The Obama Administration’s Homeland Security Hypocrisy

usa-obama-450x295by :

After years of working hard to comfort America’s terrorist enemies and erase U.S. borders, the nation’s perpetually embattled attorney general is suddenly concerned that Middle Eastern jihadists are working together to create undetectable explosives that could be used to blow up U.S. airliners.

Intelligence reports suggest Islamic terrorists in Yemen and Syria have joined forces to make the stealthy bombs and this development is “more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” Eric Holder said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The collaboration between Islamist militants in the two Muslim countries is a “deadly combination” of those who have technical skills and “people who have this kind of fervor to give their lives in support of a cause that is directed at the United States and directed at its allies.”

“It’s something that gives us really extreme, extreme concern,” Holder said.

Holder’s comments come as the U.S.Department of Homeland Security announced it was ratcheting up security measures at international airports. Individuals will now be made to demonstrate that their electronic devices such as cellphones and laptop computers are not bombs by turning them on at security checkpoints.

Such measures are “prudent steps that are necessary to protect the flying public,” Holder said.

Yet while Holder pretends to be a responsible adult, at the same time evidence has surfaced that security measures have been all but suspended at U.S. airports for newly arrived illegal immigrants in the southern states.

Breitbart Texas reports that illegals are being allowed to board commercial airliners without valid ID. “The aliens who are getting released on their own recognizance are being allowed to board and travel commercial airliners by simply showing their Notice to Appear forms,” said Hector Garza, a spokesman for Local 2455 of the National Border Patrol Council. (NBPC is the labor union representing about 17,000 Border Patrol agents and support personnel assigned to that law enforcement organization.)

“This is not the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] or another federal agency renting or leasing an aircraft, these are the same planes that the American public uses for domestic travel,” said Garza.

This just adds insult to injury. Not only are we releasing unknown illegal aliens onto American streets, but we are allowing them to travel commercially using paperwork that could easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer. The Notice to Appear form has no photo, anyone can make one and manipulate one. They do not have any security features, no watermark, nothing. They are simply printed on standard copy paper based on the information the illegal alien says is the truth.

Added Garza:

We do not know who these people are, we often have to solely rely on who they say they are, where they say they came from, and the history they say they have. We know nothing about most of them, ICE releases them into the American public, and now they are boarding aircraft at will with a simple paper document that anyone can easily alter or reproduce themselves.

Central Americans are not the only people crossing our border and being released. Does anyone actually think that cartels and others criminal or possible terrorist organizations are not taking advantage of the fact that we are having to leave our border wide open while we reassigning the majority of our agents to process family units and minors? Of course this situation is being exploited by such threats.

NBPC Vice President Shawn Moran told Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL’s Larry  O’Connor yesterday that the ongoing invasion by illegal aliens is straining Border Patrol resources.

“We don’t normally have these large groups of people trying to surrender to us,” Moran said. “They are tying up officers in the field and we believe this is being orchestrated for the benefit of the drug cartels.”

The Border Patrol has caught plenty of illegal immigrants from countries that the U.S. regards as state sponsors of terrorism, he said, adding he is concerned that terrorists are “trying to fit in with the groups that we’re catching.”

Obama administration officials like Holder are now giving Oscar-worthy performances, posing as public servants deeply worried about the nation’s porous southern border. They are providing political cover for the president who has been trying ever since his January 2009 swearing-in to generate disorder at the border.

President Obama gave a green light to the current wave of illegal immigrants when he indicated he has no interest in enforcing U.S. immigration laws.

Read more at Front Page

Obama DHS Adviser: ‘Inevitable That Caliphate Returns’

Mohamed-Elibiary-Twitterby KERRY PICKET:

Mohamed Elibiary, a member on the Obama administration’s Homeland Security Advisory Council, and is at the center of a controversy involving allegations that DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano gave him secret clearance to download classified information. According to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Elibiary later shopped that classified material around to a reporter.

Elibiary, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood who regularly goes after the Sisi led Egyptian government,  is also an active participant on Twitter and mocked the “freak out” by U.S. talking heads discussing the terrorist activities relating to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

me tweets

me tweet2

me tweet3

me tweet4

Elibiary’s reference to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) goes back to a 2011 resolution the Obama administration approved of. At the time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to a U.N. Human Rights Council proposal known as “resolution 16/18″.  CNS News reported at the time:

The head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has acknowledged that a U.N. religious tolerance resolution heavily promoted by the Obama administration has the same aims as the Islamic bloc’s annual “religious defamation” resolutions, which Western democracies have consistently opposed for more than a decade.

The State Department this week hosted three days of talks with foreign governments and international organizations, including the OIC, on implementing “resolution 16/18,” a measure adopted “by consensus” – without a vote – at the U.N. Human Rights Council last March and set to be endorsed by the full U.N. General Assembly within days.

The resolution, formally entitled “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” has been championed by the administration – and some human rights advocacy groups – as a historic achievement, in that it supposedly seeks a balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

It was hailed as a shift away from earlier “defamation of Islam” (later changed to “defamation of religion”) resolutions introduced by the OIC, and duly voted through each year at both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly – in recent years, by steadily smaller margins.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday told the closing session of the meeting at the State Department that the adoption of resolution 16/18 had “ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore.”

A problem with resolution 16/8 is how other countries will choose to interpret the resolution’s language. CNS News also interviewed Elizabeth Kendal, an international religious liberty analyst and advocate who said resolution 16/18 was “far from being a breakthrough for free speech … is actually more dangerous than” the religious defamation resolutions.”

Also see:

Obama’s Manufactured Crisis at the Border

Illegal-Immigration-450x300by :

On March 20, 2013, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the topic of “Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values.” I concluded my prepared testimony for that hearing by saying,

Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter’s pistol has been fired and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent I recall that Doris Meissner who was, at the time, the commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be “customer oriented.” Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented what Ms. Meissner and too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the “customers” of the INS and of our government in general, are the citizens of the United States of America.

As bad as things were 15 months ago when I testified before that Senate hearing, things have gotten far worse. A human tidal wave of young illegal aliens is now crashing on America’s southern border each and every day. They have been spurred on by the clear messages being sent to aspiring illegal aliens from around the world that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency that is charged with protecting our homeland, has been reduced to providing concierge service for aliens who violate our borders and violate our immigration laws.

It has been said that we only get one opportunity to make a first impression. Generally speaking, the first laws foreign nationals encounter when they deal with the United States are our immigration laws. The statements of the president and high-ranking members of his administration could not provide more encouragement to people from around the world that our borders and our laws do not matter.

When Congress repeatedly refused to go along with the DREAM Act, the president acted unilaterally invoking what he deemed “prosecutorial discretion” to provide hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who may be as old as 31 years of age with temporary lawful status, including employment authorization, if they claim to have entered the United States before their 16th birthday. I purposely used the term “if they claim” because these hundreds of thousands of un-inspected aliens will most likely not be interviewed nor will agents be made available to conduct investigations into the applications that they file. This is a virtual open invitation to fraud.

On June 17, 2012 Fox News Latino published my op-ed “Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress,” in which I raised my concerns about this ill-conceived program initiated by the president to do an end-run around Congress, the legislative process and, indeed, the Constitution.

It is vital to note that the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a key tool used by terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves in the country, yet the issue of the 9/11 Commission, its report or the companion report issued by the 9/11 Commission staff known as The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel, are almost never raised by politicians from either side of the political aisle.

Here is the way that the preface of the staff report on terrorist travel begins:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits”:

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

While advocates for comprehensive immigration reform refer to aliens who evade the inspections process as simply being “undocumented” in an obvious attempt to minimize the true significance of how they violated our laws, the hard truth is that they are un-inspected. The term my colleagues and I used at the former INS to describe this method of entering the United States is EWI (Entry Without Inspection).

On June 3rd I was interviewed by Andrew Wilkow on his program on the Blaze TV Network about the crisis on our border created by our own government.

As I noted during my interview, no rational person would get on board an airliner if he (she) saw fellow passengers get onto that airplane after sneaking past the TSA personnel at an airport. Today, however, Americans in every town and city across this vast nation are being forced to live among unknown millions of foreign nationals who evaded a similar inspection process conducted at ports of entry.

One of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness. Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment or become public charges.

While many Republican politicians may publicly decry the failures of the administration to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, in point of fact they take no meaningful action because they also want to see a massive influx of aliens into the United States to satisfy the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors. They see the current disaster on our border as a win/win. They can make all of the statements that they want criticizing the president and yet, without lifting a finger, their contributors get what they want. Meanwhile the Republicans don’t leave any fingerprints at the “scene of the crime.”

Indeed, what is taking place is a crime, apparently violating the provisions of Title 8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, a section of law that is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The law states that it is a felony to aid, abet, encourage or induce aliens to enter our country illegally or remain in our country illegally.

Read more at Front Page

DHS Stonewalls Congress on ‘Hands Off’ Permitting Those with Terror Ties into U.S.

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

By Adam Kredo:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is refusing to answer Congress’ questions about the existence of a secret terrorist “hands off” list that is said to have permitted individuals with terrorist ties easy entrance into the United States.

The existence of the hands-off list was first publicized earlier this month by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who released a cache of internal DHS emails detailing the list’s existence and a discussion about permitting an alleged member of the Muslim Brotherhood to enter the United States.

The revelation that individuals tied to terrorists were given special treatment drew outrage among lawmakers and led U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), one of the agencies involved with the list, to hold a closed-door briefing with Grassley’s staff last week, according to a senior Senate source with knowledge of the meeting.

The Washington Free Beacon has further reported that the documents are part of a larger campaign by DHS and its former head Janet Napolitano to purge the internal security records of potentially hundreds of terror suspects, allowing them to more easily travel in and out of the United States.

When questioned by Grassley’s staff last week during the closed-door briefing, CBP officials refused to answer multiple questions about the purported “hands off” list, according to Grassley spokeswoman Beth Pellett Levine.

“The briefing on Tuesday yielded next to nothing,” Levine told the Free Beacon.

CBP officials would not address the specific emails detailing the “hands-off” list and maintained that no such record existed.

CBP’s attempts to explain “the discrepancy” between the internal emails released by Grassley—which specifically mentioned the existence of such a list—and the official denials by CBP leaders were “unpersuasive,” according to Levine.

CBP officials further refused to get “into details of the case,” making it virtually impossible for the senator’s staff to get concrete answers about the controversial list.

Grassley’s staff is currently working to organize “a more detailed briefing” during which specific details of the list can be revealed, according to Levine.

When asked about the briefing Wednesday, a CBP spokesman directed the Free Beacon to DHS for comment. DHS did not respond to multiple requests seeking comment on the issue.

Read more at Free Beacon

DHS Secretly Allowed Suspects with Terror Ties Into Country

 

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

BY: Adam Kredo:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that permitted individuals with terrorist ties unfettered entrance into the United States, according to document released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa).

The existence of a “hands off” list that permitted easy entrance for suspect individuals into the United States has drawn concern from Grassley, who released a cache of internal DHS emails detailing the list’s existence and discussion about permitting an alleged member of the Muslim Brotherhood to enter the United States.

The emails—sent between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—reveal a row over the admittance of one alleged Muslim Brotherhood official tied to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups.

While the individual in question is not named in the heavily redacted emails, the Washington Free Beacon has learned that the person referenced is Jamal Badawi, a Canadian Islamist leader who has praised suicide bombing and is close to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Additionally, the emails reveal a larger campaign by DHS and its former head Janet Napolitano to purge internal records of hundreds of terror suspects, including Badawi, who had his records purged in December 2010.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon and had reviewed unredacted versions of the emails indicated that many files pertaining to foreign terror suspects may have been purged by DHS. The sources said congressional investigators are currently looking into the matter.

The emails between ICE and CBP that were released by Grassley show confusion as to why Badawi was being permitted entrance into the United States.

“I’m puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of [redacted], say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that [it] is ok for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted,” one official wrote in the May 2012 emails released by Grassley.

“It doesn’t appear that we’ll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow but maybe we could re-evaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago,” the email states.

One of the unnamed officials goes on to state: “Based on a review of the statements of the subject, I think it is clear that he [Badawi] meets the definition of endorsing and inciting.”

Grassley, in his initial letter to DHS on the matter, asked that officials explain why Badawi was removed from the terror watch list and to “describe the nature, extent, and reasons for the involvement of the DHS secretary or her staff in the removal of the individual from the watchlist.”

Read more at Free Beacon

Boko Haram and the Failure of Obama’s Counter-terrorism Strategy

hillary_obama_glare_reuters Breitbart, By Katie Gorka, May 10, 2014:

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department failed to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization, in spite of the fact that Boko Haram had become second only to the Taliban as the deadliest terrorist organization. Clinton will rightly have to bear blame for that, but the lack of a designation also reflects the much deeper problem of the Obama administration’s overall approach to Islamic extremism. It is an approach that has led to bad policies, not only with regard to Boko Haram, but also to Iran, the Syrian rebels, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi.

The heart of the problem is that President Barack Obama and many of his top counter-terrorism advisers see Islamic extremism from the leftist perspective of social movement theory. Originating in the socialist labor movements of the 1800s and revived with the protest movements of the 1960s, social movement theory seeks to understand collective action. Academics concerned with what they saw as the relationship between “cultural imperialism” and “Islamic movements” began looking at Islamist extremism through the lens of social movement theory around 1984. It might have remained an obscure academic pursuit but for the fact that Obama elevated one of its principle proponents, Quintan Wiktorowicz, to the position of Senior Director for Global Engagement at the National Security Staff, where he became an architect of Obama’s counter-extremism strategy.

The singular impact of Wiktorowicz was to shift the focus away from the ideology driving Islamic extremism and to recast it as “Islamic activism.” He argued that Islamist violence is not a function of the call to jihad found in the Qu‘ran or in various contemporary fatwas, but is rather a calculated and rational response to state oppression:

In contrast to popular views of Islamic radicals as fanatics engaged in irrational, deviant, unpredictable violence, we argue that violent contention is the result of tactical considerations informed by the realities of repressive contexts. Islamists engage in a rational calculus about tactical efficacy and choose modes of contention they believe will facilitate objectives or protect their organizational and political gains. Violence is only one of myriad possibilities in repertoires of contention and becomes more likely where regimes attempt to crush Islamic activism through broad repressive measures that leave few alternatives. …From this perspective, violent Islamist contention is produced not by ideational factors or unstable psychological mentalities but rather by exogenous contingencies created through state policy concerning Islamists.

Thus, terrorism becomes “a mode of contention,” and terrorists are not to blame for their violence; “exogenous contingencies” are at fault. Sources in the Koran, Islamic jurisprudence, or even contemporary calls to jihad are not to blame; state policy is. Dr. Mohammed M. Hafez, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who also influenced U.S. policy, echoes this perspective in his book Why Muslims Rebel:

Muslims rebel because of an ill-fated combination of institutional exclusion, on the one hand, and on the other, reactive and indiscriminate repression that threatens the organizational resources and personal lives of Islamists. Exclusionary and repressive political environments force Islamists to undergo a near universal process of radicalization.

Radical Islamists, therefore, bear no personal responsibility for their acts of terrorism or disruption. Rather, they are forced by a political environment that excludes or represses them to undergo an inevitable process of radicalization.

For the Obama administration, Islamist extremism (except for Al Qaeda) is not a categorical evil which stands opposed to America’s good; it is, rather, an extreme expression—among a range of expressions—of protest against legitimate grievances. Islamic radicals such as Boko Haram are not responsible for their actions; they are forced to radicalism by their circumstances. And it definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, not even a distorted version of Islam.

On the very day that the U.S. announced the designation of Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that “Boko Haram’s activities call our attention not just to violence, but also to poverty and inequality in Nigeria.” The State Department’s 2012 report on human rights in Nigeria spends far more time on abuses by Nigeria’s security forces than it does on Boko Haram’s violence. The report states, “The population’s grievances regarding poverty, government and security force corruption, and police impunity and brutality created a fertile ground for recruiting Boko Haram members.” By all accounts, police brutality and incompetence in Nigeria were on an epic scale, but as Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) famously said at a hearing on Boko Haram, to blame terrorism on poverty is a disservice to the millions of poor people across the globe who never turn to violence.

Because of the Muslim-extremist-as-victim meme, the administration generally, and the State Department particularly, have repeatedly portrayed Muslims as the principle victims of groups such as Boko Haram, with Christians only a minor side note. The State Department has repeatedly said that Boko Haram is not religiously motivated and is more destructive to Muslims than to Christians. On the day Boko Haram was designated an FTO, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said that Boko Haram “had killed numerous Christians and an even greater number of Muslims,” in spite of the fact that attacks on Christians represented 46% and on Muslims only 3%, according to Jubilee Campaign.

The argument currently being put forth by the mainstream media is that the United States has been poised and ready to help Nigeria, but that Nigeria has been slow to ask, and that is a message likely coming directly from the White House. Now that the world has woken up to the evil being perpetrated by Boko Haram, President Obama is trying to portray himself as caring deeply about this issue. He told ABC News that he hoped the event would help “to mobilize the entire international community to finally do something against this horrendous organization that’s perpetrated such a terrible crime.” And Michelle Obama tweeted a photo of herself holding a sign that read: “#BringBackOurGirls.”

But members of the Obama administration—from the President himself to his National Security Staff to his Secretary of State and to his undersecretaries and their staffs—have all, until this episode, downplayed Boko Haram’s truly evil nature and prevented steps from being taken much earlier that could have prevented this tragedy, and those 276 abducted girls, instead of being held hostage, could still be sitting at their desks doing their schoolwork.

While social movement theory might provide insights into the formation and operation of Islamic activists, it cannot provide a foundation for American counter-terrorism policy. To do so is both detrimental to U.S. national security and to the security of numerous nations who are in a life-or-death struggle with the threat. The United States must stop the misguided narrative that terrorism and extremism have nothing to do with Islam. As Dr. Sebastian Gorka said in testimony to members of Congress, “We need to bankrupt transnational jihadist terrorism as its most powerful point: its narrative of global religious war.” Until the U.S. begins to acknowledge and address the ideology, we will not be able to challenge its ability to recruit, motivate, and inspire those who would abduct innocent schoolgirls.

Katie Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security. She is the coeditor of Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism.

ISNA Official’s U.S. Visits Draw Senator’s Attention

Obama wants to train Libyan pilots, again

alqaida-libyaWND, By Alana Cook, 4/23/14

WASHINGTON – Back in 1979 when a mob attacked and burned the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, Libya, while an unstable Moammar Gadhafi was in power, American officials decided to respond by banning Libyan nationals from entering the U.S. to train as pilots or nuclear scientists.

Now, following a 2012 attack by Islamists that killed America’s ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and the Arab Spring that destabilized other North African and Middle Eastern nations, and which, according to one analysis, left “particularly severe” fragmentation of Libyan society so that the “chances of the country’s dissolution are high,” American officials want to drop that ban.

The request to lift the Reagan-era passport ban that restricts Libyan nationals from entering the U.S. to train for those two positions is coming from officials with the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission – because, “It simply isn’t needed to keep America safe from harm.”

It was earlier this month at a joint congressional hearing that House Oversight and Government Reform Committee members pressed Border Security Subcommittee officials to give sound reasoning for the current administration’s request in light of late-March reports that indicate Libya is overrun by al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist-backed Islamist militias and is on the verge of a civil war.

A commentary at Gatestone Institute even noted there is a move to bring an Islamic monarchy back to Libya.

And according to a just-released report by Clare M. Lopez of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, “Early 2011 was swarming with al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood militias and affiliates fighting to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.”

But Democrats are calling the restriction “an anachronistic relic of a bygone era.”

“Why are we willing to risk, no matter the likelihood, chancing Libyan extremists or terrorists to come here to essentially learn the skills to commit acts of terror … why now specifically? What has changed? The burden of advocating for change, in my judgment, in the status quo lies with the administration,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in testimony.

Oversight committee members cited Obama’s “failed” promise to secure diplomatic posts worldwide immediately following the 2012 Benghazi attacks.

“I have also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world,” Obama said then. “Make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.”

But nothing has happened yet.

According to Oversight testimony, DHS Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and Chief Diplomatic Officer Alan Bersin, formerly an Obama recess appointee, wrote a memo last February to then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano recommending the secretary take regulatory action to rescind the rule. His rationale for rescinding the rule echoed the same reasons CBP officials gave during the testimony.

Bersin stated in the memo, “DHS has determined that maintaining this regulation would no longer reflect current U.S. government policy toward Libya” while failing to mention the Benghazi attacks.

“What’s most surprising is that the memo postdates the tragic day in Benghazi when our country lost four Americans during a terrorist attack,” Oversight Committee member Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said in the hearing.

Chaffetz said Libya was so broken down at the time of the attacks that it was impossible to obtain ground intelligence.

“We couldn’t even send our FBI into eastern Libya for 18 days because it was so dangerous. We couldn’t get the intelligence that we needed. We couldn’t even get the FBI to go into that part of the country. And yet we want to give those same people a visa to come to the United States to learn about nuclear sciences. Wow,” Chaffetz said.

While failing to describe the state of chaos in Libya, Bersin in his memo cited the current administration’s plan to “encourage engagement and educational exchanges in coming years with the Libyan government.”

He said the Defense Department is involved in a $2 billion deal to purchase aircraft and conduct pilot training and ground crew training and that the money would go to other countries if the visa restrictions on Libyans were not lifted.

“The Departments of Defense and State have made it clear that absent its rescission the regulation will significantly hamper these efforts,” he said in the memo.

To support their argument, Democrats said recent Defense Department reports state the fleet is aging, needs repair, more flight crew members need to be trained, and the only thing standing in the way of procurement are the visa restrictions. Democrats cited partisan policy as the roadblock to Libya’s successful transition to a democratic government.

“Members on the other side of the aisle may raise the unfortunate attacks in Benghazi at this hearing today. But that event actually underscores why we should lift the visa restriction. On the night of the attack, it was one of those very same Lockheed C-130 transport planes that the Libyan government used to rescue and evacuate the surviving consular personnel at the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Rather than used against us, that plane helped Americans survive,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said in testimony.

In a column recently published at Accuracy in Media, Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, said that on the heels of the attacks, a new presidential finding cemented policy to lend material support to terrorism.

“The next chapter in the U.S. jihad wars was under way … and the American people barely noticed,” she said.

Senior Homeland Security Adviser Slams Egypt’s Christian Copts

Elibiary4BY RYAN MAURO:

The Coptic Christians of Egypt are — by any definition – victims, especially since the fall of Mubarak, but senior Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary disagrees. To him, the Copts are to be reprimanded for promoting “Islamophobia” and opposing the Muslim Brotherhood.

The estimated eight million Christians of Egypt have rallied behindthe presidential candidacy of General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, who led the military in overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood rulers. Under his leadership, the Brotherhood has been banned as a terrorist organization. El-Sisi promised to rebuild or repair churches damaged by Brotherhood supporters and has even called for a reformation in Islam.

“If Egypt had not been saved by Sisi, you would have seen an exodus of all the Christians from Egypt,” says Naguib Sawiris, a high-profile Christian businessman in Egypt.

No one can rightly blame the Christians for backing El-Sisi, even if there are concerns about his government’s violations of civil liberties. The Christians view him as their rescuer and a strongman who can oversee a transition to a democracy. His main competitor, Hamdeen Sabahi, supports Al-Qaeda when it kills U.S. soldiers and is not viewed as a viable candidate.

Mohamed Elibiary, an openly pro-Muslim Brotherhood senior advisor to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, takes issue with the Copts support for El-Sisi. In a tweet on April 12, he linked to a TIME Magazine article titled, “Christians and Tyrants.” He added that some Coptic leaders and activists “have been extremely unwise & immoral.” The tweet can be seen below:

Elibiary was previously taken to task in September for his criticisms of the Copts. He tweeted that, since 9/11, “extremist American Coptic activists have nurtured anti-Islam and anti-Muslim sentiments.” In another, he spoke of the “need to reform Coptic activism in US including stop[ping] promoting Islamophobia.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Islamist Propaganda – at taxpayers expense

Following September 11, 2001 corporations and government organizations stepped up training programs to educate employees regarding Islam and the American Muslim communities. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with local affiliated groups, quickly pushed for inclusion to place sympathetic individuals on advisory boards. The selling point being that only “good” Muslims can provide guidance on how to counter the threat posed by ”bad” Muslims.

For law enforcement and security entities, there was a move on the other side the spectrum to provide operational training to help personnel recognize and deal with extremist threats. These programs were presented by a variety of sources and usually included a level of profiling that many American Muslim leaders found offensive. Pushing the “political correctness buttons”, CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) campaigned to have any training/educational items they deemed offensive purged and replaced with programs they endorsed.

The Islamists encountered a “bump” in the road around 2007-2008 when the FBI brass finally realized they had a slight problem. CAIR  had been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. It’s simply bad PR to have the U.S. Government’s lead law enforcement agency knocking elbows with a group funding the likes of Hamas.

muellerBy the fall of 2008, FBI headquarters had cut all ties with CAIR and instructed field offices to do the same. Then FBI director Mueller reaffirmed the ban on working with CAIR during congressional testimony in 2011. It appears Mueller’s orders to “cease and desist” relations with CAIR were apparently not followed by all offices and an Inspector General (IG) investigation was initiated in 2012.

Director Mueller was working another agenda as well. On February 8, 2012 he met secretly with a number of Islamist groups to advise them that the FBI had removed several hundred pages of documents that might be deemed“offensive” to Muslims. As reported by Patrick Poole in the www.theblaze.com, Mueller’s meeting appears to be only part of push by the Obama administration to appease Islamic outreach groups – the effort was government wide. According to Poole’s article:

Among other “don’ts” declared by DHS was this warning:
Don’t use training that relies on fear or conspiracies to motivate law enforcement. Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include…Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations who true desire is to establish Sharia law in America.

(I strongly recommend reading Poole’s article for an eye-opening account of the level of appeasement the U.S. government is willing go to.)

The above makes it clear that Islamists made significant inroads to influence U.S. national policy decisions by simply feeding on the politically correct fears of western society. The added benefit – a trickle down effect to state and local agencies that are coerced to follow federal policies/trends in order to enjoy the fruits of federal grants. By removing training that might be offensive to Muslims, the only option left would be training that Muslims don’t find offensive. In other words, only training that the Islamists approve.

Placing an emphasis on cultural awareness, a play has been made towards agency heads and program managers to promote”safe” and “politically correct” training – basically, content that they’d like to hear instead of content they need to hear. Still, the stigma of the terror funding label applied to CAIR and associated groups presents a difficult sell to have recognized Islamist groups present such training.  Socially attractive and non-threatening solution are needed.

cculturesEnter Connecting Cultures, LLC (www.connecting-cultures.net) …

With a move away from anti-terror themed awareness towards a “we are the world” mentality for many organizations, this company has managed to fill the vacuum created with the purge of many of the training programs found to be offensive to Muslims.  Promoted as a GSA approved contractor, the Justice Department features some of their publications on it’s website. According to the Connecting Cultures website, their list of clients, include:

U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Federal Judicial Center
DC Federal Court
Food and Drug Administration
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign Service Institute
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Army
U.S. Air Force Academy
U.S. Marines Law Enforcement
FBI
Transportation Security Administration
Michigan National Guard
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

The flyer for an upcoming course in Florida, titled, “Understanding Muslim Diversity: Effective Engagement with Muslims” includes this endorsement:

This training has been vetted and approved
by the office of the US Attorney General and
delivered to all US Attorneys and thousands
of Law Enforcement Officers, military person-
nel across the nation

 

Alexander Kronemer, Lobna Ismail and Eric Holder

Alexander Kronemer, Lobna Ismail and Eric Holder

Connection Cultures has made a concentrated move to step up services to “first-responders” (i.e. local law enforcement). Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice features one of their videos on their website, entitled, “The First 3 to 5 seconds: Understanding Arab and Muslim Americans”.   Promoted as roll-call/officer safety training material it opens with a traffic stop of a stereo-typical middle-eastern looking male. The film then moves on to how Arabs are not stereo-typical and can be found in all communities and walks of life. Despite this, the film then highlights how Arabs and Muslims should be dealt with special cultural sensitivity to alleviate their fears of law enforcement.

It’s hard not to shake the feeling that the film is striving to instill an appeasement mentality on the street level cop.

Special note should be taken of the film’s credits. It was produced with Department of Justice funding under the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS). It also includes a special thanks to Iman Jahari Abdul-Malik, Outreach Director, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center. The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center is located in Falls Church, VA, The Department of Treasury’s Enforcement Communications System (TECS) records note that Dar al-Hijrah “is a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.,” “is associated with Islamic extremists,” “has been under numerous investigations for financing and proving aid and comfort to bad orgs and members,” has “been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing,” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages”.  Abdul-Malik has publicly defended known Al Qaeda and Hamas members as well as stating his desire to make Islam the predominate religion in the United States.

Read more

A detailed look at ‘the purge’ of U.S. counter-terrorism training by the Obama administration

By Patrick Poole:

Tonight’s episode of For The Record investigates a series of policies established by the Obama Administration during 2011-2012 that effectively neutered FBI counter-terrorism training and blinded our nation’s intelligence agencies to the threat from Islamic terrorism.

In what some experts have termed a hostile “political warfare campaign” driven by an alliance between the administration, Islamic organizations and cooperating media figures, analysts and subject matter experts were blacklisted, and books and training materials were purged from official counter-terrorism training programs government-wide.

This “purge” has contributed to clues being missed by the FBI in major terrorism cases, including last year’s bombing of the Boston Marathon recounted this past September in an episode of For The Record:

Institutional Failure

One of the first indicators of these efforts was the cancellation of an anti-terrorism conference scheduled for August 10-12, 2011 hosted by the CIA’s Threat Management Unit.

As reported by veteran Pentagon reporter Bill Gertz at the Washington Times, the conference was cancelled at the demand of Islamic groups who objected to presentations that were to be conducted by former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst and international law expert Stephen Coughlin (who is featured in tonight’s episode) and Steve Emerson of The Investigative Project on Terrorism. An email sent to conference registrants explained that the Department of Homeland Security would be formulating new guidelines for vetting speakers and screening presentation content.

The cancellation of the CIA terrorism conference was followed in September 2011 by a series of articles by far-Left blogger Spencer Ackerman at WIRED Magazine that claimed counter-terrorism trainers and materials used by the FBI were promoting “Islamophobia.” One of Ackerman’s targets was books in the library at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, that he deemed offensive. It should be noted that as a general rule banning books in government-funded libraries is considered rank censorship.

While a number of claims made by Ackerman in his series of articles were later found to be manifestly false, inside U.S. government agencies individuals targeted by Ackerman’s articles were prohibited from speaking publicly in defense of themselves and their work and “The Purge” continued apace.

Black October

Then in October 2011, a remarkable series of events dramatically shifted U.S. government policies largely fueled by Ackerman’s reporting.

The first event was the circulation by Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to government agencies of a list of “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’ts.” Among those targeted in the DHS training ban were what the document called “self-professed ‘Muslim reformers,’” who the agency warned “may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased information.”

Among other “don’ts” declared by DHS was this warning:

Don’t use training that relies on fear or conspiracies to motivate law enforcement. Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include…Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations who true desire is to establish Sharia law in America.

Remarkably, some of the very organizations that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties had partnered with had been identified by the Justice Department as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007 and 2008, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). At the time these guidelines were published, the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Majid, was serving on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.

Not only had the Justice Department named these organizations as unindicted co-conspirators during the trial, but federal prosecutors had outline in court documents that these organizations were integral parts of an international conspiracy to funnel money to the terrorist group HAMAS. In one Justice Department filing, prosecutors noted that “numerous exhibits were entered into evidence establishing both ISNA’s and NAIT’s intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, and the defendants in this case.”

In another filing they observed:

ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with HLF than just a parent organization. They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financing support to HAMAS. Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support HAMAS with “media, money and men.” Govt. Exh. 3-15. 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 [Islamic Association for Palestine], and the UASR [United Association for Studies and Research]. CAIR was later added to these organizations. Govt. Exh. 3-78 (listing IAP, HLF, UASR and CAIR as part of the Palestine Committee, and stating that there is “[n]o doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide…”). The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF’s particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS’ organization inside the Palestinian terrories. (p. 13, emphasis added)

During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):

The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)

Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15)

One of the architects of the new DHS guidelines was Mohamed Elibiary, who served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, was appointed in October 2010 by Secretary Janet Napolitano to the Homeland Security Advisory Council and is now a senior fellow for the agency, who has publicly admitted to his role in developing the DHS guidelines. Unsurprisingly, he was a regular source for WIRED’s Spencer Ackerman.

Much more at The Blaze

Patrick Poole is a counter-terrorism and national security consultant for TheBlaze. You can follow him (@pspoole) on Twitter.

Senior DHS Advisor Glorifies MB Founder

BY RYAN MAURO:

On March 17, senior Department of Homeland Security advisor Mohamed Elibiary copied a tweet glorifying Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, complete with a picture of the famous Islamist.  He also stated that he met with relatives of Hamas leaders and would soon reach out to American conservatives for collaboration.

Elibiary likes al-BannaThe Clarion Project has well-documented Elibiary’s advocacy for the Brotherhood and direct ties to its American branch. The vast majority of Elibiary’s tweets are in defense of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing else even comes close. He also regularly defends the overall Islamist cause and derides its critics as “Islamophobes” with bigoted intentions.

In a March 3 tweet, he argued that Hamas does not believe Israel is a genuine peace partner and referenced a meeting he had with relatives of Hamas leaders.

He continues to compare the Muslim Brotherhood to Christian evangelicals and the Protestant Reformation. He states that the Brotherhood is just a “political faction” and “talk of them being a security prob was always just politics.”

He also criticized the Egyptian government to attacking Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi as a fugitive. Elibiary often sends out Muslim Brotherhood statements accusing the Egyptian government of human rights abuses.

In another tweet, Elibiary claims his critics are motivated by “their hatred of Islam and change.”

Elibiary is a long-time Texas Republican Party official and was a delegate for Senator John McCain in 2008. In another recent tweet, he apologizes to his right-wing “fans” for focusing too much on Egypt and says he will soon reach out to them so “we can work together on reviving America.”

In October 2013, a 37-page report on Elibiary was released that was based on my extensive interview with him. Clarion summarized it into 15 disturbing facts about his beliefs, actions and associations.

Read more at Clarion Project

An Analysis of President Obama’s Terrorism Doctrine

obama-the-evil-one-e1389267583308 By :

Perhaps it is time to analyze the Obama Doctrine on terrorism as we reflect, as a nation, on our loses in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Benghazi attack, Extortion 17, Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Crimea and the over 55 attacks against the homeland by terrorists since 2008.

On August 3, 2011 President Obama released the National Strategy on Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism. The strategy, now known as the Obama Doctrine, was based upon the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) study group findings and recommendation developed in 2010 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CVE has become the blueprint for both domestic and foreign policy when dealing with terrorism. The Obama Doctrine redefined “terrorism” as “violent extremism”.

The DHS website states, “The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland.”

Who developed the Obama Doctrine?

The Obama Doctrine is based in large part upon the 2010 findings and recommendations of a Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council. The twenty member advisory council is unique in its composition, with eight members who are Islamists, three representing large Islamic communities and one openly supportive of Islam.

Islamist members included: Nimco Ahmed, Policy Aide, Vice-President of the Minneapolis City Council, Omar Alomari Community Engagement Officer, Ohio Homeland Security, Asli Bali Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Mohamed Elibiary President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Amin Kosseim Deputy Inspector, New York City Police Department, Imam Mohamed Magid Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS Center), Asim Rehman President, Muslim Bar Association of New York and Dalia Mogahed Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

Members from predominantly Islamist communities included: Michael Downing Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department and Ronald Haddad Chief of Police, Dearborn Police Department. Richard Cohen President and CEO, Southern Poverty Law Center, was a pro-Islamist council member. Pro-Islamist subject matter experts advising the council included: Arif Alikhan Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, DHS and Laurie Wood, Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

According to Clare Lopez, former CIA Operations Officer and co-Author of the book Shariah: The Threat to America:

Muhammad Magid is not only the head of the ADAMS center, he is the son of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Grand Mufti of Sudan and current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an MB front group named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation – HAMAS (HLF) terror funding trial. Magid is also one of the closest advisers of the National Security Council of the USA (in particular Denis McDonough). He’s an A-list invitee at the White House. Some believe he may be the head of the North American MB Shura Council.

Mohamed Elibiary is affiliated with numerous identified MB figures who are members of the Freedom and Justice Foundation Advisory Council: they come from the Muslim American Society (MAS), CAIR, ISNA, and the Islamic Association of North Texas. He publicly criticized the HLF trial convictions and has written admiringly of Sayyed Qutb.

IIIT likewise is listed in the MB’s “Explanatory Memorandum” of 1991 as one of its ‘friends and the organizations of our friends’.”

Read more 

Dr. Rich Swier is the Publisher of DrRichSwier.com e-magazine. He was the former State Editor for Watchdog Wire – Florida and RedCounty.com. He holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA, a Master’s Degree in Management Information Systems from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts from Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Richard is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Richard was the Founder/CEO of Sarasota Online, a high technology company that was sold to Comcast Cable in 1996.

Because We Are at War

UTT, By John Guandolo:

“The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic State.”
By-Laws of the International Muslim Brotherhood
“Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah after they are humbled or overpowered.”
Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani
One of the leading Islamic Scholars alive today.
Deputy Chairman, Fiqh Council for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
Former Judge, Pakistani Supreme Court
“We do not disassociate Islam from war.  On the contrary, disassociating Islam from war is the reason for our defeat.  We are fighting in the name of Islam. Religion must lead to war.”
Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi
Preeminent Islamic Scholar in the world
Leading Legal Jurist of the International Muslim Brotherhood
Chairman – International Union of Muslim Scholars
“This means that you wage war so that the evil sovereignty of beings other than that of Allah is wiped out and only the law of God operates in the world.”
U.S. Training Guide for Muslims published by
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS)
 
“To be true Muslims we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way…The military education is glued to the faith and it’s meaning, and the duty to follow it.”
Islamic High School text book, Islamic Center of Oakland (and elsewhere)
“America will become a Muslim country.”
Former Islamic Advisor to President Clinton and convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi
The civilian and military leadership in America, and much of the West, is strikingly blind to and grossly ignorant of the swiftly growing threat we face from the Global Islamic Movement.
Yet those inside government agencies, members of the military, and American citizens who have taken the time to get educated on this threat are horrified at the grand canyon size schism between the reality of the threat and the posture the United States government continues to take – a position which can only be characterized as “Aiding and Abetting” the enemy, Material Support for Designated Terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda and others), and Treason.
Patriots are asking themselves, “How can this be happening?
It is happening because we are at war – and we are losing.

In 2005, the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri said “I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.  We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Ummah (global Muslim community).”

Al Qaeda understands the majority of this war is being fought in the Information Battlespace – propaganda, influence operations, and political subversion, are but a few of the tools.
When the Muslim Brotherhood states in their strategic memorandum they are waging Civilization Jihad to “destroy Western civilization from within” and they are going to do it by getting U.S. leadership to do their bidding for them – they mean it.
We are in a war against an enemy who states they are Muslims fighting Jihad in the Cause of Allah in order to impose Islamic Law and re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate).  Al Qaeda says it, the Muslim Brotherhood says it, nation-states say it, martyrs say it on their videos, and all of the jihadis we have captured before or after the act (if they lived) all say they did what they did because it is a command to wage jihad until Sharia is the law of the land.  Yet, in the FBI, DHS, and U.S. military, all training on Islamic Law, specifically the requirements of Jihad and the Law of Jihad cannot be taught.  Why?
Because we are in a war – primarily an information war – and we are losing.
100% of all published Islamic Law only defines “Jihad” as warfare against non-Muslims.  Yet, at the leadership level of our civilian government and military, they are still “pondering” what the “root meaning” of Jihad really is.  How can something so objectively clear be so difficult for our leadership to grasp?
How can it be that the most prominent Islamic organizations in America have been identified as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement, yet their leaders serve in advisory roles across the entire spectrum of our government – including the FBI, CIA, and DHS?
In 2012, five Republican Members of Congress layed out the evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network in America and asked the Inspector Generals of key government agencies to consider opening investigations.  These Members of Congress were not publicly blasted by Democrats or the media for this, but by John McCain, John Boehner, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, and others.  Why?
Because we are losing in the Information Battlespace.  As a matter of fact, we are not even engaging the enemy there.
The U.S. Department of State wrote the Constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan which created Islamic States under which Sharia is the law of the land.  Two check marks on Al Qaeda’s regional objectives list.  Civilization Jihad “by our hands.”  How could this happen considering our military crushed the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan?
How can Jewish Rabbis across America hold “religious outreach” events with known members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood who are usually also leaders of Hamas?  How was Sheriff Baca of America’s largest county – Los Angeles – able to regularly raise money for Hamas (dba CAIR) without being prosecuted after being told publicly in a hearing by a U.S. Congressman that CAIR is a Hamas entity?
How are elected and appointed officials and law enforcement officers able to publicly promote known Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood organizations with no repercussions?
Because we are at war – a war in the information battlespace – and we are losing.
Our government provided material support to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Libya and are now doing the same in Syria.  Isn’t this in violation of U.S. law?  Wouldn’t any U.S. citizen be prosecuted for this?
Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF) is now promoted by major banks across the globe because Islamic Scholars (like Taqi Usmani and Yusuf Qaradawi – see above) tell the leaders of major financial institutions that SCF is simply a way for Muslims to handle their money in accordance with “religious practices.”  Yet, a portion of the money associated with SCF must go to support Jihad – “terrorism” – in accordance with Sharia.  How can this be?
Because we are at war – and we are losing.
Friends, our enemy has insinuated itself inside local school boards, civic groups, universities, political circles, and is driving the “religious outreach” efforts across this country.  Well intentioned but naive people are being drawn in an used by the enemy to defend the enemy and “stand up” for their “religious” rights.
Men and women in positions of leadership in this nation have not even taken the time to get to know an enemy that unequivocally states he wishes to destroy us.
But, the enemy has taken the time to know us.  This enemy knows us very well.  The enemy knows American leaders are more concerned with their reputations and not being embarrassed than defending the Constitution by all means necessary.
The enemy uses intimidation and pressure tactics – they call it the “political pressure approach” – to get what they want.  What do they want?  They never want us to look at authoritative Islamic Law.  They want to shut down all conversations about the Islamic threat.  They want us looking anywhere but to Islam to define the threat.  Therefore, “Violent extremism” or some other made up and useless phrase becomes the focus of the day.
Advising our senior leaders, controlling the language we use to describe the threat, and shutting down any critique of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Doctrine are their goals.  It appears they are batting a thousand.
This is much more a counterintelligence and espionage issue than it is a counterterrorism one.  So we will keep focusing on Counterterrorism – things that go boom and people who want to make them go boom.  That will be our focus.  And while we are doing it, the enemy will continue to work with our leaders to create foreign and domestic counterterrorism policy which serves the enemy’s purposes, softens the ground domestically gets law enforcement to back off so as not to “offend” the Muslim Community, and turns a blind eye to facts and evidence identifying the threat to the American people.
We will continue to let Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Al Qaeda leaders to teach our military and law enforcement about “Islam” while the Brotherhood and Hamas build $100 million dollar Islamic Centers across America which their own documents state are military outposts from which jihad will be launched.
And all the while the “mainstream” media in America – ABC, NBC, CBS – is silent…even when Al Qaeda is involved.
Friends, until we realize how dire the situation is, we cannot even begin to discuss solutions. Once you understand how dire the situation is, the solutions required become a whole lot clearer.

Student Visa Program Vulnerable to ‘Potential Terrorists’

Chinese students wait outside the U.S. Embassy for their visa application / AP

Chinese students wait outside the U.S. Embassy for their visa application / AP

By :

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot account for nearly 50,000 foreign students taking advantage of a student work visa program, according to a new report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on Friday.

The program is a threat to national security and vulnerable to potential terrorists, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who asked the GAO to review the program.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), allows individuals on student visas to remain in the country to gain work experience in their chosen fields. However, due to inadequate oversight at DHS, the government has no idea whether 48,642 foreign students are working or not.

Thirty-eight percent of the 126,796 students currently approved for “optional practical training” (OPT)—which allows them to stay in the country up to two and a half years after completion of their studies—cannot be accounted for because their records contain no employer name.

Grassley sent a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday asking for an immediate moratorium on the program until its problems are resolved.

“The federal government does not know where tens of thousands of foreign students in the OPT program are located, who they are working for, or what they are doing while staying in the United States,” he wrote.

“The problems with OPT are extensive and serious,” Grassley said. “The report not only calls into question the department’s oversight of the program, but also whether such lack of oversight is a serious national security risk.”

Participation in the program has skyrocketed since 2008, from 28,497 students in 2008 to 123,328 in 2013.

Students are also rarely denied due to “ineligibility or fraud.” ICE denied only 12,643 foreigners between 2008 and 2013, 2.2 percent of the 581,869 applications the agency received.

Both Grassley and the GAO referenced terrorist attacks that have been linked to the government’s visa programs.

Senior officials from the Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit warned the program is “at risk for fraud and noncompliance, in part, because it enables eligible foreign students to work in the United States for extended periods of time without obtaining a temporary work visa.”

“At least one terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, a foreign national from Pakistan, may have utilized OPT prior to planning out an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. citizens in Times Square, New York,” Grassley said.

“While it is difficult to know how many other potential terrorists may have exploited OPT to remain in the United States, it is clear that the program requires an immediate overhaul before another potential terrorist exploits it,” Grassley added.

The GAO cited the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, and the Boston Marathon bombing last year, which “drew renewed attention to the need to further enhance the monitoring of foreign students.”

Read more at Free Beacon