Intelligence Director: Al-Qaeda ‘Positioned to Make Gains in 2016’

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper looks at his notes during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about worldwide threats on Feb. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper looks at his notes during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about worldwide threats on Feb. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

PJ MEDIA, BY BRIDGET JOHNSON, FEBRUARY 9, 2016

The director of national intelligence warned Congress this morning that “unpredictable instabilities have become the new normal, and this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.”

In a briefing of worldwide threats referred to as his “litany of doom,” James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “violent extremists” are “operationally active in about 40 countries.”

“Seven countries are experiencing a collapse of central government authority, 14 others face regime-threatening or violent instability or both. Another 59 countries face a significant risk of instability through 2016,” he said.

Russia and China “continue to have the most sophisticated cyber programs” and China continues cyber espionage against the United States.

“Whether China’s commitment of last September moderates its economic espionage” — a vow touted by President Obama — “remains to be seen,” Clapper noted. “Iran and North Korea continue to conduct cyber espionage as they enhance their attack capabilities.”

ISIS, he said, “displays unprecedented online proficiency”and “at least 38,200 foreign fighters, including at least 6,900 from western countries, have traveled to Syria from at least 120 countries since the beginning of the conflict in 2012.”

From 2014 to 2015, the number of ISIS supporters arrested by the FBI increased fivefold.

And despite repeated administration insistence that the “core” of al-Qaeda has been decimated, Clapper said they’ve bounced back just fine, with a network of affiliates “proven resilient despite counterterrorism pressure.”

“Al-Qaeda’s affiliates are positioned to make gains in 2016,” the director said, citing al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the al-Nusra front in Syria as “the two most capable al-Qaeda branches.”

Iran, Clapper noted, “continues to be the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and exert its influence and regional crisis in the Mid East.”

“Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, its terrorist partner, Lebanese, Hezbollah and proxy groups,” he said. “Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interest and partners worldwide.”

On the nuclear deal, “Iran probably views the JCPOA as a means to remove sanctions, while preserving nuclear capabilities. Iran’s perception of how the JCPOA helps it to achieve its overall strategic goals will dictate the level of adherence to the agreement over time.”

North Korea “continues to produce fissile material and develop a submarine launched ballistic missile” and is “also committed to developing a long-range nuclear armed missile that’s capable of posing a direct threat to the United States, although the system has not been flight tested,” Clapper continued.

Russia, meanwhile, “continues to have the largest and most capable foreign nuclear-armed ballistic missile force” and China “continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and is striving for a secure, second-strike capability.” Russia and China are also the greatest threats to the U.S. in terms of foreign intelligence, he said.

And despite the Obama administration lauding its deal with the Assad regime after it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons as a triumph of democracy that depleted the dictator’s stockpile, “chemical weapons continue to pose a threat to Syria and Iraq.”

“Damascus has used chemicals against the opposition on multiple occasions since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention,” Clapper said. “ISIL has also used toxic chemicals in Iraq and Syria, including the blister agent sulfur mustard, the first time an extremist group has produced and used a chemical warfare agent in an attack since Aum Shinrikyo used sarin in Japan in 1995.”

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart warned that ISIS “will probably attempt to conduct additional attacks in Europe, and attempt to direct attacks on the U.S. homeland in 2016.”

In Russia, Stewart noted, “military activity has continued at a historical high.”

“Moscow continues to pursue aggressive foreign and defense policies, including conducting operations in Syria, sustaining involvement in Ukraine and expanding military capabilities in the Arctic. Last year, the Russian military continued its robust exercise schedule and aggressively and occasionally provocative out of area deployments,” he said. “We anticipate similar high levels of military activity in 2016.”

Russian and Chinese cyberattacks “target DOD personnel, networks, supply chain, research and development, and critical structural information in cyber domain.”

Stewart said during questioning from the committee that he does not see Mosul being recaptured from ISIS this year.

“I’m less optimistic in the near-term about Mosul. I think there’s lots of work to be done yet out in the western part. I don’t believe that Ramadi is completely secure, so they have to secure Ramadi. They have to secure the Hit-Haditha corridor in order to have some opportunity to fully encircle and bring all the forces against Mosul,” the DIA director said.

“Mosul will be a complex operation, and so I’m not as optimistic. As you say, it’s a large city. I’m not as optimistic that we’ll be able to turn that in the near-term, in my view, certainly not this year. We may be able to begin the campaign, do some isolation operations around Mosul. But securing or taking Mosul is an extensive operation and not something I see in the next year or so.”

Also see:

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

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010 Photo: Getty Images

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010
Photo: Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Hamas Inspire Muslim Mass Shooting Terror Plot in Milwaukee?

samy-770Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 27, 2016:

Defending Islam, the Muslim religion, requires killing everyone who isn’t a Muslim. So far there have been Muslim terror plots against synagogues, churches and a Hindu temple. Now there was a Muslim terror plot against a Masonic temple.

Federal law enforcement agents said Samy Mohamed Hamzeh told secret FBI informants that “We will eliminate everyone” once inside one of Milwaukee’s grandest cultural landmarks — the Humphrey Scottish Rite Masonic Center.

According to the federal complaint, Hamzeh had originally planned to attack Israelis in the West Bank, but dropped those plans because of logistical problems and focused on leading an attack on a target at home in Milwaukee.

Masons, Jews. Who cares. Just kill some infidels.

The feds said Hamzeh is heard on undercover recordings stating how many Americans he wanted to shoot and kill in Milwaukee.

“Thirty is excellent” he allegedly said. They “will know that nobody can play with Muslims.”

Nobody can play with Muslims, because they’re sore losers.

Hamzeh apparently came to the U.S. from the West Bank about six years ago

Clearly we need more Muslim immigration. Just think of all the added terror arrests and shooting sprees.

“I am telling you, if this hit is executed, it will be known all over the world … all the Mujahedeen will be talking and they will be proud of us,” Hamzeh said, according to the affidavit. “Such operations will increase in America, when they hear about it. The people will be scared and the operations will increase. … This way we will be igniting it. I mean we are marching at the front of the war.”

Hamzeh added that he hoped to kill 30 people. He also said his group was Muslims and they were “defending Muslim religion.”

“We are here defending Islam, young people together join to defend Islam, that’s it, that is what our intention is,” he said.

But, according to the media, it has nothing to do with Islam. Not a thing. Just everything.

So why Masons? The media is pretending to be baffled, but Masonic conspiracy theories are popular in the Muslim world, largely because of the Muslim Brotherhood which has a particular obsession with them. The Hamas charter, in between calling for the extermination of the Jews and Islamic rule, has this wacky paragraph.

The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

Yes… rotary clubs. We’re lucky Muslims haven’t tried to shoot them up too.

I blame Muslim Masoniphobia. It’s really time we addressed the Muslim Masoniphobia crisis. Because this does look like Mohammed picked up a few ideas from the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

***

Former FBI Military Intel Officer Steve Rogers, Fox News Military Analyst (Ret.) Maj. Gen. Robert Scales and former National Security Council Director Cathy Taylor on a mass shooting plot thwarted by the FBI:

Threat Knowledge Group Chairman Sebastian Gorka on efforts to prevent homegrown terrorism:

What Is The Purpose of Islamic Centers/Mosques in America?

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and was home to the Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev brothers

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and was home to the Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev brothers

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2016:

Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.”  This could not be further from the truth.

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man.  Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time.  Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did.  Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow.  And Mohammad built mosques.

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations.  Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader.  The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.

Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam.  It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition.  It was a place where jihadis lived and trained.  It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched.  So, thats what a mosque is.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader.  This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.

Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad):  The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers.(emphasis added)

“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.” (emphasis added)

In 2002, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan quoted a famous muslim refrain:  “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” further highlighting the understanding among Muslims of what a mosque it.  (“Turkey’s Charismatic Pro-Islamic Leader.” BBC News. 4 November 2002)

The Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the MB’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

The Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the MB’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

One of the leading Islamic jurists in the world who also led the first prayers in Egypt after the successful MB revolution there in 2011 – Yusuf al Qaradawi – published a fatwa (legal ruling) on the question “Is it permissible to use a mosque for political purposes?”  In it he stated, in part:

“It must be the role of the mosque to guide the public policy of a nation, raise awareness of critical issues, and reveal its enemies. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah, resisting the enemies of the religion who are invading occupiers. That blessed Intifada in the land of the prophets, Palestine, started from none other than the mosques. Its first call came from the minarets and it was first known as the mosque revolution. The mosque’s role in the Afghan jihad, and in every Islamic jihad cannot be denied.”

There is a reason American soldiers and Marines find weapons, ammunition, and jihadis in mosques overseas, and why the French are finding weapons in mosques in France – this is what mosques are.

It is worth noting when the FBI killed Imam Luqman Abdullah in a shootout in Detroit in 2009, the complaint in the case quoted an FBI source stating he/she, “…saw and participated in extensive firearms and martial arts training inside the Masjid al Haqq (mosque).”

Finally, the Islamic Law of Sacred Space makes clear that when Muslims build mosques they are claiming ground for Islam.  Specifically, a radius of up to three (3) miles from the mosque belongs to Islam.  This explains why the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding from Saudi Arabia and others, are building huge mosques in the middle of nowhere in America.  They are claiming ground for Islam.  Now all they have to do is occupy that ground.

In America today there are over 2100 Islamic Centers/Mosques in all 50 states.  Land ownership by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank – the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – and the jihadis leading these organizations, indicates over 80% of these centers are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America.  Independent investigation also reveals over 80% of American mosques teach sharia adherence and violence to attendees, which is a logical outcome of them being MB jihadi mosques.

According to our enemy, the mosque/Islamic Center is the place from which the jihadis here will launch the jihad when “Zero Hour” arrives.

We can sit by and wait for that day, or we can begin dismantling this jihadi network in our Homeland.

Protecting the Homeland

usis-1024x565THE CIPHER BRIEF, JANUARY 6, 2016, BY KATHARINE CORNELL GORKA:

Some have argued that since the jihadist attack in Paris on November 13th, killing 130, and the December 2nd attack in San Bernardino, California, which killed 14, the United States has stepped up its domestic counter-terrorism efforts.  But with only five interdictions of ISIS supporters in the six weeks since the San Bernardino attack, the rate of interdiction has not picked up at all (an average of 4.5 per month for a total of 90 since March 2014 when ISIS first appeared in international headlines).  The bottom line is that the United States has not stepped up counter-terrorism efforts, and it continues to downplay the threat of ISIS to the homeland, emphasizing instead the threat from right-wing extremism.

Throughout the autumn, when it was already clear that ISIS was recruiting in the U.S. at a rate 300 percent greater than al Qaeda, and that the U.S. had ISIS investigations in every state, the administration implemented a number of initiatives that emphasized right-wing extremism and racial hatred over Islamist extremism. On September 28, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh  Johnson announced the creation of the DHS Office for Community Partnerships, whose goal would be “to build relationships and promote trust, and, in addition, find innovative ways to support communities that seek to discourage violent extremism and undercut terrorist narratives.” The office, both in its staffing and in its mission statement, is placing heavy emphasis on civil rights and civil liberties, suggesting it is more concerned with protecting Muslim communities than with rooting out Islamist extremism and potential terrorists.

On September 29th, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Attorney General Loretta Lynch introduced the Strong Cities Network to combat violent extremism.  Her speech did not name radical Islam as one of the threats to be addressed but only identified violent extremism.   And on October 14th, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin announced the creation of a new Domestic Terrorism Counsel to focus on what he calls “Americans attacking Americans based on U.S.-based extremist ideologies.”

As suggested by the initiatives above, the Obama administration has built its strategy to prevent ISIS-inspired acts of terrorism in the United States on the Muslim community’s ability to police itself.  As Attorney General Lynch said in her UN speech,  “As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs.”  But the evidence does not support this.  Of the 90 ISIS supporters who have been interdicted, only 18 (20 percent), were turned in by someone they knew, and not a single one of those by a local Muslim leader or Imam.  As Melvin Bledsoe, the father of one convicted terrorist, testified before Congress, “Some Muslim leaders had taken advantage of my son. But he’s not the only one being taken advantage of: this is going on in Nashville and in many other cities in America. In Nashville, Carlos was captured by people best described as hunters. He was manipulated and lied to. That’s how he made his way to Yemen.  …the former Imam of a Nashville mosque, the Al Farooq Mosque, wrote the recommendation letter Carlos needed for the school in Yemen. We also discovered that the school functions as an intake front for radicalizing and training Westerners for Jihad.”

This problem is also explained in a recent book on the FBI, in which former senior FBI executive Arthur  Cummings said that in his experience, Muslim leaders want to fix problems within their own communities and not bring problems with extremism to the FBI. When Cummings suggested to a Muslim group that they let the FBI know when they had an extremist within their community, they told him, “That could never happen.  We would lose our constituency. We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”

What then can the U.S. government do to improve its ability to counter the homegrown threat?  Obviously, defeating ISIS on the battlefield will have the single greatest impact on the threat, but even then, many other extremist Islamist groups will remain. Until radical Islam itself is discredited, there are important steps the U.S. government can take to better protect the homeland:

  • Present a more accurate threat assessment, one shaped by the reality on the ground and not on ideological biases.
  • Facilitate training for both federal and local law enforcement on the nature and scope of the threat (training budgets for both federal and local law enforcement have recently been cut).
  • Target and interdict those who are propagating radical ideas, not merely those who are plotting or carrying out attacks.
  • Implement a more aggressive counter-ideology campaign, both at home and abroad, one that is not based on the false premise that poverty and lack of education lead to jihadism.

ISIS has shifted away from the grand, centrally planned attacks that al Qaeda favored and instead is encouraging supporters to carry out independent attacks wherever they are able.  As a result, we are likely to see more of the types of attacks carried out at the Boston marathon, in Paris, and in San Bernardino.  This is borne out by statistics: of the 90 ISIS supporters interdicted in the United States since March 2014, 29 (32 percent) were domestic plotters who believed the best way to support ISIS was to carry out attacks against Americans on U.S. soil.  If the administration does not begin to take this threat more seriously, there may yet be far worse to come.

Katharine Cornell Gorka is the President of Threat Knowledge Group, which provides training and expertise on threats to U.S. national security.  She works closely with U.S. government agencies, law enforcement and the intelligence community.  From 2008 to 2014 Katharine served as executive director of the Westminster Institute, a think-tank based in McLean, Virginia. She co-edited the volume, Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Islamism to Communism and most recently co-authored the report ISIS: The Domestic Threat

10 Reasons to Be Suspicious of CAIR

Jessica Gresko / Associated Press

Jessica Gresko / Associated Press

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Dec. 28, 2015:

One reason to be suspicious of Washington’s ability to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism is that the same dodgy characters keep showing up as self-appointed spokespersons for the American Muslim community.

The Beltway-media complex is too politically correct and/or afraid of being labeled “anti-Muslim” to ask tough questions about their background. They become unchallenged, unquestioned sources for a great deal of news coverage.

Chief among these organizations is CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. If you’re looking for a squeaky-clean activist group to carry the banner of Muslim resistance to Islamist extremism… well, CAIR hardly seems to fit the bill, despite being portrayed that way by the Mainstream Media.

Here are 10 reasons you should be suspicious of CAIR:

1. They are a suspected Hamas fundraiser. This is the big one, and it has beenaffirmed by the Justice Department on several occasions. CAIR was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which concerned fundraising for the Palestinian terror organizations Hamas and the Palestinian Committee. The strong tiesbetween CAIR’s founders and Hamas are well-documented and beyond dispute. CAIR generally addresses these issues by attacking virtually everyone who mentions them as an “Islamophobe.”

2. The FBI suspended formal contacts with CAIR.  As a result of the Holy Land Foundation scandal, the FBI determined CAIR was not an “appropriate liaison partner.” The Bureau had a list of issues CAIR would have to address to restore this relationship, including demonstrating that CAIR had cut all ties with Hamas and similar groups, but those conditions have not been met.

3. CAIR encourages Muslims to distrust the FBI. Another reason the Bureau might not be eager to have close ties with CAIR is that the latter has in the past portrayed the FBI as a sinister conspiracy against Muslims. For example, they advised Muslims to “use caution when speaking with the FBI” during the 2010 investigation of a Muslim described to local Arizona media as “humble, pious, and well-liked in the community.” His name was Elton Simpson, and he died launching a jihadi attack against the Mohammed Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas four years later.

More recently, CAIR National’s Twitter account issued a string of messages opposing the no-fly list – which Democrats are now using in a bid to bypass the Constitution for gun control – because it had too many Muslims on it, and the FBI could be using the no-fly list to “pressure Muslims to become informants.” CAIR accuses the FBI of using “blackmail” tactics against Muslims.

The California chapter of CAIR held a conference in 2011 that was advertised with a poster depicting what Fox News described as “a sinister-looking FBI agent” and the headlines “Build a Wall of Resistance” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.”  The conference was entitled “FBI Raids and Grand Jury Subpoenas: Know Your Rights and Defend Our Communities.”  CAIR ultimately decided to take the poster down, out of what spokesman Ibrahim Hooper described as “extreme caution”… while nevertheless complaining about “Muslim bashers” and “the Islamophobic hate machine.”

4. CAIR has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. The UAE prepared a list in 2014 that designated all organs of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim American Society. Officials of the Obama Administration were dispatched to work with CAIR to oppose the UAE designation, a designation which CAIR described as “shocking and bizarre.”

5. They threw a banquet for an Islamic Jihad leader. One reason the UAE designation of CAIR was not shocking is that a week beforehand, CAIR-SFBA threw a banquet in honor of former Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami al-Arian and gave him a “Promoting Justice” award. Al-Arian pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide goods and services to this known terrorist organization, which is dedicated to using homicidal and suicidal violence for the “Palestinian Cause,” and even agreed to deportation to Turkey as part of his plea deal.

Al-Arian’s defenders contend his trial was unfair, whistling past documentation such as his unsent handwritten letter to Kuwait seeking money for “the jihad effort in Palestine,” but his relationship with law enforcement is, shall we say, profoundly unhelpful to those who think CAIR and its friends can help the Muslim-American community work with the authorities to crush domestic terrorism.

6. Some CAIR members have a nuanced view of suicide bombing. One of the CAIR spokesmen who “condemned all violence everywhere” after the San Bernardino attack, Muzammil Siddiqui, in 1995 praised suicide bombers, and then in 2000 thundered about the “wrath of God” descending upon America for its support of Israel. He has also gone off-message by admitting jihad “may take a military action,” rather than pushing the preferred narrative about it being an entirely peaceful internal struggle, in 2007.

7. CAIR executives have described notorious terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah as “resistance movements.” That’s how CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly described Hezbollah, while insisting it is “absolutely not a terrorist organization.” Israel and its supporters, on the other hand, were described as “enemies of God and humanity” by Shibly in 2014.

Hezbollah most certainly is a violent terrorist organization, although they are not big fansof the terrorist attacks perpetrated by their enemies in ISIS, which is currently facing them across the chaotic battlefields of Syria. Hezbollah is a Shiite murder squad aligned with Iran, while the Islamic State is Sunni.

In 2008, then-National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed described Hamas and Hezbollah as “part of the political processes in their societies, just like the IRA was part of the political process in their society.”

In 2001, Ghazi Khankan, then-Executive Director of CAIR’s New York office, claimed “the people of Hamas who direct their attacks on the Israeli military are in the correct position, those who attack civilians are wrong.”  When he was asked how he defined Israeli civilians, Khankan replied, “Who is a soldier in Israel and who is not? Anyone over 18 is automatically inducted into the service and they are all reserves. Therefore, Hamas in my opinion looks at them as part of the military. Those who are below 18 should not be attacked.”

8. They are very quick to accuse law enforcement of improperly using deadly force against Muslims. If Americans want close “see something, say something” cooperation with a fully-integrated Muslim community, the last thing they need is paranoia built with wild accusations of cops with itchy trigger fingers shooting Islamic suspects for no good reason. CAIR is quick to cry foul on such shootings, and stands by its judgments despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  Examples include the shootings of Ibragim Todashev, an associated of the Boston Bombers who was shot while attacking state police and an FBI agent, and Usaama Rahim, who was under surveillance for planning the jihad murders of policemen in Boston, and died when he attacked law enforcement officers with a knife.

The CAIR spokesman who thinks Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, Hassan Shibly, was still pushing paranoid narratives about the FBI gunning down Todashev – an associate of the Boston Marathon bombers implicated in a previous triple homicide that may have also involved the Tsarnaevs – for no good reason, even after the Justice Department revealed he had a half-written confession in his apartment, threw a coffee table in the face of an FBI agent when he realized he was about to be arrested, and then went after a Massachusetts State Police officer with a five-foot metal pole.

In the Rahim case, CAIR floated suspicions that he was innocently chatting on his cell phone with his father when a police officer and FBI agent confronted and shot him for no good reason.  “We have a number of questions: Why exactly was he being followed? What was the probable cause for this particular stop? Were there any video cameras or body cameras of the incident? How do you reconcile the two versions of the story, the family version being that he was on his normal commute to work at a bus stop?” asked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper.

9. They tried to discredit the investigation of a political assassin.  That would be Mannsor Arbabsiar, an Iranian-American busted in 2011 for plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, allegedly at the behest of Iran’s foreign espionage team, the Quds Force. Arbabsiar was trying to hire the Zeta drug cartel to pull of the hit, but he got a DEA informant on the line instead.

CAIR labored mightily to portray this investigation as a farce based on false intelligence.  One CAIR official said on Twitter that he didn’t believe Attorney General Eric Holder’s assertions of an alliance between Iran and Mexican drug cartels, while another declared, “If Holder hadn’t announced so many ‘foiled’ plots that were really FBI provocateur led, I’d be more inclined to believe this Iran plot biz.”

The latter Tweet, from Dawud Walid of CAIR-Michigan, was eventually deleted, but he came back with more posts alleging the Administration had falsified its claims that Iranian officials were involved in the Arbabsiar plot.  One of these posts included “smh,” which is Internet slang for “shaking my head,” indicating disgust.

Arbabsiar eventually confessed to the plot, including the involvement of Iranian intelligence agents, and was sentenced to 25 years in prison, despite a game effort at an insanity defense. (“I can’t change what I did, but I have a good heart. I never hurt anyone. My mind is sometimes not in a good place,” he explained.)

10. They work hard to silence critics of Islamic extremism.  CAIR will not be throwing any banquets or giving a “Promoting Justice” award to courageous Somali-born critic of Islamic misogyny Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They were part of the disgraceful effort to quash her honorary degree from Brandeis University, comparing her to “white supremacists and anti-Semites” in the process.

They are not fond of other Somalis who work to keep young Muslims in Minnesota from falling into the clutches of al-Shabaab, either.  When two Muslim activists attended a seminar describing al-Shabaab as an “Islamic extremist terrorism organization” in 2011, CAIR denounced them as “anti-Muslim.”  A local reporter described CAIR-Minnesota’s attacks on the two anti-al-Shabaab activists as “character assassination,” carried out because the targets “were the first to blow the whistle on the effort to recruit Minnesotan Somalis for terrorism in Somalia.”

CAIR statements on Islamists often come with asterisks and qualifications, but they are full-throated when denouncing everyone they see as a critic of Islam.

Bottom line: these and other examples show that CAIR is just about the exact opposite of what anyone who wants to enlist sincere Muslim-Americans in a pushback against Islamist extremism and terrorism is looking for. The last thing we need right now is CAIR’s toxic mixture of terrorism-apologias, attempts to discredit counter-terrorist activity, mindless political correctness, and fishy international politics. We need bold, unambiguous critics of violence and extremism, champions of assimilation with squeaky-clean backgrounds, not “Islamophobia” hysterics who think terrorists have legitimate grievances.

Obama White House Turns To Islamists Who Demonize Terror Investigations

by John Rossomando
IPT News
December 28, 2015

Jihadist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris have Americans on edge. Yet part of the Obama White House’s response to the attacks has been to invite Islamist groups that routinely demonize the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to the White House to discuss a religious discrimination. “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away,” President Obama said in his speech following the San Bernardino attack.

But partnering with such organizations sends the wrong message to the American people, said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID).

“I think it says a lot when the president uses those organizations that have an ACLU-type mentality. They should have a seat at the table. That’s fine,” Jasser said.  “But not to include groups, which have completely different focuses about counter-radicalization, counter-Islamism creates this monolithic megaphone for demonization of our government and demonization of America that ends up radicalizing our community.”

A White House spokesperson acknowledged to the Investigative Project on Terrorism that the Dec. 14 meeting on countering anti-Muslim animus included Hassan Shibly, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida chapter. The same forum – attended by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – also included Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates; Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI); Mohamed Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); and Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) among others.

The White House guests, or the organizations they represent, have long histories of criticizing counter-terror investigations. CAIR leads the pack. Its Philadelphia chapter is advertising a workshop, “The FBI and Entrapment in the Muslim Community,” which features a spider with an FBI badge on its back, spinning a web of entrapment around an image of a mosque. The workshop “provides the tools needed to prevent entrapment of community members to become terrorists in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Since 9/11, CAIR has repeatedly taken the side of defendants accused of financing or plotting attacks, calling their prosecutions a “witch hunt” against the Muslim community.  For example, CAIR denounced the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, who turned out to be the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “politically motivated” and a result of the “Israelization of American policy and procedures.”

A year ago, CAIR similarly protested the incarceration of Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda” – convicted in 2010 of trying to kill two FBI agents. The protest came after the Islamic State (ISIS) offered to spare the lives of executed American photojournalist James Foley and aid worker Kayla Mueller in exchange for Siddiqui’s release.

CAIR also denounced the December 2001 shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation for Hamas support, saying, “…there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam.”

Demonizing law enforcement and spreading “the idea that America and Western societies [are] anti-Muslim – the whole Islamophobia mantra is part of the early steps of radicalization so that Muslims get separated out of society,” Jasser said. “These groups certainly aren’t on the violent end of the Islamist continuum, but if there’s a conveyer belt that goes towards radicalization then it certainly starts with this siege and separatist mentality.”

CAIR has used such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric for years, with its San Francisco chapter removing a poster urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance – Don’t Talk to the FBI” in 2011 after the IPT reported on it.

Later that year, a CAIR-New York official told a Muslim audience that FBI agents would break the law to force them to talk. That includes threats and “blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal,” Lamis Deek told the audience. “But they’ll do it.”

Jasser blames CAIR and others which spread similar rhetoric for the increased fear of Islam and Muslims in America since 9/11 because they refuse to discuss Islamic extremism and the role Muslims have in fixing the problem.

1324“This creates a climate where people don’t trust us to be part of the solution,” Jasser said. “People say that if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem, which creates more fear and distrust.”

Neither Jasser nor the AIFD, which advocates for “liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state,” were invited to the White House meeting. Also shut out were Jasser’s colleagues in the new Muslim Reform Movement, whose members “reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam” and stand “for secular governance, democracy and liberty. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.”

The White House did not reply to a request for comment about Jasser’s characterization of these groups; however, it previously said it engaged CAIR because of “their work on civil rights issues” despite the group’s Hamas ties.

Former FBI Associate Deputy Director Buck Revell also finds the White House’s choice of Muslim groups troubling.

“It’s a very confusing time and circumstance when you have the White House dealing with people who have fronted for the Muslim Brotherhood and are the spokespeople for Hamas in the United States and you bring them in for a conference at the White House and say they are supposed to speak for the Muslim community in America,” Revell said. “It’s unhelpful to have the White House essentially fronting for groups that want to make it harder to reach the jihadists in our society and in effect flush them out.”

Khera’s group Muslim Advocates has a pending lawsuit against the New York Police Department regarding its surveillance of mosques and other Islamic institutions using undercover police officers and informants.

“One of our key priorities at Muslim Advocates is ending racial and religious profiling by law enforcement,” Khera says in a YouTube video supporting the suit. “We’ve done work to combat profiling by the FBI, by Customs and Border Protection and now more recently we’ve had concerns about the way the New York Police Department – the nation’s largest police department – has been conducting itself.”

Like CAIR, Khera has called the FBI’s sting operations and informants against potential jihadists “entrapment operations” that rope in individuals who might otherwise never engage in terrorist activity.

CAIR’s Shibly also used the entrapment narrative in a June 2014 blog post in which he argued that the “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny. Many other CAIR representatives, such as Michigan director Dawud Walid, previously alleged the FBI has “recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.”

AAI stops short of embracing the entrapment narrative but labels surveillance programs by the NYPD and other government agencies “unconstitutional, ineffective, and counterproductive.” New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio disbanded the NYPD unit responsible for infiltrating the city’s mosques and Muslim gathering places looking for potential terrorists in April 2014 under pressure from Muslim groups.

Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”

However, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which formerly accused the FBI of entrapment, conceded in 2013 that informants can be useful detecting terror cells and keeping them off balance.

“To be fair, informants at times can be effective in counterterrorism investigations even against cellular structures. Because terrorist groups are concerned about their operational security, fear of informants can create and increase tensions within a terrorist cell. As a result, it may generate enough paranoia that a cell may abandon a planned operation,” MPAC said in its 2013 report “Building Bridges to Strengthen America.”

Looking for jihadis before they strike is a bit like looking for a “needle in a haystack,” so sting operations are useful in finding them before it’s too late, according to Revell.  He says such operations can be useful in preventing the next San Bernardino.

“If you don’t find them when they are talking jihad and you have to wait until they take an action then it’s too late to be able to prevent casualties and ensure that the public is safe,” Revell said. “There certainly is knowledge among those looking to do any type of jihadi activity that there is a force out there that is countering them and that they need to try to cover their activities to the greatest extent possible.”

In the past year, the Islamic State (ISIS) has published at least two documents instructing its jihadis how to evade being lured into stings by the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies.  The ISIS manual “Safety and Security guidelines of the Lone Wolf Mujahideen” devotes a chapter to evading FBI stings by testing the weapons they receive prior to using them in an attack.

Khera’s organization stood front and center in 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive.  Shecomplained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter that counterterrorism materials then being used to train FBI agents about Islam used “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims.” Such allegedly misinformed statements included characterizing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat” and that “Accommodation and compromise between [Islam and the West] are impermissible and fighting [for Muslims] is obligatory.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators, including from the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” published with editorial assistance from IIIT, says that zakat can be used among other things to help “(4) those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Top Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi similarly states in his book, Fiqh of Jihad, that zakat may be spent to finance “the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of the unbelievers,” particularly against Israel and India in Kashmir.

Numerous Islamic charities have been cited or closed down in connection with terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks. Qaradawi’s actions back up his words. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Union of Good, a network of charities headed by Qaradawi, for Hamas fundraising. That same year a federal court jury convicted the founders of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for illegally financing Hamas.

“The government’s policy has inflicted considerable harm,” MPAC’s Salam al-Marayatiwrote in 2001 after federal authorities closed the Benevolence International Fund (BIF). “By effectively shutting down these charities, it has given Americans the false impression that American Muslims are supporting terrorists. It has also given the Muslim world a similarly false impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority.”

Representatives of MPAC, CAIR and Muslim Advocates each condemned the HLF prosecution or its subsequent verdict.

In the end, the White House’s decision to empower these groups sends a mixed message to the American people that it isn’t fully interested in rooting out the causes of jihadist terror and preventing future attacks.

UTT Reviews Final Republican Presidential Debate of 2015

debate1UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 16, 2015:

Last night (Tuesday) in Las Vegas, Nevada the Republican candidates for President met for their last debate of 2015.  The focus of the debate was national security with a large portion of the discussion dedicated to ISIS and the jihadi threat.

UTT now offers a few comments on this debate and each candidate specifically as it relates to their positions on the Islamic threat.

Sadly, there were several illogical streams of thought from the candidates with regard to the Global Islamic Movement, the most obvious of which was the focus primarily on ISIS and the concerns surrounding that, and no spoken understanding of the larger Islamic Movement.

The candidates generally proclaimed:

  1. We cannot defeat ISIS without partnering with the Muslim world and using Arab forces
  2. Banning Muslim immigration to U.S. will hurt us in defeating ISIS
  3. ISIS is “radical” and the threat is primarily “over there”
  4. There was no mention of sharia as the enemy threat doctrine
  5. The Saudis are our friends
  6. There was no mention of destroying Iran’s military capability
  7. There was no mention that most Islamic Centers/Mosques and Islamic organizations in America are hostile/jihadist and, therefore, pose a threat to the American people.
  8. There was no mention that all of the recent jihadi attacks in America are directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood’s network here

The following are key quotes from the candidates with brief comments by UTT included:

Senator Ted Cruz:  Senator Cruz seemed to understand the jihadi threat better than the other candidates, and gave a more narrow definition of the threat than we have heard thus far.  He also mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood and called them a “terrorist organization.”  Senator Cruz highlighted the absurdity of an American government relying on “moderate Muslims” to change the course of the war, and made clear that border and port security were high priorities.

“Its not a war on a faith, its a war on a political and theocratic ideology that seeks to murder us…what (carpet bombing ISIS in their capital) means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely defeat ISIS…we need to use overwhelming air power, we need to be arming the Kurds, we need to be fighting and killing ISIS where they are.”

“We keep hearing from President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Washington Republicans that they’re searching for these mythical moderate rebels.  Its like a purple unicorn – they never exist. These moderate rebels end up being jihadists.”

“(Immigration) is directly related to what we have been talking about, because the front line with ISIS isn’t just in Iraq and Syria.  Its also in Kennedy Airport and the Rio Grande.  Border security is national security.”

In making the comment that Muslims in India are not prone to the type of activities we see from ISIS, Senator Cruz showed a lack of understanding of the Muslim community there, as many do support and are involved in the jihad.   Overall, however, he clearly understands this threat better than the others.

Donald Trump:  Mr. Trump stated he is willing to take the fight to the enemy by destorying ISIS using all means necessary, but did not demonstrate an understanding of the nature of the threat here in the United States.  He reaffirmed his commitment to pause immigration of refugees and Muslims.

When asked about his ban on Muslims and refugees Mr. Trump stated, “We are not talking about isolation. We are talking about security.  We are not talking about religion, we are talking about security…as far as other people like in the migration, where they are going, tens of thousands of people having cell phones with ISIS flags on them…they are not coming to this country…and if Obama has brought some to this country, they are leaving, they are going, they’re gone.”

Mr. Trump left little doubt he will address this threat head-on, and will do what needs to be done to protect America, regardless of what critics say.

Dr. Ben Carson:  On two occasions, Dr. Carson called for Congress to declare war on ISIS, and was the only candidate to mention the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document discovered at the 2004 FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia where the archives of the MB were found.  Many of these documents were entered into the US v Holy Land Foundation trial which was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in American history (Dallas, 2008).  None of the candidates explained the MB network here or layed out the evidence from the HLF trial other than Dr. Carson’s brief comment.

“We need to be on a war footing.  We need to understand that our nation is in grave danger….What the Muslim Brotherhood said in the Explanatory Memorandum that was discovered during the Holy Land Foundation trial is that they will take advantage of our PC attitude to get us.”

We have to “shut down all the mechanisms whereby they can disperse money because they go after disaffected individuals all over the place…”

Governor Chris Christie:  Governor Christie emphasized his experience as a federal prosecutor, and it is a pretty strong record on which to stand.  However, his record of defending suit wearing jihadists is also clear, and he has demonstrated his lack of understanding of Islam and sharia.  This means if he is put in a position of leadership at the federal level, he will likely continue the Bush administration’s practice of focusing on jihadis who want to shoot people and blow things up while the suit-wearing jihadis write American foreign and domestic policy on these matters.

“On ISIS, lets be clear, the President needs to be a force that is trusted in the world…if you’re the King of Jordan, if you’re in the royal family in Saudi Arabia, and he’s made this deal with Iran which gives them $150 billion to wage a war and try to extend their empire across the Middle East, why would you want to do it (fight in a coalition against Asad’s forces) now?  But I’ll tell you this, when I stand across from King Hussein of Jordan and I say to him you have a friend again sir who will stand with you again to fight this fight, he’ll change his mind.”

Governor Christie also proclaimed that ISIS was formed because of Iran, again highlighting his lack of understanding that jihad is an obligation for all Muslims until the world is under Islamic rule.

“ISIS is created and formed because of the abuse that Asad and his Iranian sponsors have rained down on the sunnis in Syria…we need to focus our attention on Iran, because if you miss Iran you are not going to get ISIS.  The two are inextricably connected because one causes the other.”

Governor Christie was strong and resolute on not allowing Syrian refugees into the US because the FBI Director says the FBI cannot vet them.

Senator Rand Paul stated the United States needs to “defeat terrorism” and that  “Regime change hasn’t won.  Toppling secular dictators in the Middle East has only led to chaos and the rise of radical Islam.”

This again reveals a strategic misunderstanding of what we are dealing with.  The rise of the Islamic armies is a function of sharia, not of Israel, toppling dictators, Iran, or anything else.  Our mis-steps hurt us strategically, but these events are not the driving force behind the global jihad – Islamic doctrine is.

“We get so distracted by all of the information, we are spending time getting specific information on terrorists…by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Asad, that we created a safe space or made that space bigger for ISIS to grow.  I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake.”

It should be noted, however, that UTT believes “regime change” should not be the focus, but destroying the enemy in all forms should.  Our objective was to help establish democratic-style governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and today they are Islamic Republics under sharia.

Governor John Kasich’s perspective of wanting to unify Republicans and Democrats seems to ignore the reality that the Democrat party at the federal level is now a socialist-based party with no desire to defend American principles or our national security.

“We need to unify” with democrats.

He also verbalized his approval of trusting and working with Saudi Arabia – the largest funder of the global jihad besides Iran.  “The Saudis have organized 34 countries who want to join in the battle against terrorism.  First and foremost, we need to go and destroy ISIS, and we need to do this with our Arab friends and our friends in Europe.”

“(Asad) has to go. Asad is aligned with Iran and Russia.  The one thing we want to prevent is we want to prevent Iran being able to extend a shia crescent all across the Middle East.  Asad has got to go.  And there are moderates there.  There are moderates in Syria we should be supporting….At the end, the Saudis have agreed to put together a coalition inside of Syria to stabilize that country.”

While Governor Kasich stated he does not support allowing Syrian refugees into the United States, his desire to rely on “moderate” Muslims in places like Syria reveals a grave lack of understanding of the threat.

Carly Fiorina:  Mrs. Fiorina seems focused on using technology to win the war, which is not surprising given her background.  However, her common sense approach to most things may mean she is likely open to the truth at a deeper level.

Her desire to have Muslims in the coalition, again, highlights a lack of strategic understanding of this threat.  “We must have sunni Arabs involved in this coalition.”

“We need to deny (ISIS) territory.  Here at home we need to do two fundamental things…we need to recognize that technology has moved on…and the terrorists have moved on with it…We now learn that DHS says ‘no we can’t check their social media.’  For heaven’s sake, every parent in America is checking social media and every employer is as well, but our government can’t do it…our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt.  And that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability, is now dangerous…One of the things I would immediately do, in addition to defeating them here at home, is bring back the warrior class.”

Mrs. Fiorina understands we need warriors to lead this fight.  UTT only slightly disagrees with her specific comments in that we need more warriors/leaders like General Mattis and less like General Petraeus.

Governor Jeb Bush:  Governor Bush believes the Arab world needs to create the strategy to defeat ISIS without acknowledging the Muslim world is conflicted because what ISIS is doing is often right in line with Islamic doctrine.  He strongly disagrees with Mr. Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration for a time period specifically because – according to Mr. Bush – it will hurt America’s ability to engage the Muslim world.  Governor Bush seems to be unaware that a large portion of the Muslim world is already at war with us.

“We need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate.  That should be our objective.  The refugee issue will be solved if we destroy ISIS there…All of that has to be done in concert with the Arab nations.  And if we’re going to ban all Muslims, how are we going to get them to be part of a coalition to destroy ISIS…This is not a serious proposal.  In fact, it will push the Muslim world, the Arab world, away from us at a time when we need to re-engage with them to be able to create a strategy to destroy ISIS…Banning all Muslims will make it harder for us to (destroy ISIS)…The main thing we should be focused on is a strategy to destroy ISIS.”

Senator Marco Rubio:  Senator Rubio stated that sunni Arabs reject ISIS ideologically without providing further details.  In fact, the Arab world is concerned because ISIS is calling out Arab leaders who are not abiding by sharia, and the Global Islamic Movement is currently focused on holding those leaders accountable and overthrowing governments in order to make sharia the law of the land.  His plan also mandates our enemies in the Islamic world be a part of the coalition to defeat ISIS, and also believes ISIS was created for some other reason other than the truth that Islamic law requires it.

“We have to understand who ISIS is.  ISIS is a radical Sunni group.  They cannot just be defeated through air strikes.  Air strikes are a key component of defeating them, but they must be defeated on the ground by a ground force.  And that ground force must be made up of sunni Arabs themselves.  Sunni Arabs who reject them ideologically and confront them militarily…Asad is one of the main reasons ISIS exists to begin with.  Asad is a puppet of Iran. And he has been so brutal towards the sunni within Syria, that he created the space that led for the people of Syria themselves to stand up and try to overthrow him.  That led to the chaos which allowed ISIS to come in and take advantage of that situation and grow more powerful.”

Overall, the candidates did not acknowledge the reality that the war against us is a Global Islamic Movement, not merely ISIS.  Did Al Qaeda evaporate from the planet by the way?

Many of the candidates also proclaimed we must use Muslim forces to defeat Muslim forces.  This is not rational on the face of it.  America must do what we need to do to defend our sovereignty, our government, our people, and our way of life.

Additionally, none of the candidates spoke truth into the massive jihadi network here in America that is much more of an imminent threat to all of us than ISIS in Syria is.

The good news is, the needle has moved and the discussions are getting closer to the truth.  Most of that is because Mr. Trump has forced these discussions, and that is good for American national security and our future.

Suppress Shooters’ Islamist Ties, Obama Ordered

obama.sinisterFrontpage, by Matthew Vadum, Dec. 14, 2015:

On the day of the deadly San Bernardino, Calif. massacre, President Obama ignored FBI-procured evidence that the attack was an Islamic terrorist operation and ordered federal officials to mislead the public about the true nature of the assault.

Although the FBI knew immediately on Dec. 2 that the mass-casualty event was a Muslim terrorist attack, Obama and FBI Director James Comey reportedly clashed over why Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire around 11 a.m. local time on Farook’s municipal government workmates, leaving 14 dead and 21 wounded.

The news comes as investigator Phil Haney, who helped to create the Department of Homeland Security,revealed on Fox News that the government shut down a database he created that might have helped to prevent the attack. Haney says he looked into groups that had ties to Farook and Malik as far back as 2012. But civil rights officials accused him of unfairly profiling Muslims, removed his security clearance, and destroyed the data he collected.

Meanwhile in the Oval Office, the official head-scratching over the events in San Bernardino continued. “[I]mmense political pressure was brought down on investigators to avoid using the term ‘terrorism,’ with Obama stating, ‘It is possible that this is terrorist related, but we don’t know … It is also possible that this was workplace related.’”

President Obama blamed his favorite villains of late, gun-owning Americans, demanding “common sense gun safety laws” and a law blocking individuals on the “No Fly List” from legally purchasing firearms, a measure that would almost certainly violate the Constitution. Around the same time Attorney General Loretta Lynch took the offensive in trying to chill free discussion by publicly threatening to prosecute Americans for anti-Islam statements.

After the shooting, Obama met at the White House with the National Security Council, Lynch, and officials from the FBI, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security. There Obama directed the officials to downplay the role that terrorism played in the Dec. 2 assault, according to SOFREP, a news website for military and Special Operations veterans. The news report notes that such high-level meetings “are not held for mass shootings.”

On Dec. 2, intelligence-gathering aircraft appeared to be surveying San Bernardino, the report seems to suggest. Such aircraft “don’t slurp up data from the skies over California unless the government is actively searching for other members of a terrorist cell. The same was done after the Boston bombings and the attempted Times Square bombing.”

In the spirit of make-believe that has dominated the Obama presidency, especially in its twilight years, the administration’s charade continued for days until it became increasingly obvious this was a jihadist attack. The news cycle keeps interfering with Obama’s preferred narrative that under his watch Islamic terrorist groups are on the run.

According to a news report, federal investigators are on tenterhooks, anxious about getting in trouble for doing their jobs:

The FBI is said to be frightened of crossing the White House’s party line while they attempt to investigate the San Bernardino shootings. After 9/11, and the more recent attacks in Paris, law enforcement officials served warrants, investigated known associates, and did what they needed to do to gather evidence and make arrests. Now, the FBI is afraid of investigating the mosque Farook attended, as Obama’s priority seems to be avoiding anti-Muslim backlash. All Director Comey can do is plead with the White House to allow his agents to properly investigate the crime.

Obama has also said there is no intelligence showing that Farook and Malik received guidance or money from terrorist groups abroad. This reportedly contradicts the findings of the Department of Defense and Special Operations Command’s Threat Finance Agency which “has concluded that Malik and Farook most likely received funding from terrorists abroad … [and] has issued alerts to the appropriate banking institutions to flag financial transitions from specific banks accounts.”

Presumably, Obama is lying and downplaying the couple’s terrorist connections so he can avoid ramping up anti-Islamic State efforts in the Middle East.

Read more

***

FBI Director Comey continually at odds with White House while trying to protect against terror. Watch Jeanine Pirro on Justice With Judge Jeanine and Opening Statement.

They’re ‘so nice,’ until they get religion and want to kill us

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the two jihadists who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the two jihadists who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Dec. 13, 2015:

‘We see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers,” President Obama said while addressing the nation in the wake of the latest homegrown massacre at the hands of Muslims.

But is that really what’s poisoning their minds?

FBI investigators are now operating on the belief that San Bernardino terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were individually “radicalized,” and for “quite some time,” possibly starting as early as 2013 — before the rise of ISIS and its Internet propaganda machine. So it wasn’t ISIS poisoning their minds, as the president suggests.

So what was it? The feds are still scratching their heads, willfully blind to the obvious religious factor.

But this much they know: “These two killers were starting to radicalize towards martyrdom and jihad as early as 2013, and so that’s really before ISIL [ISIS] became the global jihad leader that it is,” FBI Director James Comey testified Wednesday. “They were actually radicalized before they started dating.”

Unlike other mass murderers, who exhibit antisocial, paranoid, narcissistic or schizoid traits, Farook and Malik do not appear to be natural born killers. Neither had a history of violence nor criminal record, and both generally were described as pleasant people.

In fact, friends invariably called the 28-year-old Farook a “very nice person,” while his landlord even described him as a “very gentle person.” He enjoyed working on old cars and shooting hoops. For her part, the 29-year-old Malik was seen as “a good girl” and a good student who aspired to be a pharmacist. Before dressing in austere Islamic clothing, she was even viewed as a “modern girl.”

Muslims and non-Muslims alike spoke highly of them both. Then suddenly a switch went off, and the couple went medieval.

By all accounts, that switch was piety. They simply got closer to their religion, immersing themselves in Islamic scripture.

Farook and Malik devoted themselves to Islamic study, which culminated in both of them memorizing the Koran, a high honor in Islam. They began wearing traditional Islamic garb — Farook, a white tunic and skullcap, and Malik, a black veil and robe.

Before long, Farook was slaughtering fellow Americans, many of them co-workers, shooting them at point-blank range with his wife by his side, the two of them stopping only to reload. Why? Because as US taxpayers, the 14 people they killed supported Israel and the Jews.

We saw the same transformation in the Tsarnaev brothers of Boston, who were considered “nice” and “normal,” even partiers — until their mother made them stick their noses in their holy books and get religion. Within a matter of just a couple of years of becoming more fervent in their Muslim faith, these “typical American boys” were making shrapnel bombs and blowing off limbs of innocent bystanders at the Boston Marathon to “punish” fellow Americans for supporting wars in Muslim lands. And that was after the oldest boy, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, nearly beheaded a couple of Jews he once befriended.

“I told Tamerlan that we are Muslims, and we are not practicing our religion, and how can we call ourselves Muslims,” Mrs. Tsarnaev said. “And that’s how Tamerlan started reading about Islam, and he started praying, and he got more and more and more into his religion.”

The change was dramatic in both boys, who stopped partying and started hating — Jews, Christians, America. Suddenly they were growing out Islamic beards and saying they were “willing to die for Islam.”

A similar change came over the Chattanooga jihadist, Mohammad Abdulazeez, who was described as “very friendly” — until he became intensely observant in his faith and saw it as his religious duty to fatally gun down five soldiers in Tennessee earlier this year.

Moreover, two brothers suspected in last month’s Paris terror attacks were born-again Muslims as well. Reportedly, they really began to change around six months prior to the attacks, when they stopped drinking and started studying and praying.

This phenomenon is well documented in virtually every FBI case of homegrown American terrorism: the more religious, the more radical. The pattern is borne out in hundreds of criminal complaints and court documents since 9/11 that I’ve reviewed for my books on terrorism. Almost to a person, suspects are described by family, friends, neighbors or co-workers as “nice” — that is the universal adjective for these mass murderers — until they get closer to their religion and suddenly seek out infidels to kill.

Case agents have seen the link between Islamic belief and violence firsthand.

“Evidence exists to demonstrate that a greater level of adherence to Islamic law correlates to a greater likelihood of violence,” said FBI veteran John Guandolo, who worked some of the nation’s biggest terrorism cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office after 9/11.

Studies back him up, including one recently published in Europe that found that Islam is the only religion in the world in which people become more violent the stronger they believe.

Danish linguist Tina Magaard and a team of researchers spent three years examining the texts of the 10 largest religions to see if any incite violence. “The texts of Islam are clearly distinct from the other religions’ texts, as they, to a higher degree, call for violence and aggression against followers of other faiths,” she concluded. “There are also direct incitements to terror.”

A 2010 study of 45,000 teens by a German criminal research institute, moreover, found that young religious Muslim boys were much more likely to use violence than their non-Muslim counterparts, even when social factors were taken into account.

Unlike federal agents and investigators working terrorism cases on the ground, higher-ups in Washington are too clouded by politically correct fantasies about Islam to accept what is self-evident. They cannot even entertain religion as a motivating factor in terrorism. They cannot fathom that such heinous violence could be inspired by sacred texts.

Forced to rule out workplace rage, seduction and now ISIS as sources in the San Bernardino case, Comey now says: “We’re working very hard to understand the source of their inspiration.”

“The question for us is how and by whom and where were they radicalized?” said David Bowdich, the FBI’s assistant director in Los Angeles.

Brass will continue searching in vain for an “un-Islamic” motive — anything to avoid arriving at the inevitable, unspeakable conclusion that these Muslims, like countless jihadists before them, were faithfully following the dictates of Islam.

The switch that turns a good person into a “bad Muslim” isn’t heretical outside forces. The tens of thousands of jihadists threatening the West aren’t all “brainwashed” by evil modern cult figures. Though personalities certainly have an influence, the main influence is the religion itself. If there’s any radicalization, it’s self-radicalization through devotion.

“They think they’re doing something good for Allah,” al Qaeda informant Morten Storm, a former Muslim, said. “They really believe that.”

There’s a famous speech on the show “The West Wing” where the fictional president accosts a Christian radio host. She believes homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. He points out that the Bible also allows him to sell his daughter into slavery and execute his chief of staff for working on the sabbath. The “West Wing” president, by the way, is a practicing Catholic — but he’s making the point that Christianity went through a reformation.

Most Christians today don’t read the Bible literally, and the ones that do are roundly mocked by liberals. But those same liberals bristle at any suggestion that Islam is inherently intolerant.

Islam is not a “religion of peace,” and won’t be until most of its followers — the Taliban, the Ayatollah, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the mullahs of Saudi Arabia — reject tenets like jihad. To suggest otherwise is naive. Virtually everyone is hacking at the branches of this growing menace, and almost no one is striking at its root.

Paul Sperry, a visiting Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.” Sperry@SperryFiles.com.

San Berardino Attack was NOT workplace violence

gbThe Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Dec. 4, 2015:

This was a well-prepared plan by people who have an ideological commitment to holy war, to jihad in the name of Allah, and that’s what they did yesterday in that government building. On Fox last night with Megyn Kelly.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:

KELLY: “Trace, thank you. The trip to Saudi Arabia. Trip to Pakistan. Apparently born to two Pakistani parents as was his wife. And the wife is a whole story unto herself. We will get to her in a minute.

The FBI has taken over this investigation. And my next guest just happened to have been with the FBI in Los Angeles while this attack was unfolding. Dr. Sebastian Gorka provides counterterrorism training to the FBI and special forces. Serving major general distinguished theory at marine corps university. he has a fascinating website as well. thegorkabriefing.com. he is the real thing. Doctor, thank you for being here. you are on the program ten days ago saying we’re on our own. That it’s going to happen. And today as we sit at 9:16 p.m. eastern time, we are still being told it might not be terror. it might, it might not be.”

GORKA: “I think that discussion is over. if the report your colleague just gave us, that there is confirmation of not only that this individual was accessing ISIS jihadi propaganda, but also in contact with individuals who had previously been investigated for connections to jihadi groups like ISIS or al Qaeda, I think that train has left the station. You heard the lieutenant himself, first officer on the scene, say unequivocally, this was not a rogue incident. This isn’t a question of somebody who had, you know, an individual grievance with a colleague or who had some kind of psychotic wreak. everything we are hearing reinforces that this was a well-prepared plan by people who have an ideological commitment to holy war, to jihad in the name of Allah, and that’s what they did yesterday in that government building.”

KELLY: “We still like to believe that the FBI would be on to somebody like this. Somebody who is communicating with suspected extremists. somebody building bombs in his apartment, in his house. many of them. somebody arming himself to the gills. Along with his wife who he picked up in Saudi Arabia, came back and married her. We want to believe that people like you are monitoring these people and would know if they are getting toward do something like this. But it’s not true.”

GORKA: “Look, the fact is, i work very closely with the FBI. I’ve worked closely with the NYPD. These organizations are doing incredible work. look at the fact that in the last 20 months, we have killed or arrested 82 ISIS suspects. ISIS supporters on U.S. soil. that is through the amazing work of our federal local law enforcement and our intelligence community. But it is very, very challenging. The report that i mentioned previously, that my company has just published on ISIS as a domestic threat, which your watchers, your viewers can access at tleet threatknowledge.or rg. we have examples of an ISIS dialogue here in the united states pumping out the kind of material that apparently this mass murderer was consuming. And that individual had 48,000 followers on his social media site. So we’ve done a great job at intercepting and stopping those people who want to do jihad here in America. But who knows how many more there are. That’s the real question and it is fundamentally a human challenge, a human intelligence challenge.”

KELLY: “What is being done to encourage the development of that intelligence by this administration.

GORKA: What is being done to stop it, that’s the better question. You’ve had your own experience in New York with Mayor de Blasio shutting down some of the most incredibly powerful intelligence initiatives of the NYPD. Over the last several years, we have seen this at the federal level. We’ve had the attempt by the administration to excise, to censor training and the materials used to prepare our operators. For example, the word jihad should not be used. Should be deleted from power point slides, from materials, because it could be deemed inflamed to Muslims. This is where you see politics getting into the intelligence cycle where you see censorship disport dis distorting the function. I have talked to them and they know this will endanger Americans if you allow political correctness into our national security mission.”

KELLY: “That is where we pick it up with our next guest. Doctor, thank you.”

GORKA: “Thank you, Megyn.”

***

How Political Correctness May Hamper the Fight Against ISIS

FBI using elite surveillance teams to track at least 48 high risk ISIS suspects

Screen-Shot-2015-06-23-at-12.23.20-PMFox News, by Catherine Herridge, November 26, 2015:

With as many as 1000 active cases, Fox News has learned at least 48 ISIS suspects are considered so high risk that the FBI is using its elite tracking squads known as the mobile surveillance teams or MST to track them domestically.

“There is a very significant number of people that are on suspicious watch lists, under surveillance,”  Republican Senator Dan Coats said.

Coats, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, would not comment on specifics, but said the around the clock surveillance is a major commitment for the bureau. “The FBI together with law enforcement agencies across the country are engaged in this. It takes enormous amount of manpower to do this on a 24-7 basis.  It takes enormous amount of money to do this,” Coats explained.

These elite FBI teams are reserved for espionage, mob violence and high priority terrorism cases, like a joint terrorism task force case last June, where a 26 year old suspect Usaama Rahim, was killed outside a Massachusetts CVS.  When a police officer and FBI agent tried to question him, the Boston Police Commissioner said Rahim threatened them with a knife, and was shot dead.

With at least a dozen agents assigned to each case, providing 24/7 coverage, this high level of surveillance reflects the severe risk associated with suspects most likely to attempt copycat attacks after Paris.

“It is a big resource drain.  Yes it is.  Almost overwhelming,”  Coats said when asked about the demand placed on the FBI.   “There will be a lot of people over the Thanksgiving weekend that will not be enjoying turkey with their family.  They’ll be out there providing security for the American people and the threat is particularly high during this holiday period.”

One of the lessons of Paris is that the radicalization process can be swift.  According to published reports, friends of the female suspect who was killed in the siege of Saint Denis, Hasna Ait Boulahcen, abandoned her party life only a month before joining her cousin, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the plot’s on the ground commander.  He was also killed in the siege.

The FBI Director James Comey has consistently drawn attention to this phenomenon, calling it the “flash to bang,” that the time between radicalization and crossing the threshold to violent action can be very short. Last week, in a rare public appearance with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey would only say that “dozens” of suspected radicals have been under “tight surveillance.”

“Together we are watching people of concern using all of our lawful tools.  We will keep watching them and if we see something we will work to disrupt it,”  Comey said.

Contacted by Fox News, an FBI spokesman had no comment on the high risk cases, nor the use of elite surveillance teams.

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

***

 

Obama Officials Trained To Focus On Behavior, Not Religion Or Ideology

Syrian refugees Getty Images/Anadolu Agency

Syrian refugees Getty Images/Anadolu Agency

Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, Nov. 19, 2015:

Obama administration counter-terrorism officials have trained domestic Homeland Security law enforcement officers to focus on the behavior of people entering the United States, rather than their political, ideological or religious background.

The training directives from top Homeland Security officials raise questions about the effectiveness of the screening process for Syrian refugees.

Officials process a refugee’s biographic information such as name and date of birth, along with biometric data like fingerprints. This information is crosschecked over different U.S. databases and agencies.

U.S. officials overseas then conduct a series of in-person interviews in the next phase. The interviews are done by Department of Homeland Security officers who are trained to question refugee applicants and examine the credibility of their responses.

But that training requires that the officials collect intelligence based on “behavioral indicators” while downplaying “religious affiliation.”

DHS’s civil rights division released a “Countering Violent Extremism Training”best practices document for federal, state, and local government and law enforcement officials in October 2011.

The document calls for training programs that are not “overbroad, equating an entire religion, nation, region, or culture with evil or violence, For example, it is incorrect and damaging to assert that all Muslims have terrorist ties.”

Instead, the training encourages to “ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists span ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

Since 2012, the FBI’s guiding principles training manual in the Touchstone Document has stated:

Training must emphasize that no investigative or intelligence collection activity may be based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation.  Specifically, training must focus on behavioral indicators that have a potential nexus to terrorist or criminal activity, while making clear that religious expression, protest activity, and the espousing of political or ideological beliefs are constitutionally protected activities that must not be equated with terrorism or criminality absent other indicia of such offenses.

“On September 28, 2011, I issued a memorandum to all heads of components and United States Attorneys to ‘carefully review all training material and presentations provided by their personnel, particularly training related to combating terrorism, countering violent extremism, and other training that may relate to ongoing outreach efforts in Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian
and other communities,’” Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memorandum to all heads of components and United States Attorneys March 2012.

Cole continued, “Carefully review all training material and presentations provided by their personnel, particularly training related to combating terrorism, countering violent extremism, and other training that may relate to ongoing outreach efforts in Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and other communities.”

The FBI training manual principles extends to other members of federal law enforcement, including those who guard the nation’s borders and ports of entry.

“The FBI 2012 Guiding Principles Touchstone Document was just one in series of official policy directives that gradually, but severely, restricted the efforts of federal law enforcement officers to accurately and effectively assess whether an individual entering the county had any potential nexus to terrorist or criminal activity,” a government source familiar with national security told The Daily Caller.

“These gradual but severe restrictions were coupled with a simultaneous reduction in accurate, fact-based training to address the nature of the threat we face, leaving us inadequately prepared for the challenges we face today.”

The same year, the FBI’s counter-terrorism lexicon, following a purge of terminology of past years, deleted all references to “al-Qaida,” “Muslim Brotherhood,” or “jihad.”

The Justice Department continued to alter its training policy in 2012. In March of that year, Deputy Attorney General Cole sent another memorandum to the heads of components and United States Attorneys in regards to “training guiding principles.” The memo stated in part:

Training must be consistent with the Constitution and Department values. Training must promote, and never undermine, our fundamental principles of equal justice and opportunity for all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and our other core national values. Trainings must not disparage groups or individuals based on their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic condition, political affiliation or other similar characteristics.

“The 2012 FBI directive to remove religious and political motivations from investigations and screening came at a time when the Obama administration was busy purging anything they believed might reflect poorly on Muslims, regardless of how it effected our national security,” national security consultant David Reaboi told The Daily Caller.

Reaboi explained, “Since then — and now, presumably, in screening refugees, investigators are trained not to ask about all the key identifiers that would allow them to spot Islamic terrorists or other Islamists who want to do harm to America. Because ISIS, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood understand themselves in precisely those ways, they’re prevented from asking anything meaningful beyond, ‘are you a terrorist?’”

“‘Are you a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? What school of Islamic law do you follow? Where do you go to mosque? Do you believe someone who insults Islam deserves to be killed? Would you like to make America an Islamic country?’ All of these questions — the most important ones — are off-limits,” Reaboi said.

Obama Lackey Ben Rhodes Spreads Lies About Vetting Syrian Refugees on Sunday News Talk Shows

Ben Rhodes

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Nov. 15, 2015:

In the wake of Friday’s horrific terror attacks in Paris, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was dispatched to the Sunday morning talk shows to spin his boss’ claim the previous day that the ISIS threat had been “contained.”

But he was also asked about the ability of the Obama administration to properly vet a wave of 10,000 Syrian refugees announced in September in light of reports that one or more of the Paris terrorists had entered and transited the EU as a Syrian refugee.

And yet Rhodes’ response that measures to properly vet the Syrian refugees are in place flatly contradicts the recent sworn congressional testimony of FBI officials.

Rhodes appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper. It brought this exchange:

TAPPER:  I think there is a question about how good this intelligence apparatus is, Christiane Amanpour – Christiane Amanpour reporting this morning that at least one of the terrorists, according to French authorities, seems to have smuggled himself into Europe by embedding with refugees.

Ben, are you confident enough in our vetting process as the United States brings Syrian refugees into our country to pledge that this will never happen here?

RHODES:  Well, first of all, Jake, the threat of foreign fighters has been front and center from the very beginning of this counter-ISIL campaign.  We have made that a focus, so that we’re working with countries to share information, to improve their laws and authorities to be able to monitor and detain people.

And we’re going to continue to do that.  That will be a focus of discussion here in Turkey.  With respect to refugees, we have the most extensive security vetting that we have ever had to deal with Syrian refugees coming into the United States that involves not just the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, but also our intelligence community, the National Counterterrorism Center, so that anybody who comes to the United States, we are carefully vetting against all of our information.

And let’s not forget, Jake, that some of these people are people who have suffered the horrors of war.  They’re women.  They’re orphans.  They’re children who have suffered at the hands of ISIL.  We cannot close our doors to these people.  We can focus on keeping terrorists out of the United States while having an open door to people who deserve a safe haven.

And when asked by Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet the Press about whether the developments in Paris had given President Obama pause on admitting more Syrian refugees, Rhodes replied:

No, Chuck. We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that including our terrorism community, our Department of Homeland Security. Let’s remember, Chuck, we’re also dealing with people who suffer the horrors of war. Women and children, orphans. We can’t just shut our doors to those people. We need to do our part to take refugees in need.

But as I reported here two weeks ago at PJ Media, FBI Director Robert Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that vetting Syrian refugees will be “challenging” when asked by Rep. Louie Gohmert about the quality of intelligence and information that exists on Syrians:

Gohmert: Well, without a good fingerprint database, without good identification, how can you be sure that anyone is who they say they are if they don’t have fingerprints to go against?

Comey: The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, they’ve never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging.

Those concerns echo congressional testimony given earlier this year by FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach to the House Homeland Security Committee about the quality of information available on anyone coming out of Syria:

The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet…You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the dataset, the police, the intel services that normally you would go to to seek information doesn’t exist.

The FBI director was also asked by Rep. Gohmert during his testimony last month about the database the U.S. government maintained to screen Iraqi refugees, including an IED fingerprint database in addition to other intelligence obtained by U.S. forces and the Iraqi government — considerably more extensive than anything the National Counterterrorism Center has for Syria.

And yet despite the extensive database screening Iraqi refugees, U.S. authorities have admitted that possibly dozens of terrorists were admitted into the U.S. under that program, including two Iraqi terrorists living in Bowling Green, Kentucky, who were convicted of attempting to send weapons and money to Iraqi terrorists.

Comey also said during a speech last month that the FBI has 900 active investigations on suspected ISIS supporters and other extremists.

Congress Files Legislation to Designate Muslim Brotherhood “Terrorists”

Cruz-card-Getty-640x480UTT, by John Guandolo, Nov. 5, 2015:

Both houses of Congress filed legislation Tuesday designating the Muslim Brotherhood a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) introduced the legislation in their respective chambers.

The Free Beacon was the first to report it here.  The story was also carried by Breitbart here.

In July 2014, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN) filed a similar bill called the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014.

The Muslim Brotherhood has already been designated a terrorist organization in Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

UTT encourages all readers to review this bill as it serves as a good summary of the violent history and nature of the Muslim Brotherhood.  You can read a copy of it HERE.

The prominent Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States include, but are not limited to:

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and all it’s subsidiaries; International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Muslim Students Association (MSA); Muslim American Society (MAS); North American Islamic Trust (NAIT); Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA); Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA); North American Imams Federation (NAIM); U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO); American Muslims for Palestine (AMP); American Muslim Alliance (AMA); Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA); Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA); Muslim Legal Fund of America; Council on Islamic Education (CIE)/Institute on Religion and Civic Values (IRCV); Holy Dove Foundation; Gulen Institute and all related schools; Turquoise Foundation; International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO); Minaret of Freedom Institute; Mosque Cares; Mosque Foundation (IL); Muslim Communities Association; Islamic Associations of Palestine (IAP); and over 80% of the nearly 2200 Islamic Centers/Mosques in all 50 states.

***

I encourage you to go to John Guandolo’s Research & Resources page where he has provided a wealth of information on the Global Muslim Brotherhood Jihad Movement. The very last item in the menu titled “What can I do?” is excellent.