrojet in Egypt by alleged ISIS perpetrators reverberates here in the US.  FBI Direct James Combey has warned that ISIS jihadis lurk among us in all 50 states.



Also see:

American Airlines Recognizes 4 Employees for Leadership Including Hamas Leader Mohamed El Sharkawy of Arizona

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sep. 25, 2015:

American Airlines, one of the largest airlines on the planet, recently gave a leadership award to Hamas leader Mohamed El Sharkawy, who is in charge of American’s Line Maintenance Training at their Phoenix, Arizona hub.

Hamas Leader Mohamed El Sharkawy (far left) and 3 other AA employees receive award

Hamas Leader Mohamed El Sharkawy (far left) and 3 other AA employees receive award

The September edition of American Airlines’ magazine – American Way – revealed Mohamed El Sharkawy received the 2015 Earl G. Graves Award for Leadership in Diversity and Inclusion “for (his) work in making a lasting impression in the workplace.”

The award was given to Sharkawy at the end of June, but was published in American Airlines’ American Way in September.


Mohamed El Sharkawy was previously the Director for Hamas in Arizona, doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations or CAIR.  Evidence, some of which is listed below, reveals CAIR was created by the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) in 1994 to be a node for Hamas in America to provide the Hamas cause with “media, money, men, and all that” meaning propaganda, fundraising, recruits, and all else that comes with waging jihad.

Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

Is this the kind of individual who should have access to sensitive areas of Phoenix Airport or American Airlines?

American Airlines Public Affairs Office refused to comment on El Sharkawy’s employment, but encouraged UTT (Understanding the Threat) to contact the FBI if threat information exists.

El Sharkawy is also serves as the Chairman of the Arizona Muslim Police Advisory Board.

A massive amount of evidence collected over the past 20 years exists revealing CAIR is a Hamas organization.  Here are a few highlights:

  1. CAIR was incorporated in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber, all of whom were leaders of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), a now-defunct Hamas organization in the U.S. Musa Abu Marzook, the Deputy Political Chief for Hamas and the Leader of Hamas in the United States (Chairman of the U.S. Palestine Committee), was a member of the IAP Board of Directors.
  2. In the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas 2008 – U.S. government prosecutors and the Department of Justiceidentify CAIR as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States, and an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
  3. CAIR was founded, in part, with money from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a convicted Hamas organization.
  4. CAIR Founder Omar Ahmad aka Omar Yehya was on the Executive Committee for the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas), and is the Chairman Emeritus of CAIR.
  5. In 1993, the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas) met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The meeting was covered by the FBI via physical surveillance, microphones in meeting rooms, wiretaps on phones, etc. TheFBI stated this was a “Meeting among senior leaders of Hamas, the HLFRD, and the IAP.” (Action Memo from FBI Counterterrorism Assistant Director Dale Watson). “All attendees of this meeting are Hamas members.” (FBI analysis of Philadelphia meeting entered into evidence at HLF trial). Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad – founders of CAIR – were present at this meeting.
  6. The Palestine Committee Meeting in 1994 lists CAIR as the 4th organization operating under it (Hamas). This document was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial.
  7. In the December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal, the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  8. In a 2004 FBI raid at the Annandale, Virginia residence of Ismail Elbarasse, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leader, the archives of the U.S. MB were discovered. One of the documents found listed the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas). On the list were the names of CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad (alias Omar Yeheya).
  9. In the government filing requesting CAIR’s motion to have its name removed from the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations…the mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas.”
  10. The Federal Judge in this case, Jorge Solis, stated: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”
  11. FBI Assistant Director Steve Pomeranz stated: “By masquerading as a mainstream public affairs organization, CAIR has taken the lead in trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic movements, in particular, Hamas.”
  12. In a 2003 Senate Sub-Committee hearing on radical Islam, Senator Charles Schumer (NY) stated, “To make matters worse, the prominent members of the Council’s (CAIR’s) current leadership who you Mr. Chairman invited to the hearings today, they declined to testify, also have intimate connections with Hamas.”
  13. In a letter dated February 12, 2010 to U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich, Mr. Weich wrote “Enclosed (is) evidence that was introduced in that trial (US v HLF) which demonstrated the relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas.”
  14. In June 2009, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf (VA) gave a lengthy speech in which he laid out a great deal of the evidence against CAIR and its ties to Hamas. The transcript of this speech can be found at: http:// cooperation-with-cair
  15. In a letter dated April 28, 2009 from the FBI’s Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, to U.S. Senator John Kyl (AZ), the FBI leader details why the FBI cut off all formal ties to CAIR and identifies it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial because of its relationship with Hamas.

This information constitutes a small amount of the massive evidence that CAIR operates as a Hamas entity in the United States.  Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.  Their leaders should be in jail, and should certainly not have access to our airlines, airports, or infrastructure.

UTT encourages citizens who fly on American Airlines to contact them and ask why they employ a terrorist.

American Airlines Press/Media Office:

817-967-1577 (8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. CST, Monday-Friday)
817-931-1348 (after-hours duty manager)

Also see:


Obama4Report says 85,000 suggested for 2016, 100,000 for fiscal 2017

WND, Sep. 17, 2015:

As millions of Syrians flee ISIS tyranny and violence, the Obama administration already is pushing higher the numbers of people he hopes to relocate to the United States.

Senior national security officials are discussing boosting the projected number from 70,000 in 2015 to 85,000 in 2016 and then 100,000 in 2017, reports Josh Rogin at Bloomberg View,

Importantly, the White House has until Sept. 30 to make a final determination on the number it will accept for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, and it could go higher yet.

Rogin said three administration officials gave him the numbers, and if the National Security Council Principals Committee agrees, the plan soon could be on President Obama’s desk.

The plan has the support of Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations, as well as White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.

But the problem with the plan, Rogin wrote, “no matter how quickly adopted, is how long it will take to have any effect.”

“Migrants applying for refugee asylum in the United States now will not have their applications considered until at least 2017 because of a long backlog. And once an application begins to be considered, the asylum seekers can face a further 18 to 24 months before they are granted or denied asylum.”

Read what conservative icon Ann Coulter has to say about America’s borders, in “Adios, America!”

Obama just this week called for cooperation from European countries on the migrant problem. He said it is important for the United States also to act.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration say there is resistance to a flood of newcomers, and Democrats and Republicans are divided on the issue.

Democrats charge that the U.S. isn’t doing enough, while top GOP officials have warned that taking Syrian refugees creates a national security risk, as terror-seeking individuals may come to the country amid those who truly are fleeing violence.

ISIS has confirmed its intent to infiltrate the West through the flow of migrants.

A spokesman for a Muslim-American advocacy organization, meanwhile, claimed that “right-wing extremists” in the U.S. are a bigger danger than thousands of Syrians who want entry to the U.S.

The involvement of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, in a recent “Bring Them Here March” confirmed what WND has been reporting for months – that 95 percent of the Syrian “refugees” are Muslims.

“Either we let them in, or we take the Statue of Liberty down,” Faizan Syed, executive director of CAIR for St. Louis, told KMOV-TV in St. Louis.

Meanwhile, Christians, who are being hunted down and butchered by Sunni Muslim terrorists affiliated with ISIS, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaida and other jihadist factions, have no hope of getting into America as refugees.

But Syed said there’s no concern over Syrians arriving.

Syed told independent video journalist Adam Sharp that right-wing extremism is far more dangerous than the “one-in-a-million” chance that a jihadist could slip in among the 10,000 people who are coming from Syria, which has large swaths of territory under ISIS control. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, has called it “jihadist pipeline” into the West.

Ann Corcoran, author of the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch, earlier warned that a plan to take 10,000 people was just the start.

“The flow never stops. The Somali program has been going on for about 20 years. And the Iraqis we started bringing in near the end of the George W. Bush administration, and that’s been 20,000 or so a year ever since,” Corcoran said. “Why are we still taking Somalis? It never ends, and one of the things that caused it to never end is the family reunifications. Once they’re here, then we have to bring in all their families.”

According to longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, it is Europe that should be resolving the migrant problem.

In a commentary, she wrote, “Europe has not offered to take refugees from Central America, so why are some politicians here insisting that we take many thousands of refugees from the Middle East?

“Our daily freedoms could be sharply limited if terrorists were to slip pinto our country along with migrants from areas hostile to the United States,” she wrote. “Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., warns that ‘we’re really not able to vet Middle Eastern applicants now, and if we increase that number, we’ll be even less able to do so.’

“Our welfare system is already strained by the Central American migrants who entered our country illegally and never went home. There are a potential six billion people in the world who would like to partake in the American welfare system if given the opportunity, but we cannot afford to foot the bill for everyone in the world who does not have a job.”

She continued, “We should learn from the experience of accepting about 55,000 Somali refugees between 1983 and 2004 … and taking another 27,000 Somalis between 2008 and 2013.

“An open-door policy toward Syrian refugees would be dangerous and costly for American communities.”


GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina debating last night

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina debating last night

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Sep. 17, 2015:

American voters’ concern about Islamist extremism is at the highest level since 2002, with 66% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 48% of Democrats describing it as a “critical threat.” National security is a major issue that received significant attention at last night’s Republican presidential debate.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s compilation of the candidates’ expressed stances on fighting Islamist extremism at the debate and his personal assessment of the contest’s winners and losers among national security voters.


Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is widely considered the biggest winner of the debate overall. Her performance included details on national security policy.

She criticized rivals who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran without presenting a broader strategy. She said she’d inform Iran that the regime would be prevented from moving money through the global financial system until it agrees to anytime-anywhere inspections.

Fiorina said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia because it is on the side of Iran. She said she’d provide intelligence to Egypt and armaments to Jordan to fight the Islamic State, in addition to arming the Kurds.

She advocated a military buildup that includes increasing the 6thFleet, military exercises in the Baltic States, installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad, increasing the Navy to 300-350 ships and adding 50 Army brigades and 36 Marine battalions.

Fiorina is currently in 8th place in an average of national polls with 3 percent. She is in 6th place in Iowa (5%), 4th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 6th place in South Carolina (4%).

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

Graham is the winner of the undercard debate that featured the bottom four candidates and virtually every answer of his related to national security. Of all the candidates, he was the most impressive on dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). He explicitly said he is running for president to “destroy radical Islam.” Graham said he would “rip the caliphate up by its roots” and “will kill every one of these [ISIS] bastards we can find.”

Graham’s standout moment was challenging every candidate to state whether they support increasing troop levels in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000 to fight the Islamic State, asserting that anyone who refuses to do so lacks the seriousness to be commander-in-chief. Graham’s overall plan calls for increasing U.S. troop levels to 20,000, split between Iraq and Syria.

He argued that the Islamic State grew in Syria and then propelled into Iraq because the Obama Administration rejected his recommendation that the U.S. military establish a no-fly zone in Syria and support the Free Syrian Army rebel force before it became too late.

Graham said there is no one left to train inside Syria, so the only option is a U.S.-backed regional army that includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. He said the only solution to the refugee crisis is the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

He pointed out that he’s the only candidate who has served in the military (he was in the Air Force for 33 years). Graham has spent 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of 35 trips to those countries.

Graham is currently in 14th place nationally (0.3%). He is in 14thplace in Iowa (0.3%); 12th place in New Hampshire (0.8%) and 7thplace in South Carolina (4%).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio gave the most detailed and articulate answers about foreign policy during the debate. He argued for a more interventionist U.S. policy that includes supporting democratic activists, such as by meeting with opponents of Putin in Russia.

He argued that the Syrian revolution began as a popular uprising and the Islamist terrorist presence could have been minimized if the U.S. had armed moderate rebels in the beginning of the conflict.

Rubio said that the Russian military movement into Syria is part of an overall strategy to “destroy NATO,” save the Syrian dictatorship and convince countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the U.S. for Russia.

He is currently in 5th place nationally (5%). He is in 5th place in Iowa (5%); 8th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 5th place in South Carolina (4%).

Rubio explained that he opposed giving President Obama authority to launch airstrikes on the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons because the plan involved “pinprick” airstrikes. He said that he would only support military action that has victory as an objective.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Christie struck a chord when he spoke about his experience on 9/11 and prosecuting terrorists after the attack when he was the U.S. Attorney for the state of New Jersey. He defended the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks when Carson’s opposition was brought up. He also pledged not to have deals with or meet with leaders like those in Iran who chant “Death to America.”

He is currently in 11th place nationally (2%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (2%), 9th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 12th place in South Carolina (2%).


Businessman Donald Trump

Trump failed to show any grasp on foreign policy or to outline a strategy towards Islamist extremists when pressed. When he was asked about an embarrassing interview where he appeared not to know what the Iran-linked Al-Quds Force are and the names of prominent terrorist leaders, he simply stated that he’d hire a strong team that would keep him informed on national security.

He boasted of opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He said the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian civil war and criticized President Obama for declaring that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be an intolerable “red line.” Trump said that Rubio, Paul and Cruz should have supported President Obama’s request for authority to militarily enforce the “red line.”

Trump also expressed confidence that he could work well with Russian President Putin. Fiorina, on the other hand, said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia.

He is currently in 1st place nationally (31%). He is in 1st place in Iowa (28%), 1st place in New Hampshire (30%) and 1st place in South Carolina (34%).

Read more

Also see:

Heritage Foundation Video: The 10th Anniversary of ”Winning the Long War”

711117._UY475_SS475_Heritage Foundation, Sep.10, 2015:

In Winning the Long War, experts on security, civil liberty, and economics examined post-9/11 policies and mapped out a long-term national strategy for the war on terrorism. This strategy balances prudent military and security measures with the need to protect civil liberties and maintain continued economic growth. How far have we come since? Are we better off than we were 10 years ago? This panel will discuss whether or not America has improved in its ability to provide a strong national security, ensure economic prosperity, protect individual liberty, and win the war of ideas.

Hosted by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.


Paul Rosenzweig
Founder, Reb Branch Consulting, PLLC

David Shedd
Visiting Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D.
Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory, Marine Corps University

Steve Moore
Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

John Kerry’s Letter to Congress Is a ‘Guilty’ Plea to the Charge That Iran Deal Materially Supports Terrorism

john-kerry-just-gave-russia-a-final-warningPJ Media, by Andrew McCarthy, Sep. 9, 2015:

How could any member of Congress in good conscience support a deal that so blatantly empowers a brazen enemy of the United States — a regime that has killed thousands of Americans, a regime that daily continues to call for death to America and the annihilation of Israel — to the degree that even the Obama administration openly concedes that the deal materially supports terrorism?

No sooner did Obama lock up the Democratic support he needed in the Senate to ensure his deal cannot be defeated under the farcical Corker review process than did his Iran point-man, Secretary of State John Kerry, send a letter to members of Congress promising that more military aid would be given to Iran’s enemies, Israel and the Sunni Gulf states. Let’s put aside the absurdity of vowing, as Kerry does in the letter, that Obama’s deal will promote regional peace while simultaneously acknowledging that Iran’s enemies will need “increase[d] security assistance.” If the Obama administration were charged with committing material support to terrorism, a serious felony violation of federal law, Kerry’s letter would suffice as a “Guilty” plea.

The criminal statute that prohibits “providing material support to terrorists” (section 2339A of the federal penal code, Title 18) provides a jail sentence of up to 15 years — or up to life imprisonment if death results from the offense — for anyone who:

… provides material support or resources … knowing … that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, [an act of terrorism] … or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act[.]

The statute provides a sweeping definition of “material support or resources”:

The term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials[.]

With that background, let’s turn to Kerry’s letter to members of Congress. It explicitly admits to:

Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.

Note that the State Department expressly designates both Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism.

But this admitted “support for terrorist and proxy groups” is going to stop now thanks to Obama’s deal, right? Wrong. Kerry flatly confesses (my emphasis):

We have no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action– i.e., Obama’s Iran deal.]

Obama’s Iran deal will provide Iran with over $100 billion, and opens the door to its acquisition of sophisticated weaponry (wholly apart from Iran’s nuclear development activities).

It is, in short, the most astronomical provision of material support and resources to terrorism — as that term is defined in federal law (see above) — in the history of the world.

Kerry’s letter to Congress goes on to concede that, after implementation of the deal, there will be a continuing need “to deter and combat regional threats, including terrorism and Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region.” Kerry elaborates that there will be continuing concerns about “arms transfers to Iranian backed Hizballah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militants in Iraq, as well as transfers involving North Korea.”

So, while the Obama administration ensures that money and materiel pour into Iran, Iran will continue to provide material support to terrorists, terrorist organizations, and terrorist regimes. In light of Kerry’s blatant acknowledgment of this fact, the State Department’s most recent report on Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, from 2014, is worth quoting at length:

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2014, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, Lebanese Hizballah, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. This year, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia militias, one of which is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), in response to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) incursion into Iraq, and has continued to support other militia groups in the region. Iran also attempted to smuggle weapons to Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. While its main effort focused on supporting goals in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, Iran and its proxies also continued subtle efforts at growing influence elsewhere including in Africa, Asia, and, to a lesser extent, Latin America. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Lebanese Hizballah, its primary beneficiary, and as a key pillar in its “resistance” front. In 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of primarily Iraqi Shia and Afghan fighters to support the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown that has resulted in the deaths of at least 191,000 people in Syria, according to August UN estimates.

The IRGC-QF, in concert with Lebanese Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device (IED) technology and other advanced weaponry.

Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). These Palestinian terrorist groups have been behind a number of deaths from attacks originating in Gaza and the West Bank.

[I]n a November 25 speech, Supreme Leader Khamenei highlighted Iran’s military support to “Palestinian brothers” in Gaza and called for the West Bank to be similarly armed. In December, Hamas Deputy Leader Moussa Abu Marzouk announced bilateral relations with Iran and Hamas were “back on track.”

In March, Israeli naval forces boarded the Klos C cargo ship in the Red Sea off the coast of Sudan. On board, they found 40 M-302 rockets, 180 mortars, and approximately 400,000 rounds of ammunition hidden within crates of cement labeled “Made in Iran” and believed to be destined to militants in the region.

Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Lebanese Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the IRGC Aerospace Force stated in November that “The IRGC and Hezbollah are a single apparatus jointed together,” and Lebanese Hizballah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem boasted that Iran had provided his organization with missiles that had “pinpoint accuracy” in separate November public remarks. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Lebanese Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters have used these skills in direct support of the Asad regime in Syria and, to a lesser extent, in support of operations against ISIL in Iraq. They have also continued to carry out attacks along the Lebanese border with Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas have long been formally designated foreign terrorist organizations under federal law.

Obviously, there is no disputing the Obama administration’s patent knowledge that much of the material support its deal will provide to the terror-sponsoring regime in Tehran will be funneled to these and other designated foreign terrorist organizations. This means yet another criminal statute prohibiting material support to terrorism is implicated (Section 2339B of the federal penal code).

That law states:

Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

The statute goes on to require proof that an accused person knows:

 … that the organization is a designated terrorist organization[,] … that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity[,] … or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism[.]

It is incontestable that President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their subordinates know all three things about Hezbollah and Hamas, even though the statute requires knowledge of only one of them to establish guilt.

It bears emphasizing that for all their absurd claims about how the president’s Iran deal reins in Iran’s nuclear program, even Obama administration officials feel compelled to admit that Iran will step up its material support to terrorism while it is receiving the windfall from the deal.

That is not just unconscionable; it is criminal.

How can Obama’s Iran deal conceivably be supported by anyone who claims to oppose international terrorism or support Israel?

Also see:

Migrant crisis isn’t just Europe’s problem, it’s our problem, too

People receive food after they arrived at the Western railway station in Vienna, Austria, on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015. Some hundreds of migrants arrived by train from southern Europe, after making a perilous journey into Europe. (AP Photo/Hans Punz) (The Associated Press)

People receive food after they arrived at the Western railway station in Vienna, Austria, on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015. Some hundreds of migrants arrived by train from southern Europe, after making a perilous journey into Europe. (AP Photo/Hans Punz) (The Associated Press)

Fox News, by John Bolton, Sep. 1, 2015:

Europe’s illegal immigration problems are daily growing more serious, evidenced by the human tragedies of North Africans and Middle Easterners dying at sea or in overcrowded vehicles.  Precise statistics are in short supply, but the numbers involved are unquestionably at crisis levels.

While Americans may believe that Europe, long disdainful of our own intense debate over border-security problems, is getting what it deserves, we should nonetheless focus on both the potential threats and lessons applicable to us.  One critical cause of Europe’s illegal-immigration spike is the growing chaos across the greater Middle East.  This spreading anarchy derives, in substantial part, from Barack Obama’s deliberate policy of “leading from behind” by reducing U.S. attention to and involvement in the region.  When America’s presence diminishes anywhere in the world, whatever minimal order and stability existed there can rapidly evaporate.

For years, the central cause of population movements into Europe was economic:  North Africans crossed the narrow Strait of Gibraltar or headed to France or Italy.  Turks and Arabs entered through Greece and Eastern Europe.  Once into the European Union (“EU”), thanks to the Schengen Agreement, travel barriers are now almost nonexistent, and, as in the United States, illegal aliens can essentially travel freely.

Now, however, after years of benefitting from cheap immigrant labor, Europeans are worried their borders have been too open.  High birth rates among “non-nationals” (i.e., non-Europeans, in the politically correct phrase) are changing the very shape of their citizenry.  This is particularly dramatic on the Old Continent, which has nothing like America’s tradition of the “melting pot” to absorb diverse immigrant populations.  (Of course, even in this country, “Americanization” is under attack;  ask Al Gore, who once translated E pluribus unum as “out of one, many,” exactly opposite its true meaning.)  Europeans see growing immigrant communities living separately from “national” populations, but they have few if any ideas what to do about it.

Spreading terrorism, armed conflict and collapsing political authority in the Middle East are now powerful causal factors equaling or exceeding continuing economic disparities.  Europe fears being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people on the move, thereby losing control over decisions on who to admit and who to turn away.  These concerns are legitimate, but there are deeper risks as well.  Mirroring worries in Washington, there is a serious and rising Islamicist terrorist threat hidden within the tides of people seeking refuge.

Photos of immigrants trying to storm the Eurostar train’s “chunnel” entrance in France to cross under the English Channel to Britain compete with videos of the recent terrorist attack on the Thalys high-speed train between Amsterdam and Paris.  How many boat people and others who seem to be economically motivated are actually terrorists, perhaps trained by the Islamic State in Syria or Iraq, seeking to conceal themselves among economic migrants to gain access to Europe?  This is the same issue America faces on the Mexican border.  Even the Obama administration recognizes the problem, as in 2011when it indicted senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards officials for plotting to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, using drug-cartel hit men who regularly crossed the Mexican border illegally.

Compounding the problem, tens of thousands of legitimate Middle Eastern refugees are fleeing religious genocide in their home countries, and several EU states, mostly in East and Central Europe, have moved quickly to grant them asylum.  These refugees are primarily Christians from Syria and Iraq threatened by the Islamic State or other radical jihadis, but non-Christian sects like the Yazidis are also properly and successfully seeking asylum.

Hard though it may be for some to acknowledge it explicitly, the receiving European governments feel that their humanitarian decision to provide refuge to Christians and others fleeing radical Islamicists is far safer than accepting undifferentiated populations that may contain terrorists using the true refugees as cover.  This is hardly farfetched.  In 1980, Fidel Castro deliberately and cynically emptied Cuban prisons of true criminals and allowed them to escape to American in the Mariel boatlift, along with over 100,000 legitimate refugees.  The Europeans are well to be cautious.

With the entire “European project” under enormous strain because of Greece’s financial crisis;  increasing awareness of the EU’s “democratic deficit” whereby unelected Brussels bureaucrats wield enormous authority with essentially no accountability;  and growing unease about the lack of American international leadership under Barack Obama, it is no surprise Europeans are nervous, many close to panic

The lesson for the United States is that reducing our global influence does not increase international peace and security. Quite the opposite.  Obama’s retreat from the Middle East, whether in the aftermath of Libya, his disinterest in the Islamic State’s continuing rise, or his surrender to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, are all part of the larger pattern.  Europe’s illegal immigration problem is our problem as well.

John Bolton was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 through 2006. He is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Fox News contributor

Also see:


american_flag_AP-640x480Breitbartby JAMES LYONS 28 Aug 2015:

Never in my lifetime, did I believe I would witness our great country being taken down and withdrawn from our world leadership role by our own administration.  The latest example is the flawed agreement with Iran on their nuclear weapons program.  This needs to be seen as another manifestation of President Barack Obama’s goal to fundamentally transform America.  All of the known concessions made by our administration to Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism that has been at war with us for over 35 years, and has caused the loss of thousands of American lives, including the key support to the 9/11 hijackers without which that terrorist attack could not have been carried out, humiliated us before our friends, allies and most importantly, our enemies. We have been sabotaged from within.

          Every objective that we set out to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability was conceded to Iran.  Unbelievable! In fact, the administration went beyond what I could imagine by not only agreeing to assist Iran in the development of their nuclear program but also committing us to assist in the protection of their nuclear facilities against attack and sabotage, including cyber-attack. 

Further, the fact that no American inspectors are to be allowed in Iran and incredibly, that Iran is to be allowed to conduct its own evidence collection at the key military site Parchin, are simply mind boggling concessions!   Furthermore, with no constraints on either conventional arms or their ICBM program, we are not only jeopardizing our position in the Persian Gulf but we are ignoring Iran’s previous tests and preparations for conducting an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States.  Of course, Iran does not need an ICBM for such an attack.  It could be launched from a freighter, which they have tested, or from their missile base in Venezuela—which Ambassador Roger Noriega states is currently operational.  If such an attack occurred against our unprotected national electrical grid, an estimated two out of three Americans would die in a year due to starvation, lack of medical care, and societal collapse.    Everything that our modern society depends on would be shut down, and that includes our military forces.  This is a national security issue which must be addressed now.  As Bernard Lewis, the noted Middle East expert stated, once Iran gets a nuclear weapon deterrence will not work.  Game over!  In my view, this borders on treason!

          However, these concessions and commitments are totally consistent with President Obama’s strategy to fundamentally transform America.  In his warped view, America has caused many of the world’s problems and must be humbled.  Therefore, undercutting our status as leader of the free world is seen as being objectively progressive.

          His strategy is anti-American, and anti-Western. It is pro-Islam, pro-Iran and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.   This raises the question: why the Muslim Brotherhood has been so favored by this president?  Actually, it should be very clear.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s creed to destroy America from within by our own “miserable hands” makes the perfect book-end to Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

          With President Obama’s Marxist background, it was a natural fit with Saul Alinsky who preached that, in the absence of a ripe revolutionary situation and a disciplined Bolshevik-like revolutionary party, you advance the “revolutionary cause” by under cutting the basic social and moral fiber of society, as well as the economic and military structural foundation of America at home and abroad.   Furthermore, causing agitation at low levels of society through community organizers is an important element in achieving transformation.  This explains why recent street rioting in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD, combined with the administration’s policies initiated the so-called war on police, fit a pattern for social unrest. 

          Once the Saul Alinsky concept is understood, then the crushing debt of over 8 trillion dollars since 2009 plus destroying one of the world’s finest medical programs with the forced implementation of Obamacare that represents 1/6 of our economy all makes sense.  The out-of-control immigration policies of the Obama administration, including seeding tens of thousands Muslims with essentially no background checks who have no intention of assimilating also makes perfect sense.   So does dividing America by race and racial profiling.

          The unilateral disarmament of the world’s finest military force world while we are being challenged throughout the world only makes sense in the context of “taking America down.”  The emasculation of our military forces through the social engineering forced upon our military under the guise of “diversity” further jeopardizes our national security by destroying our warrior mentality and the “will to win.”  Our military leadership’s political correctness is clearly at fault here, and they must be held accountable. 

          The out-of-control policies of this administration must be stopped if America is to be saved.  Therefore, all Americans, flood your representatives in Congress with telephone calls, faxes and e-mails demanding that impeachment proceedings be initiated against Executive Branch officials—starting with Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama.  The damage that this administration can do between now and January 2017 must be stopped now!

Also see – if you think you can handle it:

‘Sandboxing’ Islam: How to Protect America from Jihad Terrorism

image8 (1)Jihad Watch, AUGUST 21, 2015, BY

Enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) can give us the legal and tactical edge in countering the threat from Islamic supremacism.


It should be obvious for anyone with eyes to see that Islam — its scriptures, the example of Muhammad, its doctrines, and its overall ideology — is behind the spread of most terrorism and unrest in the world today. 

From the Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram, al-Nusra and al-Shabaab, to slightly older groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to lesser known jihadi organizations throughout Central Asia, India, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Rim, and China, a survey of terrorist attacks reveals Muslim involvement throughout the entire world.

Here in the United States, we are seeing a dramatic rise in Muslim “lone wolf” jihad terrorist attacks (and, as some have described them, known wolves”). Further, from all points of the compass, we are seeing literally tens of thousands of Muslims flocking to the Middle East to join the Islamic State caliphate and support the jihad with their very lives. 

The scenario gets worse. Some analysts argue that we are seriously underestimating the numbers of Western Muslims joining the Islamic State. 

Here at home, we have a “full blown insurgency.” The FBI has already arrested seventy IS-inspired Muslim terrorists, and has active investigations of IS-inspired jihad plots in all 56 of its field offices. NewsMax reports “the government’s terrorist watch list carries 700,000 to a million names.”

mosques_mapThe Challenge: Jihad-Linked Mosques

This is all indisputable fact. The threat is real and growing. Even worse, the threat is specifically from devout, observant Muslims who attend mosque. Behind every lone-or-known-wolf jihadi and every Islamic State recruit there is a mosque where they are receiving instruction in Islam.

That should give us pause, as four separate studies in recent years show that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach, preach or advocate for jihad and the imposition of sharia law in America. 

Confirming these mosque studies are proven links between mosques and terrorists.  For example, one of the two Mississippi Muslims recently arrested for trying to join the Islamic State is the son of the imam at the local mosque. Many terror-linked mosques have spawned multiple jihadis. The Phoenix mosque attended by the Garland TX jihadis is notorious for having two other members in federal prison on terrorism-related convictions. Perhaps most infamous is the Islamic Society of Boston, which was attended not only by the Boston Marathon Bombers, but by numerous other jihad-terror-linked Muslims. The list goes on and on.

For many people, especially in our political class and certainly among the 2016 field of presidential candidates, there seems to be no solution to this national security nightmare of terror-linked mosques and known wolf jihadis. To date, there is no coherent, principle-based policy to address Islamic terrorism in the United States. 

The Solution: ‘Sandboxing’ Islam in America

This is where I believe the simple analogy of “Sandboxing” can help us.

You’ve probably heard the term, even if you’re not a computer geek. One tech source offers this definition:

A “sandbox” is a play area for young children: it is supposed to be safe for them (they cannot hurt themselves) and safe from them (it is sand, they cannot break it). In the context of IT security, “sandboxing” means isolating some piece of software in such a way that whatever it does, it will not spread havoc elsewhere.

If we think of America as being, ideally, a safe and free place for its citizens, within which we should be able to live, work, play, and, as the ubiquitous bumper sticker says, “Coexist,” then when it comes to Islam and Muslims, we need a solution analogous to the IT security process of “sandboxing.” We need to isolate malicious jihadi forces, “in such a way that whatever they do, they will not spread havoc elsewhere.”

What would “sandboxing” look like when it comes to Muslims in America? In practice, it could include the following policies:

  • A moratorium — a complete freeze — on Muslim immigration. Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul expressed a similar policy concept following the Chattanooga jihad murders of five US servicemen, proposing a halt to immigration from Muslim countries with known jihad activity. Going one step further, Franklin Graham wrote at the same time that “We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled.
  • All mosques must be classified and treated as “agents of foreign power,” in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a U.S. law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938.

The law presciently allows for application in gray areas such as Islam presents, as it states that any entity with a “political or quasi-political capacity” disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate “evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.” [Source]

Islam certainly thinks and behaves like a foreign power, is guided in America by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis and other foreign Islamic groups, and has a definite political dimension. (See also here.)

  • Any and all mosques associated with Muslim terrorists must be investigated, and if found to be advancing jihad doctrine, sharia law, and Islamic supremacism over the United States, they should be prosecuted and closed, in accordance with the FARA act referenced above.
  • Stop all foreign funding of mosques, whether by FARA, new legislation, or executive power. We already know that Saudi Arabia is providing extensive funding to advance its extremist Wahhabi strain of Islam worldwide, including of mosques in America, as is Turkey. There already exist covert lobbying groups for Muslim nations, including Iran.

 These are just some starting points to aid in getting this conversation going. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has an 18-point platform with similar policy proposals which may be considered as well.

We must have hope that, just as illegal immigration has become a major issue in the presidential race, so also we may be successful in elevating public awareness of the clear and present danger from Islam and Muslim jihad terrorists. This is a generational if not century-long struggle ahead of us, and should resonate with voters.

The concept of “sandboxing” is, I believe, the most helpful image in making our case to not only the American people, but also to the political elite and the 2016 candidates. 

We must publicly challenge the Republican presidential candidates to take the initiative, and to fearlessly raise the issue of Islam up to the same level as Immigration. We must demand of them to be bold and daring when it comes to defeating jihad. The defense of our nation, our freedoms, and the lives of our fellow citizens and men-and-women in uniform should be paramount for whoever would be Commander-in-Chief. This issue will be topmost on that person’s desk in the Oval Office from Day One. Better to tackle it now with a strong and visionary policy, than to be knocked back on our heels by a surprise attack in 2017.

Now is the time to put misbehaving Muslims and their terror-linked-mosques on time-out. Islam is at war with us. More and more Muslims are heeding the summons from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, taking up arms against us in this war, and killing American citizens right here at home. Denying the reality and threat of Islamic jihad is not a valid policy, it is civilizational suicide.

It is time to “sandbox” Islam in America, and use decisive, legal means to counter its threat to our freedoms and our way of life.


Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

Also see: