ISIS has Capability and Intent to Attack the Homeland

IS-facts-findingsBlind Eagle, By Brian Fairchild, Aug. 30, 2014:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

  • Based on the intelligence analysis of the facts and findings below, as of August 29, 2014, the Islamic State has the capability and intent to launch an attack against the American homeland.  Moreover, the internecine war between “core” al Qaeda and the Islamic State represents a struggle for the leadership of the international jihad movement that provides both organizations with a strong motivation to attack America.  There is no way to predict a specific date when attacks will occur, but it is clear from the evidence that the Islamic State has the capability to launch an attack at a time and place of its choosing.

In intelligence analysis, analysts must first find and document substantiated and relevant Facts on the topic of their investigations.  Expert knowledge is then used to make sense out of these facts in a cogent, organized and articulate manner in a section called Findings.  Having made sense out of the facts in the articulated findings, the analyst can then see where all of the facts and findings lead, and make a Forecast as to what is likely to happen in the future.  It’s not a perfect or foolproof system, but it forces analysts to work with well-substantiated and relevant facts rather than opinion and hearsay.

On August 22, 2014, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby stated that the Defense Department does not believe that ISIS has “the capability right now to conduct a major attack on the U.S. homeland.”

The following analysis will test this hypothesis using the tried and true method of establishing Facts, Findings, and Forecasts.

FACTS:

  • On October 4, 2011, then leader of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and current leader of the Islamic State (IS), Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, was declared a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the State Department for his role in “managing and directing large scale operations”.
  • ISIS is a multi-faceted entity:

o   According to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the Islamic State demonstrates “a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess”,[1] and represents an “imminent threat to every interest we have”.

o   IS has “…an effective management structure…overseeing departments of finance, arms, local governance, military operations and recruitment”[2].  It operates like a national government in the areas it occupies providing electricity and water, levying taxes, providing police services, establishing religious schools and courts, and running training camps.

o   IS has a war chest estimated at $2 billion dollars, accrued from:  taxes, the sale of oil and antiquities on the black market, ransom for hostages, seized bank assets, donations from wealthy Gulf donors, the theft of all property and assets from the minorities it victimizes, and proceeds from zakat (tithing) and Muslim charities.

o   A report prepared in June 2014 by the former head of the counter terrorism office of British Intelligence (MI6), reported that over 12,000 radicalized Muslims have departed their homes in 81 countries to join the jihad in Syria and Iraq.  An estimated 3,000 of them are western passport holders.  These individuals are now routinely referred to as “foreign fighters”.  There is no doubt that the number of foreign fighters overall and the number hailing from Western countries has significantly increased since the publication of this report, which went to press before al Baghdadi announced the creation of the “Caliphate” and called for Muslims to emigrate to it.

o   IS has a virtual monopoly over the foreign fighters flooding into Syria and Iraq.  They constitute the majority of IS’ suicide bombers, and are responsible for 30 to 50 suicide bombings per month.[3]  Increasingly, they come from Western countries including the US, France, the UK, Norway, Austria, Australia, and Germany. They are infiltrated into the Islamic State via a global IS network, and then trained in secure bases there.[4]

  • On February 4, 2014, CIA Director John Brennan testified before the Congressional House Intelligence Committee during which he described the capabilities of these  training camps: 

o   We are concerned about the use of Syrian territory by the Al Qaida organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to carry out attacks inside of Syria, but also to use Syria as a launching pad…There arecamps inside of both Iraq and Syria that are used by Al Qaida to develop capabilities that are applicable, both in the theater, as well as beyond.” 

  • The Islamic State possesses chemical weapons seized from Iraq’s al Muthanna chemical weapons complex, including munitions containing Sarin, Mustard gas, and the nerve agent VX.  In 2006, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. General Michael Maples stated that, while the munitions couldn’t be used as originally intended because of corrosion, “The agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents”.[5]

o   In July 2014, IS fighters seized 88 pounds of uranium compounds from the University of Mosul that can be used to construct a radioactive dirty bomb.

  • IS was formerly constituted as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but was disowned by “core” al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri in February 2014.  This fracture resulted in all-out war between the two groups for the leadership of the international jihad movement.
  • Despite his war with “core” al Qaeda, IS leader al Baghdadi reveres Osama bin Laden.  When bin Laden was killed in the American raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, he vowed violent retaliation.  Almost immediately, he launched numerous attacks and suicide bombings, and vowed to conduct 100 attacks across Iraq to seek vengeance for bin Laden”.[6]
  • On January 21, 2014, al Baghdadi recorded an audio message in which he recognized that he and his organization would soon be in direct confrontation with the United States:

o   “Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching.”[7]

  • In August 2014, IS declared war against the US in a document sent to the family of beheading victim James Foley.  It was addressed to the “American government and their sheep like people” and threatened the following (all emphasis added by IS in the original):

o   “Today our swords are unsheathed towards you, GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENS ALIKE!  AND WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL WE QUENCH OUR THIRST FOR YOUR BLOOD.  You do not spare our weak, elderly, women or children, so we will NOT spare yours!  You and your citizens will pay the price of your bombings!  The first of which being the blood of American citizen, James Foley.”

  • In response to US airstrikes against IS positions in early August 2014, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)pledged solidarity with the Islamic State and promised to conduct mass casualty attacks against the US in retaliation:

o   “Hence, we declare our solidarity with our Muslim brethren in Iraq in [their struggle against] this Crusade. Their blood is our blood, their wound is in our hearts, and we have a duty to defend them. With Allah’s help, we will employ every means to cause the US as many casualties as possible, as part of jihad for the sake of Allah and in order to realize what our Sheikh Osama [bin Laden] vowed [to achieve].”

FINDINGS:

  • As made clear by the 2011 State Department designation of al Baghdadi as a global terrorist, he is adept at “managing and directing large scale operations”.  The Islamic State reflects these abilities.  It is a sophisticated organization that simultaneously plans and conducts offensive operations using conventional military strategy, as well as synchronized multiple-location suicide bombings, all the while operating a global network that recruits, trains and deploys foreign fighters.  Underlying its military capabilities is a government structure of provincial governors and officials that manage the civilian population like a small nation state.
  • IS has thousands of trained and combat-tested foreign fighters from which to select teams that could conduct attacks in the United States, including over 100 Americans.  The Islamic State is not restricted to using only American citizens for such attacks, and for security reasons, may well create cells of individuals from the UK and Western Europe that are not likely to be revealed by US databases.  It is likely that many of these individuals speak English and have previously traveled to the US.
  • IS has a seemingly endless supply of foreign fighters willing to martyr themselves.  Suicide bombings, once rare, have become routine for IS foreign fighters who conduct approximately 30 to 50 each month.  Importantly, the majority of these bombings are conducted with a high degree of operational security against targets in cities such as Baghdad and Kirkuk where security forces are on high alert employing road blocks, patrols, and area surveillance.  IS teams deploying to the US face only one real security obstacle – physically entering the country; once inside they would operate in an environment much less controlled than those they are used to.
  • IS possesses chemical weapons and radioactive compounds that it could smuggle into the United States via the southern border or other access points.  Even in the event that IS has no smuggling connections, its remarkable treasury could well buy such cooperation.
  • Should IS leadership decide, its financial assets, and extensive number of trained and experienced operatives willing to die for their cause, are adequate to fund and deploy numerous terrorist teams worldwide.
  • Despite the increasing number of American airstrikes against IS positions, and the rising calls for extensive military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria, there is no evidence to indicate that IS leadership seeks to avoid a military confrontation with the United States.  Quite the contrary, all evidence indicates that it is actively trying to provoke such a confrontation, as demonstrated by the following:

o   Al Baghdadi has been at war against the US since 2003 when he co-created his first jihad organization.  He experienced first-hand the American dismantling of AQI in 2006, he spent time in American custody in Camp Bucca, he replaced leaders killed by the US, and sought vengeance for the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Given this experience, it is likely that in January 2014 when he recorded his audio statement, he was well aware that his plan to blitzkrieg across Syria and Iraq and his plan to establish a Caliphate that threatened US allies would provoke an American military response.  In this context, the specific phrases he chose to stress:  “Soon we will be in direct confrontation” – “the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day” – “we are with you, watching”, could well indicate that in anticipation of the coming confrontation, he deployed cells to the homeland that are “watching” and preparing attacks.

o   IS leadership chose to publicly butcher James Foley on August 19, 2014 describing Foley as the first American casualty of war, which strongly suggests that Foley’s murder was a deliberate attempt to provoke a military response.  Additional examples of IS’ willingness to provoke the US are revealed in passages from its official Dabiq magazine, published on August 29, 2014, that ridicule President Obama, gloat over the beheading of James Foley and the US inability to rescue him, blame the US for atrocities against Muslims, and call for American and Western Muslims to rush to the “Caliphate” to support the jihad.

o   IS’ declaration of war against the US government and its citizens, including America’s weak, elderly, women and children can only be taken as a direct provocation.

  • The war between IS and “core” al Qaeda is, at its essence, a battle for the ideological leadership and operational direction of the international jihad movement.  At present, the Islamic State, flush with money and recruits, is winning.    If IS cells successfully attack the homeland in the near future it would virtually cement its leadership over the movement.  If it were successful in conducting an attack on the anniversary day of the 9/11 attacks, the Islamic State and al Baghdadi would be catapulted into a new terrorist dimension that would have profound security implications for the US for decades to come.
  • This war for primacy, however, is also likely to prompt “core” al Qaeda to launch an attack against the homeland to regain its lost leadership.  Because Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden planned and conducted the historic 9/11 attacks, a commemorative attack on 9/11’s thirteenth anniversary would likely re-establish Zawahiri as the movement’s premier leader.  It is not clear at this point, however, if “core” al Qaeda has the resources and capability to conduct such an attack.
  • AQAP’s pledge to conduct mass casualty attacks in retaliation for US airstrikes against IS fighters, adds another threat stream.  AQAP’s proven record of near misses against the US via the 2009 Underwear bomber plot, and the plot to blow up cargo aircraft over the US with explosives hidden in copy machine ink cartridges, is sobering, but further exacerbated by AQAP’s reported development of a new explosive compound that is undetectable by existing sensors.  Like “core” al Qaeda, it is unclear if AQAP has the resources to conduct a separate attack against the homeland.  In order to remain relevant in the international jihad movement, however, AQAP could assist IS in attacking the homeland, which could explain its pledge of solidarity to IS and its promise to carry-out mass casualty attacks.

FORECAST:

Based on the above facts and findings and contrary to the statements of the Pentagon, as of August 29, 2014, the Islamic State has all the capabilities required to launch an attack against the American homeland.  Within its ranks alone, it has the expertise, trained operatives, financial resources, possession of WMD, a virulent anti-American ideology, and the intent to confront the United States.  Despite increasing American military action against it, there is no evidence that the Islamic State is trying to avoid a military confrontation.  Rather, its recent actions are tailored to provoke a military response.

Moreover, the war between “core” al Qaeda and the Islamic State is a struggle for the ideological leadership and the operational direction of the international jihad movement that provides both organizations with a strong motivation to attack America.  Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s recent pledge of solidarity to IS and its promise to perpetrate mass casualty attacks on its behalf exacerbates an already bad situation.  While it is unclear if “core” al Qaeda and AQAP have the resources on their own to conduct such attacks, AQAP’s pledge of solidarity to IS may well indicate its willingness to conduct a joint IS-AQAP attack.

Absent specific actionable intelligence, there is no way to predict a specific date when attacks will occur, as all terrorist plots run according to operational requirements.  It is clear, however, that a successful attack on the American homeland by any or all of these organizations would boost their respective standing in the jihad movement, especially if such an attack was conducted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  It is also clear that the Islamic State has the capability to launch an attack at a time and place of its choosing.

 

ISIS in the Homeland

pic_giant_061614_SM_ISIS-in-the-HomelandBy Andrew G. Doran:

For a 500-mile stretch of territory that winds, more or less, along the Euphrates from Iraq to Syria, a regime of masked, sociopathic murderers reign in terror under the black flag of jihad.

This territory is not represented on any map of nation-states – a concept that little reflects realities in Iraq and Syria.  It is land claimed by the disciples of terrorist Abu Al Zarqawi. On June 10, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) seized the city of Mosul in the Nineveh Province, capturing “arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces” — arms and ammunition supplied by the American government, which will now be used to impose terror on defenseless civilians. The offensive coincides with a successful campaign by ISIS in eastern Syria. Perhaps there will be new detention centers of torture and murder; perhaps there will be more tweets proudly displaying crucifixions.

Like Zarqawi and bin Laden, these terrorists will not be satisfied to reign in the Hell of their own making in the Middle East, or with the toppling of insufficiently Islamic regimes, or even with winning the Sunni-Shia civil war that now rages. Their ultimate target will be the United States. They are coming this way. Perhaps as many as a dozen are already here – or, to be more precise, already back.

As Eli Lake recently reported in the Daily Beast, thousands of foreigners have gone to Syria to take up arms against the regime of Bashar Assad, serving with various rebel factions, most of which fall somewhere on the Islamist spectrum.

Thousands of these fighters are citizens of Western countries that have visa waivers for entry into the United States – in other words, they can travel here without any hassle at all. An intelligence source conveyed to Lake concerns that the NSA could not “track thousands of bad guys,” adding that “on the human-intelligence front, this is even more difficult.” These veterans of al-Qaeda and its affiliates constitute a fundamentally different threat than that which America faced in 2001: They are Western (at least in nationality); they are seasoned combat veterans; they are known, but perhaps too numerous to track.

After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, the fatigue of the American people is palpable, which has prompted many to welcome President Obama’s winding down of the global War on Terror. Despite the president’s repeated claims on the campaign trail two years ago, the evidence suggests that al-Qaeda is not “on the path to defeat” or “on the run.” It is, rather, “morphing” and “franchising,” according to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

Yet in Syria, America’s commitment, however anemic, is to the overthrow of Assad, a contemptible and ruthless secular dictator but one whose regime is fighting al-Qaeda and its affiliates among the rebels. This paradox is apparently lost on those most keen on his overthrow. Competing objectives in Syria have caused America to lose focus on the principal enemy and principal threat: al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

If these Islamist veterans of the Syrian conflict succeed in pulling off a terrorist attack against the United States, the problem with  America’s policy in Syria will come into focus immediately. One can well imagine the hearings on Capitol Hill: “We knew these people were coming. Why was more not done to stop them? Why wasn’t the intelligence community given the resources it needed to track these terrorists? Why were we sending arms to overthrow the dictator who was trying to kill these terrorists who later killed Americans?” The foreign-policy priorities of the present will instantly be regarded as an unworthy distraction and forgotten. It is, of course, easy enough to ask these questions retrospectively; it is another thing altogether to ask them in advance — which prompts one to take notice when someone on the Hill does.

Read more at National Review

Administration eases restrictions on asylum seekers with loose terror ties

This undated file image posted on a militant website on Jan. 14, 2014 shows fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) patrolling in Raqqa, Syria.AP

This undated file image posted on a militant website on Jan. 14, 2014 shows fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) patrolling in Raqqa, Syria.AP

Fox News, Feb. 6,2014, By 

The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups, in a move one senator called “deeply alarming.”

The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided “limited material support” to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.

Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.

“The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable,” Leahy said in a statement. “It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of terrorist activities.”

But critics say despite the good intentions, the change raises security concerns, particularly after a report published Thursday on asylum fraud.

“In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further.”

Sessions also complained that the administration was, on its own, altering the Immigration and Nationality Act. “What is the point of Congress passing a law if the administration abuses its ‘discretion’ to say that law simply no longer applies?” he said.

The change would apply to people the U.S. government does not consider a threat but could nevertheless be tied to terror groups, and therefore barred from entry. A Department of Homeland Security official said these individuals have been “adversely affected by the broad terrorism bars of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

The official offered several examples of how the change might help otherwise innocent refugees — including a restaurant owner who served food to an opposition group; a farmer who paid a toll to such a group in order to cross a bridge or sell his food; or a Syrian refugee who paid an opposition group to get out of the country.

“These exemptions cover discrete kinds of limited material support that have adversely affected refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants and other travelers: material support to non-designated terrorist organizations that was insignificant in amount, provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, or humanitarian interactions, or provided under significant pressure,” the official said.

The official said the change would let the administration apply the exemptions on a “case-by-case basis” after a review that already includes rigorous security screening. “Our screening procedures check applicants’ names and fingerprints against a broad array of records of individuals known to be security threats, including the terrorist watch list, and those of law enforcement concern,” the official said.

Though the change would apply to those who helped non-designated terror groups, Sessions noted that Al Qaeda, for example, was not officially designated as a foreign terror organization until 1999.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, claimed the change was another effort to maximize the number of people being allowed into the country.

“This administration no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt in making these kinds of rule changes,” he said. “The consequences are potentially dire for … public safety.”

The Washington Times also reported Thursday that a 2009 fraud assessment found at least 70 percent of asylum applications had signs of fraud.

 

 

Megyn Kelly interviews Michael Cutler on the matter:

Michael Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advisor to the “911 Families for a Secure America,” and a consultant, retired in 2002 after a distinguished career with the INS of over 30 years, including 26 as a Special Agent. In 1991, he was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and worked with members of other federal and state law enforcement agencies as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries. The task force’s investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets and prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.

Mr. Cutler has testified as an expert witness at nine Congressional hearings on issues relating to the enforcement of immigration laws having been called by members of both political parties. Mr. Cutler also furnished testimony to the Presidential Commission on the Terrorist Attacks of September 11. Mr. Cutler has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including the O’Reilly Radio Factor, O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone, Fox News and the Lou Dobbs Tonight Program on CNN to discuss the enforcement of immigration laws and has participated in various public debates and panel discussions on issues involving the enforcement and administration of immigration laws. Among the areas of concern that he is able to speak about authoritatively are the nexus between immigration and national security, the impact of immigration on the criminal justice system, strategies to combat illegal immigration, and why amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong.

 

Also see:

What Will It Take?

oBy David Solway:

Let me begin with a categorical statement that, given current events and recent political history, can be easily defended: Barack Hussein Obama is a willful, indoctrinated child of the Left with strong Islamic sympathies who is not fit to govern. Indeed, he would not be fit to govern Lower Slobovia [1], let alone the United States of America. Obama is a historic disaster of the first magnitude and, if not restrained, he will see to the irrevocable decline of the country which foolishly elected him, leaving the world on the brink of a conflict — or in the midst of one — whose repercussions cannot be underestimated.

Accompanying the undeniable havoc and damage that Obama is wreaking on his country and equally on its allies — Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Poland, Czech Republic, Israel, and possibly Taiwan — is the sense of helplessness that overcomes one when writing or speaking about a rogue president and his destructive administration. I feel this personally, having done my utmost in books, articles and lectures, from 2008 to the present, to warn whomever might read or listen that Obama represented a greater threat to the U.S. and the oddly named “free world” than any of our most dedicated and belligerent enemies. Even prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, my distrust of this man was proprioceptive. And after his Missouri address, I wondered why anyone would want to “fundamentally transform” a country which, for all its flaws, perched atop the pinnacle of success in comparison to any other country.

Everything Obama has done since then has only served to confirm what was originally a deep suspicion and soon grew to become a complete certainty. Dozens of meticulously researched books have been published to the same effect. And yet very few people seemed to be paying attention. No less disconcerting, those who argue that to criticize Obama is a sign of deep-dyed racism are, of course, relying on slander and misappropriation of language to protect their chosen standard bearer and his Marxist/progressivist/utopian project.

What will it take to convince the ersatz aristocracy of frivolous intellectuals and brainless celebrities, partisan journalists, editors and academics, and an indifferent or deluded laity that they are heading for a crisis that will change our lives immeasurably for the worse? The evidence is beyond dispute.

America is drowning in a state of unredeemable debt — $17 trillion in actual debt and, according to economic historian Niall Ferguson, in the vicinity of $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities [2], while one in five households [3] depends on food stamps. At the same time, it is printing money like there’s no tomorrow — and there may not be — while subsidizing green energy fiascos at enormous cost to the taxpayer ($90 billion [4] in wasted stimulus funds, and counting). It finds itself in the throes of a metastasizing race war, caused in no small degree by the president’s rhetoric and behavior and fomented by his attorney general. It is a country increasingly governed by executive fiat and by an administration rocked by a near-endless gyre of political and ideological scandals. It is a country whose federal government opposes voter ID, opening the door to electoral corruption. It is a country that spies [5] on its own citizens, software corporations and web search engines, tries avowed terrorists in civilian courts, allows its ambassador and his entourage to be killed, without reprisal, and suffers its higher echelons to be riddled with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, giving the impression of a College of mujtahids. They are the advance cohort. “Today,” writes Larry Kelley in his sobering book Lessons from Fallen Civilizations [6], “millions of militant Muslims awake every morning plotting the destruction of the US. Many are among us.” And there will be more, if these [7] reports [8] of fast-tracking the citizenship applications of large numbers of Muslim immigrants are reliable, as they appear to be.

It is a country whose president purges its military — 197 senior officers, including nine commanding generals [9] — as did Turkey’s autocratic leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to ensure the continuity of his regime. It is a country that refuses to defend its borders, even suing to keep them as porous as possible. It is a country shifting precipitously to the Left, now mired in the exorbitant socialist travesty of Obamacare built on an ascending pyramid of lies and false enrollment numbers [10] — or in the words of L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey at his Patterico blog [11], “they’re not just lying about politics now. They’re lying about data. They’re lying about everything. All the time. Constantly. It’s what you have to do to prop up an unsustainable government. … You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.”

It is a country whose domestic agenda is predicated on the Marxist principle of redistributive economics that amounts to stealing from the productive class to maintain an ever-growing parasitical constituency. It is a country at war with honest science, transmuting NASA into a program for Muslim outreach [12] and buying into the Gore/Hansen/Mann-inflated, IPCC climate scam. It is a country that is retreating on every front and that has lost the Middle East [13] as well as the respect of its adversaries[14]. It is a country that betrays its allies and endangers the world in the process, as in the phony, eagerly sought agreement that allows a self-described genocidal and nuclearizing Iran to keep spinning its centrifuges while profiting from relaxed sanctions. It is a country whose administration has sold its loyal partner, Israel, down the Jordan River.

“The United States is no longer a rational nation,” mourns [15] James Lewis. “Under Obama we are burning our traditional allies, and since weakness brings aggression, Iran is now empowered, China is grabbing ocean territory for shale deposits, and the worst offenders against women’s rights are now elected to the UN Human Rights Commission.” It is hard to contend with his summation.

All this proceeds under the direction of a president who has sealed his vital documents so that very little of crucial importance is known about him.

Read more at PJ Media

Senior DHS Adviser Elibiary: Brotherhood Not a Threat in U.S.

Elibiary2By Ryan Mauro:

Controversial Department. of Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary recently said on Twitter that former Egyptian President Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, is “Egypt’s Mandela,” referring to the famous former President of South Africa that dismantled its racist apartheid system.

Morsi, who promised to be a president for all Egyptians, was ousted after over 30 million Egyptians demonstrated against him for unprecedented power grabshuman rights abuses (including appointing a former terrorist leader as governor of Luxor) and pushing through a sharia constitution for Egypt.

Elibiary, who is now a senior Homeland Security adviser, is a Muslim activist that led the now-defunct Freedom and Justice Foundation. He has spent years as a Texas Republican Party official and was a delegate for Senator McCain in 2008. The Obama Administration placed him on the Homeland Security Advisory Council and promoted him in September.

Elibiary also served on the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and the Faith-based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.

Elibiary was the subject of a damning 37-page report put together by the Clarion Project and other anti-Islamist organizations that included an extensive interview with him. Clarion has a summary of 15 disturbing facts from the report.

In an October 22 tweet, Elibiary praises Morsi as a hero on par with Nelson Mandela:

Until today, Elibiary remains adamant that the Muslim Brotherhood is still the most popular party in Egypt, even though the majority of Egyptians support banning the Brotherhood as a political party.

Read more at Clarion Project

Bombing Attempt at Jacksonville International Airport: Terrorism or Immigration Problem?

Zeliko Causevic

Zeliko Causevic

By Jerry Gordon and Randy McDaniels

Zeliko Causevic, a registered Democrat, has been confirmed to be a refugee from Bosnia. It is not yet confirmed if he shares the same Islamic ideology of Bosnian extremist Sami Osmakac, who attempted a bombing in Tampa, FL in January 2012, or the Tsarnev brothers who were able to successfully complete their terror plot by bombing the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year. In July 2013, federal prosecutors charged Edin Sakoc, a Bosnian Muslim living in Vermont, with lying to U.S. immigration officials about his involvement in war crimes.

The vast majority Bosnian’s flooding into America share the Islamic faith.  According to Baylor University ”virtually all Bosnian refugees are Muslim”. All of the 200,000 Bosnian refugees who immigrated to the United States are Muslim. There is a Sunni Muslim community of Bosniaks in Jacksonville directed by Ejub Zejnic.

Considering the fact that many of these Muslims have personally experience a literal clash of civilizations during the recent religiously motivated wars between Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia … it would be reasonable to assume they would have a higher propensity toward a more radical strain of Islam and violence.

The United States in an effort to make up for what some considered an unfair immigration policy for decades in relation to countries of the Middle East and other state sponsors of terror, were ultimately successful in changing immigration policy in an effort to right this perceived wrong.

Right or wrong, these experiments in social justice over national security are have not fared well for the American people who have seen the emergence of a new phenomenon…. home grown terrorism by individuals who almost without exception embrace the Islamic faith.

Read more at Watchdog Wire

Tsarnaev, Hasan and Deadly Political Correctness

boston-bombings-congressBy :

On Wednesday Dzhohkar Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty to 30 counts in the Boston Marathon bombings and jury selection began in the case of U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, accused of murdering 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. The Hasan and Tsarnaev cases emerged the same day in testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, where the first witness, Rudy Giuliani, said that political correctness hinders efforts to stop terrorists before they strike.

Guiliani, mayor of New York during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, told the committee “You can’t fight an enemy you don’t acknowledge.” To confront the terrorist threat effectively, “we have to purge ourselves of the practice of political correctness when it goes so far that it interferes with our rational and intellectually honest analysis of the identifying characteristics that help a discover these killers in advance.”

Giuliani said that a reluctance to identify violent Islamic extremists could have played a role in the FBI’s failure to track Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhohkar’s older brother, who last year returned to Dagestan for six months. “There would have been a much greater chance of preventing Fort Hood, and possibly — and this I emphasize is possibly — the Boston bombing,” Giuliani said, “if the relevant bureaucracies had been less reluctant to identify the eventual killers as potential Islamic extremist terrorists.”

In the 2009 Ford Hood case, Major Nidal Hasan is charged with killing 13, more deaths than in the first attack on the World Trade center in 1993, a year before Giuliani became major of New York.

“The elevation of political correctness over sound investigative judgment certainly explains the failure to identify Maj. Hasan as a terrorist,” Giuliani told the committee. “That political correctness has been extended so far that the current administration describes his act as ‘workplace violence.’ This isn’t just preposterous. What we fail to realize is, this is dangerous.”

The next witness, Michael Leiter, former head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, denied that political correctness was hindering U.S. efforts against terrorism. Such a claim, he testified, “is simply beyond me.” No member of the committee asked Leiter to explain what dynamic might lurk behind the “workplace violence” explanation. Committee members did explore cases where government agencies had failed to communicate, particularly with local law enforcement.

The hearing was called to examine intelligence breakdowns in the Boston Marathon bombings, but any threat from Islamic extremism failed to emerge in the statement of ranking member Bennie Thompson. He cited the Southern Poverty Law Center about a growing domestic threat from right-wing groups.

That theme emerged in Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Far-Right, a recent report from the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy. The report links white supremacists, Aryan Nations, skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan and such with those who “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. The groups also support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government.” As Mark Tapson noted, “that pretty much describes every conservative I know.”

Read more at Front Page

 

Just who ARE America’s “Domestic” Terrorists???

images (69)via Terror Trends Bulletin:

There has been much written and commented on in the media about the threat from “domestic” terrorism in recent years.

At Terror Trends Bulletin, we agree that there is indeed a serious threat from domestic terrorists.

But unlike the Leftist media, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano or the rest of Team Obama, we don’t see the threat of domestic terrorism coming from veterans, Tea Party members or those committed to preserving our 2nd amendment rights.

No, an objective analysis of the situation indicates that the domestic terrorist threat looks and sounds much like the foreign terrorist threat.

In other words, the domestic terrorist threat is primarily a threat from Jihad.

Here is a list of people involved in terror crimes and plots here in the USA in recent years. Each person on this list, without exception, is Muslim. We don’t take any particular glee in that. You can call us bigoted or racist for pointing it out if you want, but that doesn’t change the facts. Hardly a month has gone by over the past 4 years in which a Muslim somewhere in America wasn’t implicated in a plot to commit an act of Jihad. In some cases, they were unfortunately successful. In some instances, terrorists on this list are now dead (which is a good thing as far as we’re concerned).

The list is by no means exhaustive; it wasn’t meant to be. It’s merely a list of 86 domestic jihadis we were able to cobble together from various law enforcement and media sources in about 45 minutes’ time. Anyone can do a search on the internet for these names and see the back story on each one. Our guess is that most people had no idea that the US had caught 86 domestic jihadis in recent years. That is primarily due to the fact that the news media in this country downplays the threat from jihad. (NOTE: If we have caught 86, how many are still out there across America?)

The threat from terrorism domestically here in the US is primarily a threat from Jihad. And that’s a fact.

Go to Terror Trends Bulletin to see A LISTING OF DOMESTIC JIHADIS 

see-something-say-something

 

See also:

Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil (thereligionofpeace.com)

A Day Of Chaos and Terrorism or A Massacre at Boston

APTOPIX Boston Marathon Explosions

by Justin O Smith:

I write this at 5:30pm CST on April 15th, just hours after Americans across the United States have been shocked beyond numb by another 9/11 style attack and a day of terror and chaos at the Boston Marathon. Two bombs exploded 13 seconds and 100 yards apart and about two hours after the winners crossed the finish line near Boylston Street at approximately 1:55pm CST, and, while I too am alarmed and sickened by this heinous act and the hurt and death it has wreaked upon the innocent victims, unfortunately I am not surprised… and I don’t thnk most of America is either. While Obama has been golfing, taking vacations every three months and having ‘Memphis Blues’ parties at the White House, his administration has sorely neglected the real security of our borders and the interior.

Will Ritter, spokesman for a Massachusetts Senate candidate, told NBC News that he heard the explosions and saw smoke rising near the Boston Public Library, and Jackie Bruno, a reporter for New England Cable News, said that she saw peoples legs blown off. My heart and prayers went out immediately for the victims and their families, as I saw the images streaming on various websites of terrible wounds suffered by so many… one man being wheeled to awaiting ambulances had both legs blown away!

Dr Aaron Shaw, an orthepedic surgeon, was there as a spectator, and as soon as he realized what was happening, he began setting up a field triage, until more help arrived. He told ABC that while he had seen people lose limbs in car accidents and the like, “this was something you would expect to see on a battlefield.” Dr Shaw continued, “Everthing I saw was a traumatic amputation… I couldn’t put a number n it (later he estimated 30-40); they were just lining the sidewalk.”

Dan Ventura from the Boston Herald was near the medical tent when the bombs exploded. He said, “You could see it on the people’s faces. This was not just some ordinary explosion.”

The placement and type of bombs suggest a complex operation, since the area across from the viewing stands was heavily surveilled, and the devices were small yet potent and set to detonate almost simultaneously. Authorities are describing the devices as IED types that one would find in Afghanistan and Iraq, with many of the wounds having been caused by flying ball-bearings and small metal pieces. And while the White House has finally called something…this horrific attack… “a terrorist attack”, it is not clear yet, which individual/individuals or groups are responsible or whether this is domestic or foreign terrorism.

Unofficially, some authorities have stated that two other devices were found and rendered harmless, while officially top echelon police are remaining silent on this. However, cell phone service to the entire area has been blocked to prevent one from being used to detonate any hidden devices, and all flights in and out of Boston have been stopped.

Police have also confirmed that a third explosion occurred at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library at approximately 3:30pm CST. This scene is about a mile from the marathon, and now, some confusion is surrounding this “explosion”; Reuters and some officials are now calling this simply a fire that broke out in the mechanic room, but the FBI is still looking at it closely.

Peter Bergen, Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer of CNN News all suggested that we must look at the possibility of “a planned assault by right-wing extremists”, even though Bergen acknowledged, “We’ve seen a number of failed bombing attempts by Al Qaeda.” I too agree that we must… must… look at any and all possible and potential suspects, but what I find quite despicable and disturbing was the manner and unequivocal assuredness with which they presented this unproven hypothesis.

Shortly after the immdiate chaos of this tragic, horrific terrorist attack, Barack Obama stated that his administration did not know who was responsible, but his administration would track them down and bring them to justice. I’ll go out on the proverbial limb and say that this will be proven to be an act of islamofascist terrorism. No group has come forward claiming responsibility yet, but the head of an extremist Salafi group and Al Qaeda in Jordan has rejoiced and stated soon after, “American blood isn’t more precious than Muslim blood… Let the Americans feel the pain our nations have felt.” As far as this administration tracking anyone down, I’m not overly confident in an administration that simply gave lip service to the Benghazi tragedy and an administration that has a history of coddling islamofascists under the Holder Justice Department.

In the meantime, several different sources, such as the New York Post, The Telegraph and the Hinterland Gazette have reported that “a person of interest”, a 20 year old Saudi national, is being guarded at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (in Boston’s Longwood medical area), which is under an amber code representing an external threat. This man is reported to be here on a student visa, and he was seen acting suspiciously and running from the bomb blast site, when a regular citizen tackled him. So far he has claimed his innocence, as the police are still questioning him at this hour. The Boston police are taking witness statements at this hospital, and they also have surveillance video of someone bringing multiple backpacks to the blast site, according to CBS News.

There is no way to avoid the horror of the human toll, as I am just hearing Mark Levin state that CNN is reporting two people are dead, while some agencies have the death toll as high as 15 (8:26pm CST), and one is an eight year old boy. 132 people were wounded, and of these, seventeen are in critical condition and ten are amputees. Pray America… pray for these poor souls that God helps them in their hour of need and helps them towards a speedy recovery!

At 7:13pm CST, President Barack Obama expanded some on his initial statement: “We still don’t know who did this or why. We should not jump to conclusions. But make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this, and we will find out who did this and why… let me reiterate, we will find out who did this and we will hold them accountable.”

You’re damned right “we will hold them accountable” Mr President. And as soon as the business day begins in the morning on April 16th, I suggest that all Americans inundate the Capitol switchboard operators with calls to their Senators and Representatives and demand that they remove any impediments to this investigation and force Homeland Security and Janet Napolitano to do their job… a trillion dollars spent on improving national security and still this administration proved inept; Representative Pete King said that this has very sign of an Al Qaeda attack. Where was the FBI, the CIA and every other government intelligence agency as this attack was being prepared? But in the end, I can agree with Obama on just this one thing, as he stated, On days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats… there are only Americans.”

God Bless America and May He Keep Her Safe and Free!

A ‘see-no-jihad’-ist at the CIA?

-1109429251By Frank Gaffney:

On her way out the door, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the unsayable.  Literally.  Until last month, when she repeatedly warned in congressional testimony concerning the Benghazi debacle that we confront a “global jihadist threat,” the Obama administration did not allow the use of the words jihad and threat in the same sentence.

How ironic that the principal architect of this “see-no-jihad” policy is John Brennan, President Obama’s current Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor and his choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency.  Setting aside the obvious questions about why Mrs. Clinton chose her swan song on Capitol Hill to state the obvious but impermissible truth, if she’s right, why on earth would the Senate want to entrust critical collection and analysis of intelligence to the very person who has epitomized and enforced a policy of willful blindness towards the central threat of our time: the supremacist Islamic ideology of shariah and the holy war, or jihad, its adherents are obliged to wage?

Read more at Center for Security Policy

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Steve Emerson, National Security Expert – Obama Refuses To Confront Radical Islam

Steve Emerson: “Obama Not Confronting Radical Islam.” President Barack Obama refusal to admit that America’s real enemy isn’t al-Qaida but radical Islam legitimizes groups that believe there is a conspiracy against Muslims, leading terrorism and national security expert Steve Emerson tells Newsmax.TV.

Troubling Questions About al-Awlaki, Fort Hood after ‘Misleading’ FBI Testimony

by Bridget Johnson:

A congressional probe into the Fort Hood massacre is now directed at the top of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as questions brew over whether a senior FBI official misled lawmakers in testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science responsible for funding the FBI, had asked Director Robert Mueller to come testify at an Aug. 1 hearing on the Webster Commission report into the November 2009 shootings, but the bureau sent Mark Giuliano, the FBI’s executive assistant director for national security.

The trial of Army Major Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 at Fort Hood, is expected to begin next week. Proceedings have been delayed by the question of whether or not the court can force him to shave his beard for trial.

In a lengthy letter to Mueller yesterday, Wolf raised concerns that Giuliano “made comments to the committee that I believe were misleading or incorrect with regard to the nature of findings in the Webster Commission report and the FBI’s understanding of Anwar Aulaqi at various points over the last decade.”

In all, Wolf singled out six troubling statements from the FBI official as “potentially misleading, uninformed or incomplete.”

At the hearing, Wolf grilled Giuliano on whether political correctness led to agents being gun-shy about aggressively pursing Hasan’s links with Islamic extremists.

“The report did not find political correctness was in any way, shape, or form responsible for his lack of going forward with the interview,” Giuliano responded.

But the Webster Commission report, requisitioned by the FBI and led by former FBI Director William H. Webster, says on two pages that the San Diego officers who reported suspicions about Hasan were told by officials in Washington that “political sensitivities” were a factor in the office’s decision not to investigate Hasan further.

“I repeatedly asked Mr. Giuiliano to cite the section of the report that found that there was no political correctness ‘in any way, shape, or form,’ but he refused. When I confronted him about misleading the committee, he admitted that I was correct on that point,” Wolf wrote in the letter to Mueller. “Later in the hearing reversed again and said that he and I just ‘disagree’ on that point.”

Wolf also noted that Giuliano’s assertion that Hasan and al-Awlaki never met in Virginia has been countered by numerous media reports stating that Hasan met his mentor in 2001 when the cleric presided over his mother’s funeral. “Please confirm for the record whether or not Maj. Hasan and Aulaqi met while he served as imam for the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia,” Wolf asked. “If so, please provide a summary of the FBI’s full understanding of their encounters, including the funeral.”

The third point of contention involves the FBI official classifying al-Awlaki, a radical cleric who became a recruiter for al-Qaeda in Yemen, as a “propagandist.”

Giuliano characterized the terrorist as such when refusing to answer a committee question on whether violent Islamic extremism was at the root of the Fort Hood massacre.

Under questioning from ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Giuliano said that al-Awlaki “changed and he changed a lot over the years. When he went to prison in Yemen in, you know, ’06, ’07 and as he came out and came back up online in early ’08, he still had somewhat of a moderate tone but – but began to be more of a propagandist, began to show more radical tendencies, but we could not and the [Intelligence Committee] did not see him as operational or in an operational role at that time.”

“This statement, quite simply, is fundamentally false,” Wolf wrote, citing a 2008 Washington Post article in which a U.S. counterterrorism official said there was good reason to believe al-Awlaki “has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States” — the same time period in which the FBI official said he “still had somewhat of a moderate tone.”

Al-Awlaki also had amassed a lengthy record of radical writings by this time, including praise of the 9/11 hijackers and Palestinian suicide bombers — far from a “moderate” tone. He even wrote of his own radicalization path, beginning with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the early 1990s, for al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine shortly before his death.

The Webster Commission report, Wolf pointed out, specifically notes that at least certain sections of the bureau perceived the threat posed by Awlaki around 2009 as more serious than a mere “propagandist” or radicalizer, and the Treasury Department noted al-Awlaki’s operational role in terrorist activities in announcing his July 2010 placement on the sanctions list.

Citing additional evidence from an NYPD analysis on al-Awlaki, which showed even more terror ties, Wolf said that as early as 14 years ago the FBI was keeping a sharp eye on the radical cleric — which made Giuliano’s assertions all the more confusing.

“Given this public information demonstrating Aulaqi’s long history with al-Qaeda-affiliated groups and multiple bureau investigations, please confirm for the record whether the bureau viewed Aulaqi only as ‘propagandist’ with a ‘moderate tone’ as late as 2008, or in fact regarded him as a more complex and substantial threat than Mr. Giuliano described?” Wolf wrote.

Read more at PJ Media

Five Congressmen Call for Muslim Brotherhood Influence Investigations

By Ryan Mauro:

In what could prove to be a watershed moment in the fight against radical  Islam, five prominent members of Congress wrote  letters on June 13 to the Inspector Generals of the Departments of State,  Justice, Defense, Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National  Intelligence requesting investigations into the influence of Muslim  Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals.

The letters were signed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Tom Rooney  (R-FL) and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) of the House Permanent Select Committee  on Intelligence; Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) of the House Armed Services Committee  and Rep. Louie Gohmert, the Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

The letters refers to a 10-part, freely-available online course created by  the Center for Security Policy titled, “Muslim  Brotherhood in America,” narrated by Frank Gaffney, who served as Assistant  Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under the Reagan  Administration. Each letter mentions incidents where the respective departments  worked with entities or individuals tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

A secret document by  the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood from 1991 states that its “work in  America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western  civilization from within.” The Brotherhood’s documents also identify many of its  fronts in the U.S., such as the Islamic  Society of North America, the Islamic  Circle of North America, the North  American Islamic Trust, the Muslim  Students Association, the International  Institute of Islamic Thought and the Islamic  Association for Palestine, from which the Council  on American-Islamic Relations was birthed.

Overseas, the Muslim Brotherhood strategy of “civilization jihad” is referred  to as “gradualism,” a doctrine I discussed at length here.  “Gradualism,” often called “stealth jihad” in the West, refers to an  incremental, phased approach towards advancing the Islamist cause that includes  a cost-benefit analysis. Western observers often misinterpret the Muslim  Brotherhood’s restraint as proof that it is moderate. In reality, this judgment  is an intelligence  failure. Israeli officials say  the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt ordered Hamas to fire rockets at  Israel just this past weekend. Hamas’ founding charter says it is a wing of the  Brotherhood and the terrorist group changed  its official name in December to reflect this.

There is a wealth of information showing why the investigations called for by  the members of Congress is necessary. The impact of the Muslim Brotherhood-tied  groups and other Islamists on the current and past administrations, both  political parties and the law enforcement and intelligence communities is  disturbing. Their agendas are aided by a media eager to defame their critics and  businesses, officials and religious organizations embracing them in the name of  interfaith relations.

The Center for Security Policy’s course calls out several serving members of  the current administration for having close ties to Muslim Brotherhood  affiliates. These include:

  • Rashad  Hussain, the current Special Envoy to the Organization  of Islamic Cooperation. He previously was a Deputy Associate Council in the  White House involved in national security policy and Muslim outreach.
  • Dalia  Mogahed, a close associate of John  Esposito, one of the foremost defenders of the Muslim Brotherhood and its  affiliates. She is in the White House’s Office of Faith-Based Neighborhood  Partnerships and is credited as the person who most  influenced President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo. She is a member of the  Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working  Group.
  • Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  and wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Several of her relatives have  ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, especially her mother who belongs  to the Muslim Sisterhood.
  • Mohamed Elibiary, who serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Committee  and reportedly  tried to leak documents to the press to paint Texas Governor Rick Perry as  having an anti-Muslim bias. He is a member of the Department of Homeland  Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.
  • Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America  (ISNA), who has close ties with administration officials and is a member of the  Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working  Group.

 

The letter sent to the DHS says  that, in addition to the aforementioned three members of the Countering Violent  Extremism Working Group, “five other members…appear to share their sympathy  for Islamist causes in addition to sharing some of their associations with  organizers that are advancing such agendas in the U.S.”

Azizah  al-Hibri, who stated that “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western  codes of law” and has relations with Brotherhood-tied groups, serves on the U.S.  Commission on International Religious Freedom. In April 2010, the CEO of Islamic  Relief USA, another group with with  Hamas/Brotherhood ties, was appointed to the U.S. Agency for  International Development Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. In  November 2011, he was appointed to the State Department’s Religion and Foreign  Policy Working Group. Sahar Aziz, who served in the Department of Homeland  Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from 2008 to 2009, spoke  at the annual fundraiser for CAIR-Michigan on March 25. She shared the stage  with Siraj Wahhaj, an anti-American Islamist preacher.

Recently, the White House’s new Director for Community Partnerships said that  there have been “hundreds”  of meetings between departments and agencies with the Council on  American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), despite the fact that the FBI ended  outreach efforts with CAIR after the government labeled it an “unindicted  co-conspirator” in the Holy  Land Foundation trial. This designation was subsequently upheld  by a federal judge. A 2007 federal court filing  also calls CAIR a Muslim Brotherhood front that uses deception to support  terrorists. ISNA and the North American Islamic Trust were also labeled  “unindicted co-conspirators.” It has been reported  that the Justice Department actually blocked the planned prosecution of a CAIR  co-founder and others on the list  of “unindicted co-conspirators.”

The Executive-Director of CAIR’s Greater Los Angeles chapter, Hussam Ayloush,  was just elected  as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. In August 2010, Bill  Aossey, a prominent member of the radical Islamic  Center of Cedar Rapids, went to the White House and sat at President Obama’s  table for an Iftar celebration. In 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama’s  Muslim outreach director, Mazen Asbahi, resigned  after his associations with Brotherhood-tied groups were exposed.

The administration’s interfaith efforts involve the same individuals and  groups that the five members of Congress are concerned about. Then-President of  ISNA, Ingrid  Mattson, took part in President Obama’s inaugural prayer services. The  President’s top counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, spoke  alongside her at New York University. Senior presidential advisor Valerie  Jarrett was the keynote  speaker at ISNA’s annual convention in 2009. After President Obama’s famous  speech in Cairo in 2009, Secretary of State Clinton invited Esam  Omeish, a supporter of Hamas involved with the Brotherhood, to take part in  a conference call.

The “Muslim Brotherhood  in America” course reveals that in 2010, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor  and Combat Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, took an interfaith trip to Auschwitz  alongside eight individuals with strong Muslim Brotherhood ties. After the Fort  Hood terrorist attack, an official from ISNA was approved  to come to the base for a lecture about Islam. In February, a top Pentagon  official apologized  for the accidental burning of a Koran in Afghanistan at the mosque led by ISNA’s  president. In March 2011, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough spoke  at the mosque and praised Magid.

Individuals and organizations like these are responsible for the  administration’s belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is genuinely moderate,  non-violent and a force we can work with. This opinion was on full  display when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified  before Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is “secular.” He portrayed the  Brotherhood in a positive light and continues  to do so to this day. A National Security Council spokesperson did  the same when asked about the White House’s meetings with Brotherhood  officials from Egypt. The director of the State Department’s Special Coordinator  of the Office of Middle East Transitions, William Taylor, is similarly  positive towards the Brotherhood. His office even gave election  training to Islamists in Egypt.

The relationships between these groups and law enforcement and intelligence  agencies are particularly alarming. Administration officials, including  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric  Holder, have met with the Muslim  Public Affairs Council (MPAC), over  two dozen times. MPAC was founded by Muslim Brotherhood supporters and works  in tandem with the other mentioned groups. On January 27-28, 2010, ISNA and a known  Brotherhood front called the Muslim  American Society joined MPAC in meeting  with Napolitano and other DHS officials.

The influence of these groups became much  greater after the controversy over the content of counter-terrorism training  materials started. A complete review of the materials began with outside  help and indeed, some of it was inappropriate. The desire to tame Muslim  outrage led to an embrace of some of these Islamist groups who consistently  misrepresent counter-terrorism practices, defame their critics as bigots and feed off  of feelings of victimization and persecution.

In October 2011, the DHS and the National Counterterrorism center distributed guidelines  on Countering Violent Extremism for law enforcement agencies to follow. It was  cleansed of references to the Islamist ideology. An MPAC paper was one of only  two non-governmental sources cited. The website of Sheriff Lee Baca, a prominent  ally of CAIR and similar groups, was also used. This is to be expected  considering who is in the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.

On February 8, FBI Director Robert Mueller met with an interfaith group that  included ISNA and MPAC. The FBI confirmed afterwards that it would consider a  proposal by the attendees to establish a committee to oversee the review of  counter-terrorism training materials.  Even now, the FBI will  not say who the three experts on Islam guiding the review are.

The Chicago Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy, spoke  at a CAIR fundraiser in March. As mentioned before, Los Angeles County  Sheriff Lee Baca is a huge supporter of the Brotherhood-tied groups and was honored  by CAIR. The Los Angeles Police Department’s Commanding Officer of the  Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations Bureau, Deputy Chief Michael Downing,  even outrageously said at an event  with MPAC that “the message is not to demonize the Brotherhood” because it has  “evolved and changed.”

The case  of Kifah Mustapha highlights how bad things are. He was personally designated by  the federal government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial  because he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee”  set up in the U.S. to covertly assist Hamas. The documentation of his extremism  is irrefutable. Still, he was able to go on a six-week tour of sensitive FBI  facilities where he, as you probably assumed, asked tons of questions about  counter-terrorism procedures.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The “Muslim  Brotherhood in America” course spends an enormous amount of time on how this  is a bi-partisan problem that became much  worse under the Bush Administration. Today, Republican New Jersey Governor  Chris Christie (click here  and here)  and Republican Senator Lindsey  Graham serve as good examples. The problem extends to state and local  governments, such as the Illinois Governor’s Muslim American Advisory Council  that includes  officials from Brotherhood groups.

It also goes beyond the government. Islamist influence,  facilitated by political  correctness, is present  in our education system.  Those concerned about this issue are oftenmocked, dismissed, misquoted and misrepresented in the media.  One stunning example  of Hollywood’s role  is how the producer of the hit films, The Matrix and The Lord of the  Rings, brought onboard Shiekh Yousef al-Qaradawi, a top  terrorism-supporting cleric, as an advisor for his film about Mohammed.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Conservatives For Shariah

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group’s stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah.  Particularly unsettling is evidence of the group’s goal in America, namely of “destroying Western civilization from within,” as documented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008.

But for some prominent conservatives, such facts are not just inconvenient.  They – and any who point them out – must be denied, ignored or suppressed.

The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online.  The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman (http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2012/06/10/the_bogus_threat_from_shariah_law/page/2).  He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302280).  Both caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.

Schmitz went further, wrongly describing shariah as “not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings.”  In fact, shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that has simply been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world.  Its Brotherhood and other adherents are now aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, in Iraq, in Indonesia and, in due course, here.  Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as “anti-Muslim bigots” who are “undermin[ing] our national security.”

Specifically, Messrs. Chapman and Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts.  It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) – a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more.  ALAC prevents foreign laws, including but not limited to shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights.  Incredibly, the authors contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.

Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about shariah’s advent in America.  As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), some are actually enabling the Brotherhood’s influence operations.  This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitating their access toother conservatives and promotion of their agendas.

Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior.  They have engaged in purges from some of the Right’s conclaves.  They have also sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is “inside the wire” – including, in at least one instance, a formal condemnation for raising the alarm.

The good news is that five leading Members of Congress have recently joined the ranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms. They are:

  • Rep. Michele Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus;
  • Rep. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security;
  • Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee and
  • Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee; and
  •  Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee.

In a joint press release (http://bachmann.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=299447) dated June 13, each of these influential legislators made clear their view that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a serious threat here in America.  They expressed a determination to establish the nature and extent of the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” inside the United States and to counter it.

To that end, the Members of Congress last week drew on evidence presented in the Center for Security Policy’s course to ask the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Judiciary, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the extent and impact of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of their agencies.  They requested that the IGs provide their findings within ninety days.

In addition, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the House Appropriations State, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, is pressing the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the FBI’s stated policy of not dealing in non-investigative contexts with one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most notorious fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  This effort took on even greater urgency in light of the revelation earlier this month by a White House official that the administration had had “hundreds of meetings” with CAIR.

Conservatives and other Republicans face, in short, a time of choosing.  Are they going to ignore the real and present danger posed by shariah and its adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood?  Will they therefore be recorded by history as having enabled, whether directly or indirectly, such stealthy threats to our republic and its government society?

Or are prominent conservatives going to help our countrymen of all political stripes understand the challenge we face and lead in developing and executing strategies for defeating it?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Congressional Leaders Call for Investigations of Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the Obama Administration

Center for Security Policy | Jun 15, 2012

Washington, DC, June 14, 2012: Five influential Members of  Congress called yesterday for the inspectors general (IGs) of government  departments with national security responsibilities to investigate  whether their agencies are being subjected to influence operations  mounted as part of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization  jihad.”  This initiative holds out hope that a grave, and largely  unremarked, threat may thus be recognized and thwarted in time.
The authors of letters sent to the IGs for the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are:
  • Rep. Michele Bachman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus
  • Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee
  • Rep. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
  • Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee
  • Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s   Oversight Subcommittee; and
In a joint press statement,  each of these congressional leaders expressed profound concern about  the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the need to understand  that threat here in the United States.  What is more, they cited  in their letters evidence of the penetration of Brotherhood operatives  and allies inside the Obama administration, and examples of policies  that appear to have been influenced as a result.
The legislators explicitly draw upon documentation of that evidence  contained in Parts 8 and 9 the Center for Security Policy’s new,  ten-part online video curriculum: The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com).
Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:
These five key legislators are to  be commended for their exemplary leadership on a matter of utmost peril  to this country – namely, the stealthy effort being made by avowed  enemies of this country, the Muslim Brotherhood, to destroy us ‘from  within.’  Their request for the five inspectors general to conduct  investigations of the Brotherhood’s progress toward that end – and  report back within ninety days – will hopefully be seconded by others in  both parties and be swiftly addressed by the IGs, given their  responsibility for conducting such independent inquiries within  executive branch agencies.  The Center for Security Policy’s extensive  research, and the online course that presents it, shows those inquiries  are fully warranted and urgently needed – as are, for that matter,  corresponding investigations by the Congress, as well.