Shouldn’t our train systems be on high alert too?

Published on Jan 13, 2015 by ABC News

 

CSP, by Ben Lerner, Jan. 14, 2015:

As the Department of Homeland Security ramps up airport security in response to the latest Al Qaeda threat involving the smuggling of undetectable bombs onto US airliners, the smoke has literally just cleared in DC’s L’Enfant Plaza metro station.

This week’s incident in L’Enfant Plaza, during which passengers were stranded for nearly an hour in a stuck yellow-line train while it and the station filled with smoke, claimed the life of one commuter and sent dozens more to local hospitals for smoke inhalation.  While the National Transportation Safety Board has yet to give formal findings on the sequence of events in the metro tunnel, and apparently will not do so for several months, it appears for now that the smoke was caused by electrical “arcing”, which occurs when electricity from the third rail contacts another substance that conducts electricity. The precise cause of the arcing, however, remains unknown.

The White House (for whatever Team Obama’s assessment of these things is worth) has stated that this does not appear to have been an act of terrorism.

Even if this was not some sort of “dry run”, it’s not unreasonable to assume that those who wish to cause a mass-casualty event inside the United States have taken note of the vulnerabilities in our rail transit system and the seemingly inadequate response capabilities that this L’Enfant Plaza incident has exposed – in one of the highest-value target cities in America, no less.

Given 1) heightened concern over terrorist attacks in the United States in response to events in Paris earlier this month; 2) the extent to which terrorists have been successful in targeting urban rail systems in other countries in recent years, and 3) previous terrorist interest in attacking US train systems, one would hope that the L’Enfant Plaza debacle would prompt authorities to adopt the same kind of heightened alert posture for our commuter train systems that we are now, rightfully, seeing at our airports.

Perhaps there are more train system security upgrades happening behind the scenes than the public has been made aware of, but there is reason to doubt that the L’Enfant Plaza incident, or rail security generally, are receiving the needed attention. As Michelle Malkin recently pointed out in a must-read piece, much dismantling of our rail security capabilities has happened at the hands of the Obama administration, though it would appear from Malkin’s report that the Transportation Security Administration was unresponsive to U.S. GAO rail security recommendations going back to 2005.

JFK once remarked (albeit in a much different context) that the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. We’ve seen the chaos and loss of life that an apparently non-intentional electrical incident can create in our rail transit system. We urgently need to identify and close security and emergency response gaps on the rail side of our transportation infrastructure before jihadists bring the storm.

Emerson on Fox’s Hannity: “No Go Zones and Sharia Courts…Europe is Finished.”

IPT, by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
January 7, 2015

 

Sean Hannity: Welcome back to “Hannity.” So France is on high alert at this hour following today’s deadly terrorist attack that left 12 people dead. Investigators working around the clock to put the pieces together. So could a similar terrorist attack happen here at home? Joining me now terrorism expert Steve Emerson. Steve, I want to talk about the growth in population of people moving to France from Muslim countries. You have these no-go zones. You have sharia courts that they’ve allowed. I assume the French, they wanted to be accepting and accommodating and have not insisted on assimilation. Has that played a part in this and is that something we’ve got to be on alert for now?

Steve Emerson: Well certainly throughout Europe, Sean, you have “no-go zones.” When I was in Brussels a year ago when I asked the police to take me to the Islamic zone or the Islamic community area they refused. They said we don’t go there. This goes on in Belgium, this goes on in Sweden, in the Netherlands, in France, it goes on in Italy. It goes on throughout Europe. So there are no-go zones.

Sean Hannity: Hang on. “No-go zone” means no non-Muslims, no police, no fire, their own court system. So basically these countries have allowed Muslims to take over parts of their country, entire portions, towns.

Steve Emerson: These are semiautonomous countries within countries in which the federal governments there have basically given up, surrendered their autonomy, surrendered their authority and goes against the entire grain of what social democracy was after World War II, was to integrate everybody into a socialist democracy, which is really a pluralistic experiment which worked. And everybody was supposed to be egalitarian; at least everyone was supposed to be equal in a pluralist society. What has happened however with migration of Muslims – and [although the problem] not all Muslims, the problem is the domination of Muslims [communities] within European countries, particularly in France…by radical Islamic groups. The mosques and Islamic centers… infuse the Islamic population with a militant strain of Islam that teaches them the infidel has to be killed and that the Crusaders like the French, Jews and Americans have to be killed or punished like [we saw] today. And this goes on and on and on. And the reaction unfortunately as we saw this morning from the President or from the President [Hollande]… of France or from [Prime Minister] Cameron of Britain is this has nothing to do with Islam, this is just a simple act of [non-religious] violence and that Islam is a religion of peace. And when they say those things they exonerate the leaders of Islamic communities throughout Europe and the militants themselves are given a free pass.

Sean Hannity: The next logical question then, Steve, is, okay, what about visas for people coming from Muslim countries? What about people that come to America that are Muslim? I’m sure the average American believes in freedom of religion, they don’t want to discriminate, they don’t want to be called Islamophobic, all of these things. How do you balance the two if people are coming from Muslim countries, how do you determine if they hold radical views, if they want sharia implemented in America like this guy Chaudary that I talked about?

Steve Emerson: Well you raise a very good question because that’s the role – you know there are DHS officers planted, placed overseas in US embassies in certain countries that have produced disproportionate numbers of terrorists like in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Their role is to collect the intelligence on the visa applicants coming to the United States. The problem has been under this administration is that DHS has specifically instructed DHS agents overseas to basically not do their job, to not collect this intelligence. And when the intelligence has been collected, to show that the applicants coming to the United States with the visas in hand have radical backgrounds are either connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, connected to the Taliban, connected even [tangentially] to ISIS, they’ve been told to look away. I can tell you that personally. having had discussions with DHS officials and other agents from DHS who operate in an environment that’s Orwellian. And so you’re right, there’s a real problem here and our national security being violated.

Sean Hannity: Do you think France can get control of their country again and take over these no-go zones, stop sharia courts? I know prayer rugs are in just about every hotel if you go to Paris, according to a friend of mine who travels there quite often. Do they have the ability now to stop this, to say no you either assimilate or you have to go?

Steve Emerson: That’s a great question. I think they’ve reached critical mass, frankly. I’ve said this before, I think Europe is finished.

Sean Hannity: You think it’s finished? Well there’s a poll out there. One in six people in France actually support ISIS. Over 1,000 French have gone to join ISIS. So you’re saying you don’t think they can recover, that’s there’s too many radical Islamists that have taken over this portion of that country and it would be a war to take it back?

Steve Emerson: They [the European governments] wouldn’t take it back. They refuse to take it back. Sweden just engineered this artificial political coalition designed to stop any type of immigration prohibitions until the year 2022. So we’re talking about a situation throughout Europe where there’s a refusal to acknowledge the problem. And two, even if they did acknowledge the problem, what are they going to do if six to seven to eight to nine percent constitute a serious radical threat, not every single person but within that percentage, [there exist] no-go zones with sharia courts? Who are they hurting the most? They’re hurting Muslim women the most. They’re the ones who get subject to beatings, to death, to honor crimes.

Sean Hannity: So women who live in France are subject to sharia. They’re not subject to the laws of the country.

Steve Emerson: Not all Muslim women.

Sean Hannity: If they live in the no-go zone.

Steve Emerson: Absolutely. You’re 100% right. That’s the problem.

Sean Hannity: All right. That’s a big problem, and a warning I think.

Coburn report: Department of Homeland Security is failing in all of its missions

3199eaa8ae279fa65d4effd32956b135By Julia Davis

On January 3, 2015, Senator Tom Coburn released the report that outlines his findings pertaining to the efficacy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in executing its primary missions. Senator Coburn has been a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since 2005. The report finds that the DHS is failing miserably in every one of its stated missions. Since criticizing the DHS is an unspoken taboo for most of the mainstream media, this report was released on Saturday and received very little press coverage. Traditional reporting typically defends the DHS by telling the viewing audiences that the agency is comprised of “our best,” all of whom are risking their lives to protect the nation. In reality, neither of those statements holds water.

Official missions of the DHS are as follows:

Mission 1—Preventing Terrorism and Improving Security

Mission 2— Securing and Managing Our Borders

Mission 3— Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws

Mission 4—Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace

Mission 5—Strengthening National Preparedness and Resilience

The report finds that the Department of Homeland Security is failing in every one of its missions. It states that the DHS “primary counterterrorism programs are yielding little value for the nation’s counterterrorism efforts … The nation’s borders remain unsecure … The Department of Homeland Security is not effectively administering or enforcing the nation’s immigration laws … The Department of Homeland Security is struggling to execute its responsibilities for cybersecurity, and its strategy and programs are unlikely to protect us from the adversaries that pose the greatest cybersecurity threat … The Department of Homeland Security is federalizing the response to manmade and natural disasters by subsidizing state, local, and private sector activity.”

One of the ways that DHS intended to support the nation’s counterterrorism mission was by supporting state and local fusion centers, which are meant to serve as hubs of intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local officials. The Department spent between $289 million and $1.4 billion supporting the approximately 70 fusion centers across the nation. In 2012, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation (PSI) completed a two-year bipartisan investigation of DHS’s support for the state and local fusion center program, which found that DHS’s work with the fusion centers had not produced useful intelligence to support federal counterterrorism efforts. The PSI investigation revealed that fusion centers “often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever.”

The DHS has spent more than a half a billion dollars to regulate the security of chemical facilities at risk of potential terrorist attacks. However, 99 percent of all the chemical facilities that were supposed to be overseen by the program are yet to be inspected. As of 2014, 700 hundred miles of the Southern border are not secure, since the DHS and its component, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), failed to deploy assets to control these areas. The chance of an illegal immigrant being removed by the DHS is slightly over 3 percent. The report found that until recently, the DHS “did not have a comprehensive strategy for securing the border … The Department also faces a potentially significant problem of corruption in its workforce assigned to secure the border … DHS spending on programs to secure port facilities, infrastructure, and cargo have not accomplished their objectives.”

Since the DHS can’t enforce existing immigration laws, nor is able to effectively manage tracking and monitoring of the people who have entered the U.S. legally, the report questions whether the agency is able “to effectively manage any large program to provide new immigration benefits to people currently living in the United States illegally, as was ordered by President Obama on November 20, 2014.” The report points out: “The Department’s lax approach to immigration law enforcement, and broad applications of prosecutorial discretion with regard to enforcing immigration laws also exacerbates DHS’s challenge securing the border. Rather than deterring illegal immigration, lax immigration enforcement creates an expectation that people entering the nation illegally or violating the terms of their visa will be allowed to stay, facing no consequences.”

Approximately 36 convicted terrorists came to the country using various forms of student visas, but the DHS is failing to effectively manage the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is currently used by more than one million people to gain entry into the United States. The report also notes that in February 2013, ICE released more than 2,000 illegal immigrant detainees, including more than 600 aliens with criminal records; creating a risk to public safety and further undermining the agency’s credibility.

While failing in its official missions, the DHS is encroaching upon the rights and liberties of American citizens, without any benefit to the nation’s national security. Senator Coburn’s report states: “We are willing to endure the inconvenience of arriving at the airport earlier and having our luggage screened, but we are wary of increased government policing and surveillance. We are concerned that despite spending billions of dollars on border security, tens of thousands continue to enter our country illegally and, in 2014, 700 miles of our Southern border were unsecure. The same is true of cyber security. We have spent billions to protect against cyber attacks, yet even White House computers have been susceptible to hacking.”

The Department of Homeland Security is a multi-billion dollar behemoth that employs more than 240,000 people and spends approximately $61 billion annually. The agency disposed of $544 billion of taxpayers’ money since 2003, with little to show for it. The DHS allowed a convicted terrorist to become a US citizen, spent $30,000 on Starbucks, provided Zombie Apocalypse training for the DHS personnel, purchased 13 sno-cone machines, spent $45 million on a failed video surveillance network and even bought a hog catcher. Cities were essentially allowed to spend the money on almost anything they want, under the guise of “terror prevention.” As Senator Coburn’s previous report found, “DHS and Congress have often let politics interfere, diluting any results. Instead of sending funds where they can have the biggest impact, money is spread around to parochial political interests. This ensures fewer complaints and broad political support, but does not necessarily mean we are safer.”

Read more at The Examiner

The National Security “Not Top 10″ of 2014

obamalibya (1)By Patrick Poole:

With the world descending into chaos driven in no small measure by the incoherent, contradictory and frequently non-existent foreign policy of the Obama administration, it was difficult this year to narrow the field for this year’s biggest national security blunders. The task seemed so formidable, I nearly abandoned the endeavor.

But undaunted, I present to you the National Security “Not Top 10” of 2014, in no particular order.

(For past editions of my “Not Top 10”, see: 2012, 2011, 2010)

1) Befriending “moderate Al-Qaeda” in Syria:

There are some ideas so at war with reason and reality they can only exist in the fetid Potomac fever swamps of DC think tanks and foreign policy community. Such was the case in January when three of the best and brightest from those ranks published an article in Foreign Affairs (the same publication that in 2007 brought us the “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood”) contending that the US needed to “befriend” the Syrian jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham as some kind of counter to more extreme jihadist groups, like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. The precedent they cited was the US failure to designate the Taliban (!!!) after 9/11.

Mind you, at the time they wrote this, one of Ahrar al-Sham’s top leaders was a lieutenant for Al-Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri who openly declared himself a member of Al-Qaeda. After most of their leadership was wiped out in a bombing in September, they have gravitated closer to the jihadist groups they were supposed to counter and their positions have been bombed by the US – much to the consternation of other “vetted moderate” rebel groups. So ridiculous was their proposition that the original subtitle of their article “An Al-Qaeda Affiliate Worth Befriending” was changed online to “An Al-Qaeda-Linked Group Worth Befriending” in the hopes of minimizing the absurdity of their case.

2) Obama Administration deploys three hashtag divisions in response to Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As Ukrainians made their bid to free themselves from Russia’s interference, Putin responded by deploying tanks and troops into Ukraine in violation of the1994 Budapest Memorandum. Obama’s rejoinder was to give a speech and to deploy three divisions of State Department employees all armed with a #UnitedForUkraine hashtag. Hilarity ensued as the Russian Foreign Ministry counterattacked by hijacking the hashtag, prompting State Department spox Jen Psaki to decry, “Let’s hope the Kremlin will live by the promise of hashtag,” leaving many asking: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

3) Obama: ISIS is the “JV team”.

In January President Obama sat down for an interview with the New Yorker, and when asked about ISIS gains in Iraq, he likened them to the JV team, saying ““The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Those words came back to haunt him as ISIS surged in both Syria and Iraq, particular when Obama authorized missile strikes against ISIS in August. Even then Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken defended the president’s “JV team” remark, saying they didn’t pose the threat to America as much as Al-Qaeda. A few week later, the Washington Post noted the attempts to spin the president’s statement. By September, Obama laughably claimed in an interview on Meet the Press that he wasn’t talking about ISIS in his New Yorker interview. But even the notoriously biased Politifact rated his walk-back as “false” and two weeks ago the Washington Post’s fact checker Glenn Kessler branded Obama’s “JV team” spin as “the lie of the year”.

4) State Dept Official denies Boko Haram targeting Christians.

Just weeks after the Nigerian terrorist group abducted nearly 300 Christian school girls in Chibok and committed them to sexual slavery, State Department undersecretary Sarah Sewall denied in a congressional hearing that Christians were being targeted. As I noted in an article here at PJ Media earlier this month on disturbing trends in Nigeria, the burning of churches and the abduction and murder of Christians continues to intensify, with more than 1,000 churches burned in just a few weeks earlier this year.

Readers might recall that this is the same State Department that in April 2012 was telling Congress that Boko Haram was not driven by religious ideology the day after the group bombed a church during an Easter service that killed 39 worshippers. Not only did the State Department vehemently defend not designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization, this year we discovered that they intentionally lied to Congress about the threat posed by the group. Having only designated them barely a year ago, 2014 has been Boko Haram’s deadliest year yet, with 9,000 killed, 1.5 million people displaced, and 800 schools destroyed. Nigerian authorities still complain that the Obama administration is reluctant to provide the country what it needs to fight the Boko Haram terror insurgency.

5) Homeland Security adviser’s pro-caliphate tweet used by ISIS recruiters.

Twitter proved to be the downfall of Homeland Security Advisor Council Senior Fellow Mohamed Elibiary, when he was unceremoniously let go by DHS in September following a long string of extremist social media statements. Critics, including myself, had noted Elibiary long history of promoting radical Islamic groups and publicly defending terrorist supporters. Things began to unravel when earlier this year he tweeted that America was “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution,” but the wheels definitely came off when he tweeted about the inevitability of the return of an Islamic caliphate – a statement that was later used by ISIS in their recruiting efforts. After his dismissal, which even international media took note of, I talked with Michelle Fields here at PJTV about Elibiary’s highly controversial tenure at DHS.

Read more at PJ Media

Obama’s Anti-Cop Jihad

obama-glareBy: William Michael
misterchambers

The Protests were Organized for one Specific Purpose – Dead Cops

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Under Obama’s dictates since he entered the Oval Office, the United States government decided to publicly announce a softer approach to countering Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind jihad (i.e., war in the name of Islam). Imam Mohamed Magid has been a centerpiece in Obama’s show of tolerance (of violence) and diversity (of means of death), so much so that he and his organization have been “cited … as the primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

It’s now known that Magid has a remarkable connection to the murderer of two NYPD officers this December.

***

Unlike his approach toward American Muslims, who apparently (at least based on policy since 2009) need the White House to reassure them that they are not “violent extremists,” Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude toward police officers has been hostile from the beginning. Multiple instances mar the six year old administration’s relationship with law enforcement.

The anti-police stance of the administration has been toxically mixed with anti-gun propaganda, and the blatant fanning of racial tensions that have resulted in violence, murder, and even city-wide chaos.

The first example came in July 2009, when Harvard Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by the Cambridge Police department. Sgt. James Crowley saw Gates trying to break into a home, and, not realizing it was actually his own home, arrested Gates. The charges were later dropped by the police, but not before Obama said on national television that the police “acted stupidly,” and further insinuated that the arrest was racially motivated. To make everyone feel better, Obama later held a “beer summit” at the White House, hosting Gates and Crowley in what was presented as some great healing moment. (No word on whether pork or all beef hot dogs were served.)

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder, while noting that the number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13% that year, blamed the increase on illegal gun ownership. In 2013, Holder went on the record saying that he had to tell his son how to protect himself from the police, because, you guessed it, he’s black. Holder said this talk was family tradition.

For his part, Obama came out in support of the 2011 anti-cop and anarchist movement, Occupy Wall Street, who were not only occupying Wall Street, but terrorizing downtown Manhattan.

Then came the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, as he was being violently assaulted and threatened with death while on neighborhood patrol. In what has become a national tradition, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder descended to prey upon the citizens of a small community, calling for “justice.”

In fact, mob justice is what they were looking for.

The next stop for the Obama, Holder, and Sharpton anti-police racial mob circus was Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown by the gun of a police officer who he was attacking and threatening. The case is familiar and fresh enough in everyone’s minds not have to rehash in any detail. Once again, Obama and the administration issued thinly veiled attacks on the police and insinuated that the officers and the department were racially motivated haters.

The caustic and raw social tumult that ensued led to widespread looting, riots, arson (even by allegedly “peaceful” protestors), and even the murder of a friend one of the trial witnesses.

Obama’s, Holder’s, and Sharpton’s carnival of hate then went prime time, this time to the Big Apple. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. And, with a little help from the all-too-willing Mayor Bill DeBlasio, in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, which was caused not by bullets but by a lung condition, the carnival got what they were looking for all along: the blood of police officers.

On December 20, 2014, five days before Christmas, Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in their patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. After weeks of anti-police protests, which explicitly shouted for “dead cops,” Brinsley had bragged to pedestrians just prior to the shooting that he was going to satiate the protestors with their pound of flesh.

***

At this time, you may be asking what Mohamed Magid, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood agent, has to do with the assassination of two NYPD officers. This will be clear to you soon enough. But first it is necessary to understand that the supposedly grassroots protests, in Ferguson and in New York, were anything but organic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at NoisyRoom.net has documented the nefarious players behind the protests, and has an incredible list of organizations involved in the protests. One of the most prominent organizing groups is ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is often found alongside Occupy Wall Street. A little digging into ANSWER’s coalition partners and speakers reveal their roots; groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Free Palestinian Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, the Nicaragua Network, and Korea Truth Commission (you got me ?).

Furthermore, ANSWER is described by DiscoverThe Networks as “a principal player in all anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations… ANSWER was formed a few days after 9/11 as a ‘new anti-racism, anti-war, peace and justice’ group and led its first protest just weeks later against the impending US-led attack on Afghanistan.”

To be blunt about it, ANSWER is a pro-jihad front organization that was fully behind Hamas in this summer’s Gaza war. Hamas, it’s noted, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that the Egyptian magazine claimed Mohamed Magid was a member of.

***

Isn’t it odd that a Muslim Brotherhood front group would lead protests in New York City over the accidental death of a black man in the course of an arrest? Last time I was there, Staten Island wasn’t a center of Israeli-Palestinian debate, and there are no public pictures of Eric Garner smoking hookah or riding camels in Giza. On the contrary, Garner was dealing single cigarettes, and tobacco is decisively haram (forbidden) according to Islamic sharia law.

Puzzling, perhaps, but the Facebook page of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Muhammad ties the story’s loose ends together. According to his own biography on Facebook, Brinsely-Muhammad “Worked at: Islamic Society of North America.” The Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. Hmm.

Killer's Facebook page: Obama and Magid are caught red-handed

Who is the President of ISNA, where the cop killer said he worked? That would be Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s advisor to DHS and the National Security Council.

Obama himself addressed ISNA’s annual convention in 2013. You can read about one of ISNA’s greatest influences, Pakistani radical Abul A’la Maududi, here.

Here are a few other facts to consider when contemplating that the Obama and Holder-inspired cop killer was, according to himself, employed at the organization of one of Obama’s most trusted security advisors, the Islamic Society of North America.

  • ISNA President and Obama advisor Imam Mohamed Magid was a lecturer at Howard University, teaching courses on the Koran.
  • The Trayvon Martin case only caught on after it was plucked from relative obscurity from a student at Howard University. This student, Kevin Cunningham, began a petition on the website change.org. Said Cunningham, a lawyer, “that’s how I think about life, is to be a social engineer.”
  • Cop killer Brinsley-Muhammad, who additionally may have attended a Brooklyn mosque associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, martyred himself by suicide in a subway station before being apprehended by police. He’s no longer with us to answer any questions.
  • In light of Obama’s recent embrace of Communist Cuba, it is worth noting that one of Castro’s last acts as a revolutionary leader was to order the targeted killing of Cuba’s police officers. Why? Police keep law and order on the streets, and because they’re uniformed, they’re easy targets for revolutionaries who thrive off anarchy.

Obama’s six yearlong anti-cop jihad has serious consequences. In 2014, there was an increase of 56% in police killed by guns – 50 officers, compared to 32 in 2013. Since the assassinations in New York, many infractions are going unpunished, as police are reluctant to engage with the community, fearing targeting by assassins and mobs. This is a very tenuous and delicate situation.

It might be worth mentioning, to the next person you bump into who still has a functioning brain, that Obama’s trusted advisor, Imam Mohamed Magid, had the NYPD cop killer as an employee of his nationwide Islamic organization. This, according to his own Facebook bio.

The circumstantial evidence presented above points to a deliberate plan by the administration and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke violence that led to cop killings. These are revolutionary tactics, creating conditions that lead to chaos, anarchy, and eventually the total dissolution of societal trust. After that occurs, people beg for order, in whatever form it offers itself.

Is 2015 the year of the American Spring? In the New Year, several detailed reports will be published that point to deliberate, witting, and eager cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at precisely this end.

FBI Pulled Official to Prevent Testimony at Key Anti-Terror Hearing

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, By Adam Kredo, Dec.5, 2014:

The FBI refused to appear before Congress earlier this week to testify on the threats posed to American citizens by foreign fighters and other extremists who have traveled from Western countries to fight alongside the Islamic State (IS), according to multiple congressional sources familiar with the situation.

The FBI initially agreed to provide a witness for Tuesday’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing regarding the threats posed to the U.S. homeland by extremists affiliated with IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS), according to those apprised of the situation.

However, the law agency changed its mind just a few days before the hearing and decided to block any official from testifying. The last minute decision was made amid reports that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had begun warning U.S. troops that IS fighters could be monitoring their social media accounts.

Officials from both the State Department and DHS agreed to appear at the hearing.

The FBI’s decision to stonewall Congress caused anger behind the scenes on Capitol Hill and led some to accuse it of evading its responsibility to inform American citizens about the dangers these terrorists pose.

“For the FBI to confirm its witness and then pull out only a few days before the hearing and not offer a replacement doesn’t exactly show a good faith effort on their part and it took away a lot from what we were trying to accomplish,” said one congressional source familiar with what took place behind-the-scenes.

“We are repeatedly being told that there is no credible threat to the U.S. homeland, but just a few days ago the FBI issued a warning to U.S. military members that ISIL is calling for attacks against them and it is seeking individuals in America that are sympathetic to its cause to carry out these attacks,” the source said. “So I think there is a very clear disconnect there.”

The FBI’s decision to back out had “real implications” on the hearing and the American public’s right to know about the threats posed by foreign fighters associated with IS.

“We do our hearings in an open setting so that the American public can stay informed with regard to the threats to our national security, and more importantly, what the administration is doing to counter or defend against those threats,” the source explained.

Another congressional source with knowledge of what took place said that the FBI told members and committee staff that “they had nothing to say in an unclassified setting.”

The source went on to describe this excuse as “pretty ridiculous.”

Multiple requests for comment and explanation from the FBI were not returned.

Lawmakers had prepared to ask FBI officials about an intelligence bulletin jointly issued by the FBI and DHS warning U.S.-based military personnel about potential threats from IS, which is believed to be monitoring their social media accounts.

The FBI’s absence was noticed several times at the hearing when lawmakers posed several questions that could not be answered by those officials in attendance.

When asked to explain the law enforcement mechanisms preventing jihadists with American passports from returning stateside, a DHS official referred questions to the FBI.

“If someone shows up at the U.S. and there’s indications that person has been a foreign fighter in Syria it would be referred to the FBI and then it would be a matter for the FBI,” Tom Warrick, a deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at DHS, told lawmakers during the hearing.

Lawmakers could not pose further questions on this topic and others due to the issues falling under the purview of the FBI.

After it was revealed that not a single American passport has been canceled since news that more than 100 citizens have joined IS, lawmakers had a tough time learning why.

Robert Bradtke, the State Department’s senior adviser for partner engagement on Syria foreign fighters, said that while the secretary of state has the power to cancel a person’s passport, he would only do so if asked by law enforcement.

“We would only do it in consultations with law enforcement authorities and we’ve not yet had any requests from law enforcement authorities to cancel the passports of ISIS or foreign fighters,” Bradtke said.

Without a FBI official in the hearing room, it could not be discerned why no requests had been made.

When asked about pro-IS graffiti that has been spotted in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere over the past several months, Warrick again deferred to the FBI.

“Is the graffiti we’ve seen in D.C. and other cities legitimate, or do you think it’s not?” asked Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R., Fla.).

“That would actually be a question that I think would be better addressed by the FBI or domestic law enforcement. They’d be able to help you with that,” Warrick responded.

While it is acceptable to keep sensitive details secret, organizations such as the FBI have a responsibility to be upfront with the American people, said one congressional source.

“Obviously a lot of what it is doing may be classified and we want to be mindful of those sensitivities because we don’t want to lead on to the bad guys what we know,” the source said. “However, we believe that the American people deserve to know what is being done to protect them.”

Obama Administration Releases Illegal Aliens with Terror Ties, Blames It on a ‘Judge’

Homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson on Capitol Hill. (Alex Wong/Getty)

Homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson on Capitol Hill. (Alex Wong/Getty)

By Andrew C. McCarthy:

Congress Takes Important First Step Towards Securing The Grid

198224762

Center for Security Policy:

Last night, the House of Representatives approved unanimously H.R. 3410, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA). This legislation marks a breakthrough: For the first time in four years, Congress has acted to begin to protect the nation’s most critical of critical infrastructures: the U.S. electrical grid. It now falls to the Senate and to President Obama to ensure that the House-passed bill becomes the law of the land.

CIPA’s lead sponsors were Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and co-chairman of the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Caucus, and Pete Sessions (R-TX), the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee. The measure enjoyed strong bipartisan support including from the House Homeland Security Committee’s Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, Reps. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Yvette Clark (D-NY).

The CIPA legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to:

  1. include in national planning scenarios the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which would entail the education of the owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as well as emergency planners and emergency responders at all levels of government of the threat of EMP events;
  2. engage in research and development aimed at mitigating the consequences of naturally occurring or man-caused EMP events; and
  3. produce a comprehensive plan to protect and prepare the critical infrastructure of the American homeland against EMP events.

Representative Franks observed:

The U.S. electric grid is fundamental to our continued way of life and practical steps must be taken to protect those critical elements that serve the United States from all threats.  The negative impacts on U.S. financial, agricultural, medical and other critical societal infrastructure are potentially catastrophic in a severe electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or severe space weather event.

By some estimates, nine out of ten Americans would perish if the power were to go off and remain off for a year’s time.

The Secure the Grid Coalition is committed to ensuring that does not happen. The Coalition is a group of national leaders in matters of defense, homeland security, solar weather, infrastructure protection and other experts who have joined forces for the purpose of achieving urgently the protection of power grid upon which the nation, its people, economy and the Department of Defense depend.

Under the honorary co-chairmanship of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, the Secure the Grid Coalition has been active in educating lawmakers and their constituents about the nature of the various threats to the nation’s bulk power distribution system, including but not limited to EMP. Among other efforts in that regard was influential testimony provided before the House Homeland Security Committee earlier this year by two members of the Coalition: Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, of the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security, and Dr. Chris Beck, Vice President of the Electric Infrastructure Protection Council.

The Center for Security Policy sponsors the Secure the Grid and its President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. applauded the passage of H.R. 3410 last night, saying:

Yesterday, the House of Representatives took an important first step towards protecting America’s electrical grid – and millions of its people whose lives critically depend upon it – from attack or naturally induced destruction. That planning will hopefully make clear the necessity of taking steps to secure the grid before these things happen, rather than try to cope with the consequences afterwards.

Secure the Grid Coalition members are available for comment on the passage of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act in the House of Representatives and about the considerable work still to be done to harden the electrical grid against all hazards. More information can be found at www.securethegrid.com.

4 Turkish terrorists caught in Texas after being smuggled across border

nov13_chopperBy Stephen Dinan:

Four men flew from Istanbul through Paris to Mexico City in late August, where they were met by a Turkish-speaking man who stashed them in a safe house until their Sept. 3 attempt to cross into the U.S. over the border with Mexico.

Their capture by the Border Patrol in Texas set off a fierce debate over the men’s intentions, with some members of Congress saying they were terrorist fighters. Homeland Security officials, including Secretary Jeh Johnson, countered that they were part of the Kurdish resistance which, like the U.S., is fighting the Islamic State’s advance in Iraq.

But whether the men are linked to anti-U.S. jihadists or not, they admitted to being part of a U.S.-designated terrorist group, and their ability to get into the U.S. through the southern border — they paid $8,000 each to be smuggled into Texas — details the existence of a network capable of bringing terrorists across the border.

The four men’s story, as discerned from internal September and October documents reviewed by The Washington Times, also seems to contrast with what Mr. Johnson told Congress in September, when he assured lawmakers that the four men were not considered terrorist threats to the U.S., even as behind the scenes his department proposed the four be put on terrorist watch lists.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron said the individuals weren’t associated with the Islamic State, which is also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS.

“The suggestion that individuals who have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or the facts on the ground,” Ms. Catron said. “DHS continues to have no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border.”

She did not reply to questions about the status of the four men or why her department proposed they be put on terrorist watch lists.

As of a month ago they were being held at the South Texas Detention Facility in Pearsall, Texas.

The men initially claimed to be members of the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front, known by the acronym DHKP/C. The group is a Marxist insurgency that claimed credit for a 2013 suicide bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Ankara, Turkey’s capital, last year.

But U.S. counterterrorism officials said the men were more likely members of the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has been battling for Kurdish rights within Turkey for decades, though recently PKK and Turkish leaders have tried to broker a political agreement.

Both the PKK and DHKP/C are listed by the State Department as terrorist groups.
Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said the fact that avowed members of terrorist groups got into the U.S. shows it’s possible to sneak across a porous border.

“This incident proves what enforcement experts have always known, and that is there are existing networks in Mexico and Central America that have been set up and cultivated by a variety of terrorist organizations to enable them to move people into the United States illegally,” Ms. Vaughan said.

It’s unclear what the men were trying to do. None of them admitted to being part of a plot against the U.S., and several told investigators they were hoping to seek asylum, saying they believed they were being targeted back home by police in Turkey.

Read more at Washington Times

Also see:

DHS Announces ‘Enhanced Presence’ At All Federal Buildings

dhs (2)Truth Revolt, by  Caleb Howe:

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release announcing heightened security and an “enhanced presence”at all federal buildings in the United States, following the attack at the Parliament building in Canada last week. DHS stressed to employees that this was not in response to any “specific” threat on American federal buildings or employees.

“The reasons for this action are self-evident,” said DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. “The continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere.”

A DHS official tells the Washington Post that “this is a precautionary step to safeguard U.S. government personnel and facilities, and the visitors to those facilities.” However, Fox News’ Megyn Kelley reported Tuesday evening that sources told Fox News the action was prompted by “increased chatter” that began several weeks ago ahead of the Canadian attack.

The statement from Secretary Johnson reads:

Today I am announcing that I have directed the Federal Protective Service to enhance its presence and security at various U.S. Government buildings in Washington DC and other major cities and locations around the country. The precise actions we are taking and the precise locations at which we will enhance security is law-enforcement sensitive, will vary and shift from location to location, and will be continually re-evaluated.

The Federal Protective Service is responsible for the protection of over 9500 federal facilities owned or leased by the General Services Administration, through which 1.4 million visitors and occupants pass daily.

We are taking this action as a precautionary step, to safeguard U.S. government personnel and facilities, and the visitors to those facilities. The reasons for this action are self-evident: the continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere, including against law enforcement and other government officials, and the acts of violence targeted at government personnel and installations in Canada and elsewhere recently. Given world events, prudence dictates a heightened vigilance in the protection of U.S. government installations and our personnel.

As we have stated in prior advisories, we urge state and local governments and their law enforcement personnel, along with critical infrastructure owners and operators, to be equally vigilant, particularly in guarding against potential small-scale attacks by a lone offender or a small group of individuals. Likewise, we continually urge the public at large to be vigilant and report any suspicious activities to appropriate authorities.

Also on Fox News, Chief White House correspondent Ed Henry questions the timing of the increased security, pointing out that the threat to Americans from ISIS has been persistent and “immediate” for some time now. The White House downplayed the threat on American soil at several press briefings in the events leading up to American action against ISIS.

One “senior administration official” told Henry that the announcement was made a week before the election in case something were to happen before election day.

Also see:

American suicide bomber’s travels in U.S., Middle East went unmonitored

article-2707022-20055C2200000578-457_634x434By Adam Goldman and Greg Miller:

There were no U.S. air marshals watching the newly clean-shaven passenger on the transatlantic­ flight, no FBI agents waiting for him as he landed in Newark in May 2013 after returning from Syria’s civil war.

As the 22-year-old Florida native made his way through a U.S. border inspection, officers pulled him aside for additional screening and searched his belongings. They called his mother in Vero Beach to check on his claim that he had merely been visiting relatives in the Middle East. But when she vouched for him, U.S. officials said, Moner Mohammad Abusalha was waved through without any further scrutiny or perceived need to notify the FBI that he was back in the United States.

Earlier this year, after returning to Syria, Abusalha became the first American to carry out a suicide attack in that country, blowing up a restaurant frequented by Syrian soldiers on behalf of an al-Qaeda affiliate. His death May 25 was accompanied by the release of a menacing video. “You think you are safe where you are in America,” he said, threatening his own country and a half-dozen others. “You are not safe.”

It was a warning from someone who had been in position to deliver on that threat. By then, Abusalha­ had made two trips to a conflict zone seen as the largest incubator of Islamist radicalism since Afghanistan in the 1980s. Between those visits he wandered inside the United States for more than six months, U.S. officials said, attracting no attention from authorities after their brief telephone conversation with his mother.

His movements went unmonitored despite a major push by U.S. security and intelligence agencies over the past two years to track the flow of foreign fighters into and out of Syria. At the center of that effort is a task force established by the FBI at a classified complex in Virginia that also involves the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center.

Despite that expanding surveillance net and more than a dozen prosecutions in the United States, the outcome for Abusalha depended more on the priorities of his al-Qaeda handlers than U.S. defenses. FBI officials involved in the case said it exposed vulnerabilities that can be reduced but not eliminated.

“It is extremely difficult for the FBI to identify individuals in the U.S. who have this kind of goal,” said George Piro, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Miami field office, which led the Abusalha investigation. “It requires a loved one or really close friend to note the changes. . . . The family has to intervene.”

Abusalha is counted among the 100 or so Americans who have traveled to Syria or attempted to do so, a figure cited repeatedly by senior U.S. officials in ways that suggest there is precision in their understanding of who and where those people are.

In reality, officials said, the total has risen to 130 or more, and it includes individuals about whom only fragments of information are known. The clearest cases­ involve U.S. citizens arrested by the FBI before they depart. But other cases are incomplete, based on false names or partial identities assembled from references on social media or U.S. intelligence sources.

Even the estimate of 130 is low, according to U.S. officials who said there are undoubtedly Americans in Syria and Iraq who have not surfaced. Abusalha was part of that invisible category until shortly before he recorded his farewell videos and stepped into the cab of an armored dump truck packed with explosives.

FBI Director James B. Comey recently warned of such blind spots. “Given the nature of the traveler threat, I don’t sit with high confidence that I have complete visibility,” Comey said in a briefing at FBI headquarters. “Who are we missing who went and came back? And, obviously, who are we missing who is in the midst of trying to go?”

Read more at Washington Post

TO BETTER PROTECT MUSLIMS, AG HOLDER SET TO BAN ‘RELIGIOUS PROFILING’

eric-holder-teal-painting-apBreitbart, by HOMAS ROSE, Sep. 30, 2014:

If one is looking for reasons why Washington has become so caustic, divisive and bitter, look no further than retiring Attorney General Eric Holder. If reportsfirst published by the Los Angeles Times are correct, the always controversial Holder, aged 63, will soon announce a new and permanent ban on so-called ‘religious profiling’ designed to better protect those suspected of jihadist or Islamist activities from federal surveillance.

At the very moment the American state, local and federal law enforcement are trying to get a handle on a spate of Islamist-inspired beheadings and the discovery that Islamic State terror cells are active in at least three major US cities (LA, Boston, and Minneapolis), the US attorney general seems prepared to make it even harder for US law enforcement to crack down against jihadist recruiters and terrorist plots.

Despite the rise of the Islamic State’s terrorist army that proudly boasts of its US citizen-fighters, as well as growing evidence that domestic jihadist extremism is far more prevalent inside the United States than previously thought, the always controversial Holder appears undeterred in his quest to ban federal agents from trying to prevent domestic Islamist terrorism by investigating hubs of suspected jihadist activities. If the ban on ‘religious profiling’ is enforced, federal agents will no longer be able to conduct surveillance inside even the most radical of US mosques, where nearly all recent US based jihadists have been recruited, trained and dispatched.

The LA Times even reports that Holder’s ban will no longer even include “an exemption for national security investigations.” Without pre-existing, admissible evidence that ongoing criminal activity is occurring, federal agents will no longer be permitted to conduct any undercover surveillance in any clearly identified Islamic institution. If enacted, such a policy would represent the starkest reversal yet to bi-partisan post 9/11 changes that permitted law enforcement agencies like the FBI greater ability to monitor suspected Islamist outfits, including mosques.

The FBI claims that those standards have enabled them to disrupt or scuttle at least 42 planned Islamist attacks against the US homeland adopted since 2001.

How extending greater legal protections to those suspected of jihadist plots against US citizens will help protect law abiding citizens from those plots remains to be seen. The connections between Islamic State operatives, recent domestic terrorist acts, and several radical US mosques are undeniable. The recent Muslim convert in Oklahoma who murdered and decapitated a 54-year-old grandmother was radicalized in a mosque run by the very same people who run a Boston mosque that served as headquarters for ISIS’s US social media campaign.

Terrorism authority Steve Emerson told IBD this could be just the tip of the ISIS-ice berg. “There are tens of thousands of others like him lurking in the United States who haven’t done this but are jihadists just waiting to do it,” Emerson, who runs the New York-basedInvestigative Project for Terrorism, says the Islamic State is actually pre-selecting new US based recruits based upon their state willingness to conduct suicide/terrorist operations against innocents inside the US.

Of course, since Attorney General Holder had previously ordered the Justice Department and the FBI to scrub all its training manuals and support documentation to insure words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism” do not appear, it is difficult to predict how such directives will even be adequately conveyed to US law enforcement personnel.

Had such prohibitions against even considering the religious beliefs or associations of suspected jihadist elements been in effect, many recent Federal indictments of terrorists could never have been obtained, since nearly ever single one of them contained evidence demonstrating their connections with and radicalizations inside US mosques. Nearly every single defendant so indicted has confessed that their motivations were religiously based upon their interpretation of Islam and its commands to attack non-believers.

The same Eric Holder now considering increased protections for those suspected of jihadist activities authorized domestic illegal surveillance actions, including wiretapping, against reporters at the Associated Press and sought to prosecute Fox News’ James Rosen under, of all things, the Espionage Act.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, “You know the famous American saying that all politics is local? Well, for militant Islamists, all politics is global, because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world.” If Holder has his way and can prohibit US law enforcement from investigating domestic militants Islamists in places where militants Islamists plot and plan, American jihadists will be able to pursue that ultimate goal of global dominance with greater freedom and security than ever before.

Justice Department Announces New Program to Counter ‘Violent Extremism’ — but Website Excludes References to Islam, Muslims

The Blaze, By Elizabeth Kreft, Sep. 25, 2014:

With Islamic State threats mounting and at least 100 Americans known to have traveled overseas to train or fight with the brutal terror group, Attorney General Eric Holder this month announced a new program designed to identify and root out sources of “violent extremism” across the nation.

The problem? It isn’t a new idea. National security experts say the concept has already proven to be “a complete failure.” And lacking from a description of the program is any reference to radical Islam.

In this July 16, 2014 photo, Minneapolis police officer Mike Kirchen talks with Mohamed Salat, left, and Abdi Ali at a community center where members of the Somali community gather in Minneapolis. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department’s pilot program will help detect American extremists looking to join terror organizations, but some experts say efforts like these have already failed across the nation (AP Photo/The Star Tribune, Jim Gehrz, File)

In this July 16, 2014 photo, Minneapolis police officer Mike Kirchen talks with Mohamed Salat, left, and Abdi Ali at a community center where members of the Somali community gather in Minneapolis. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department’s pilot program will help detect American extremists looking to join terror organizations, but some experts say efforts like these have already failed across the nation (AP Photo/The Star Tribune, Jim Gehrz, File)

“These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe,” Holder said.

On the surface, it sounds reasonable. Shouldn’t we embrace every effort to combat homegrown terror? Jonathan Gilliam, a former Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent said yes. But, he told TheBlaze, programs like these get muddled because the politicians at the top of the food chain stop listening to the operators on the ground.

“How can you target something without a scope, without proper sights?” he said. The former special operator finds it especially frustrating that the Justice Department refuses to allow monitoring of mosques where known terrorists gather.

“When political correctness becomes your scope you probably aren’t aimed at the right target anymore,” Gilliam told TheBlaze.

Without offering details about which cities would host the pilot program, the Justice Department announced that the new concept would “complement the Obama administration’s ongoing work to protect the American people from a range of evolving national security threats,” and right in line with the White House’s 2011 move to strip counterterrorism training documents of specific references to Islam or Muslims, Holder’s description of the program gives a rather cloudy explanation for which groups it could cover.

“Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country,” Holder said.

The Department of Homeland Security’s website echoes the bland description of “violent extremism” described by the Justice Department: “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.”

Gilliam said these political trends make no sense.

“How do you know someone is a ‘violent extremist’? They aren’t going to walk out into the street and tell you. They are going to patiently wait for instructions at their mosque and coordinate with the network overseas,” he said. “To try and say we don’t know which neighborhoods or which mosques are active with this kind of activity is a joke.”

In the pitch video for the program, Holder explains that since 2012, U.S. attorneys “have held or attended more than 1,700 engagement-related events or meetings to enhance trust and facilitate communication in their neighborhoods and districts,” and that the initiative will “build on that important work.”

But Patrick Poole, a national security and terrorism expert, said that explains exactly why more of the same won’t solve the problem.

“We’ve already had 100 Americans go overseas to fight for the terrorists … we’ve had people conducted suicide attacks for Jabhat al-Nusra, and we have at least two known fighters from Minneapolis and San Diego who died in fighting with ISIS in Syria. I’m not sure more of the same is going to do anything but delay the problem,” Poole said.

Poole pointed out the FBI was previously actively conducting outreach missions much like the Justice Department is proposing at the very mosque where the Boston Marathon bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended services.

“So the Boston example is a snapshot of how this kind of outreach program has catastrophically failed,” Poole told TheBlaze. “What more needs to happen? Foreign intelligence identifies the guy, he’s causing trouble at the mosque, and yet no one at the mosque during this outreach effort said anything.”

Poole said it seems the Department of Justice is doubling down on a failed concept, but they continue to fail because program coordinators, especially at the top levels, are listening to the wrong people.

“This is the administration’s entire plan, this isn’t something they are doing in conjunction with something else, this is it, and some groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council say that de-radicalization has to be left entirely to the Muslim community. But I have to ask, what proof is there that this actually works?” he said.

“I’m just not sure how much more this program could fail. It hasn’t been successful anywhere, identifiably,” Poole said.

Attorney General Eric Holder listens during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014, where he announced the Justice Department’s civil rights division will launch a broad civil rights investigation in the Ferguson, Mo., Police Department. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Attorney General Eric Holder listens during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014, where he announced the Justice Department’s civil rights division will launch a broad civil rights investigation in the Ferguson, Mo., Police Department. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Gilliam said the program will never work so long as the federal agencies feel hamstrung by political correctness.

“They’ll send 40 investigators to Ferguson, Missouri, to investigate one death, but they’ll only send one or two people to question suspicious actors at a mosque known to house terrorist activity? It’s crazy.”

“They are trying to respond to terrorists with ‘culturally diversified speakers,’ and that’s why it isn’t working.” Gilliam said community outreach programs could work, but only if there is a real promise of firm justice to back it up.

“If a terrorist is found at a mosque, the only thing that would work is to send 50 investigators in, question everyone, put the Imam away, lock the place down and never open it again,” he said.

“You do that, and you go over to their homelands and you lay waste,” he added.  ”That is what works.”

The Department of Justice didn’t respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment on the new pilot program, or whether it had heard any chatter regarding the potential for an increased level of retaliatory attacks now that the U.S. military has begun strikes on Islamic State targets.

TheBlaze TV’s For the Record examined the underlying ideology that fuels the Islamic State and the homegrown terrorists it hopes to influence in the United States. The episode, “Total Confrontation,” aired Wednesday; catch part of it below:

‘Sanctuary Cities’ or ‘Safe Havens’ for Terrorists?

sanctuaryby Michael Cutler:

Since the deadly terror attacks of 1993 at the CIA and the World Trade Center, there have been a series of terror attacks attempted inside the United States by radical Islamists.

On September 11, 2001 our nation suffered the worst terror attacks ever carried out within the borders of our country.

Every one of these attacks had something in common: The perpetrators were all aliens who had managed to gain entry into the United States and managed to hide in plain sight, or in the jargon of the 9/11 Commission, they embedded themselves in our country as they went about their deadly preparations.

Our borders and our immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists who seek to attack America and Americans. Yet this essential fact is blithely ignored by the president, members of his administration, members of Congress who seek to implement a variant of “comprehensive immigration reform” and local and state politicians who proudly proclaim that they have created “sanctuaries” for aliens who have run our borders or violated the terms of their admission into the United States and have violated those critical immigration laws.

On Friday, September 19th, I was a guest on “America’s Forum” on Newsmax TV hosted by former Congressional Representative JD Hayworth. NewsMax posted a video of my segment with a synopsis of our discussion. The title of this article was: “Michael Cutler: Sanctuary Cities Are Safe Havens for Terrorists.”

The starting point for my interview was an important news report that contained a video clip of an interview that Rep. Jason Chaffetz participated in with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. The title of the report was: “BREAKING: Four Terrorists Captured on US Border on September 10 – Day Before 9-11.”

The video clip of the Chaffetz interview on Kelly’s program also contained a brief video of an exchange between Congressman Chaffetz and Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security at a hearing conducted earlier that day. The exchange was infuriating. At first Johnson stated that he was not aware of terrorists running our borders. Rep. Chaffetz then confronted Secretary Johnson, saying that there was information that four terrorists had been apprehended attempting to run our borders at two locations along the U.S./Mexican border. Johnson became extremely uncomfortable and started rubbing his face and all but twitching in his seat. He then claimed that he had heard about it but that they were trying to confirm the information. Next Chaffetz asked Johnson about what level of “operational control” DHS has over the U.S./Mexican border. Johnson said he did not know, whereupon Chaffetz stated that he had information that at present there is 6% operation control.

Secretary Johnson simply stared blankly at Representative Chaffetz.

If DHS has just 6% of “operational control” then we must presume that conversely we have a 94% free-for-all along that critical border. Indeed, the fact that our nation is currently suffering from a flood of heroin that is so severe that police departments around the United States are issuing the antidote to heroin overdoses to their officers and other first responders, would certainly coincide with such a lack of border security. This is why I have come to refer to the DHS as the Department of Homeland Surrender.

During my discussion with JD on his program, I also referenced an exchange between Congressman Lou Barletta and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about whether or not criminals who are known to be criminals in the United States would come forward to participate in an amnesty program. Johnson conceded that they would not. This was covered in a Breitbart News report that was published on September 17, 2014: “DHS Chief Concedes Background Checks for Amnesty Would Not Catch Criminals”

During my interview with JD on his program I also raised the issue of “sanctuary cities” and the impact such policies have on national security. I referenced the fact that New York City’s mayor Bill de Blasio had decided, with utter impunity, to provide illegal aliens with identity documents that, as an added “bonus,” would enable illegal aliens to whom those cards are issued to gain entrance into museums and other cultural landmarks in New York City.

While some news programs debated this outrageous program, the focus, for the most part, was the economic cost of providing illegal aliens with the municipal IDs that can be used as a free pass to so many major attractions that would cost thousands of dollars per alien. No one mentioned the cost to national security and public safety under de Blasio’s ill-conceived program by providing illegal aliens with identity documents that could easily enable criminals and terrorists to acquire official identity documents in false names. This violates the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and also violates the REAL ID Act that was enacted as a result of the 9/11 Commission report.

The article that chronicled my interview on NewsMax-TV included this excerpt:

“When we hear sanctuary city, we should think about the word haven, as when the president the night before the 13th anniversary of 9/11 said, ‘we need to deprive the terrorists’ safe haven,’” Cutler explained.

“Sanctuary cities is doing precisely that — providing safe haven, right here in cities across the United States, aided and abetted by this administration that refuses to enforce the laws, and has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with identity documents,” he said.

“What could possibly go wrong?” Cutler asked.

What, indeed, could possibly go wrong?

 

On September 17, 2014, Homeland Security News Wire published a report with the title: “NYC mayor de Blasio facing criticism for curbing counterterrorism programs.”

Read more at Front Page

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.

Terrorists at the Border

border-450x300by Matthew Vadum:

A Democratic congressman tried to use the might of the federal government to crush an investigation into reports that an Islamic terrorist group is using the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez as a base for launching an attack on the U.S. using car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs).

The Islamofascist group in question is the extraordinarily brutal Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) that has been conquering swathes of the Middle East with the long-term goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate. (ISIS is also known as the Islamic State group and by the Obama-preferred acronym ISIL, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.)

U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of El Paso, Texas, contacted the local offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) “in an effort to identify—and evidently intimidate—sources that may have been used by” Judicial Watch, federal law enforcement sources told the  nonprofit good-government group.

Judicial Watch, which has been legally recognized by the courts as a media outlet, reported on the terrorist conspiracy on August 29. Citing high-level federal law enforcement, intelligence, and other sources, the group reported that the federal government was bracing for an imminent terrorist attack on the southern U.S. border.

Agents in the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and Justice are all reportedly on alert and have been directed “to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat,” Judicial Watch reports.

O’Rourke’s office denies wrongdoing, but according to Judicial Watch the congressman’s telephone calls were followed by “a memo that came down through the chain of command threatening to terminate or criminally charge any agent who speaks to media of any kind.”

According to the Obama administration, Islamic terrorists are not operating in Ciudad Juarez. But the administration isn’t known for truth-telling. The White House has long downplayed the wave of violent crime, much of it committed by drug cartels, that rages along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The U.S. Border Patrol instructed its officers to steer clear of the most crime-infested portions of the border because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could lead to an “international incident” involving a cross-border shooting, Judicial Watch previously reported.

Yet a parade of Democratic politicians including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have declared the southern border to be secure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Read more at Frontpage

Also see: