Must Read Report – Islamic State: ‘The Threat to the United States’

isis-marching-AP-640x480 (2)Breitbart, by Jordan, Schachtel, Nov. 23, 2015:

A Mclean, Virginia-based defense think-tank has published a prescient white-paper on the Islamic State terror group, which has been made available exclusively to Breitbart News prior to its release.

The Threat Knowledge Group (TKG), headed by Katherine C. Gorka, its President, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University and a Breitbart Contributor, released a comprehensive study Monday titled “ISIS: The Threat to the United States.”

After last week’s attacks in Paris that killed over one-hundred people and wounded hundreds more, particular national attention has turned to national security issues, as the American people continue to fear that the United States is becoming more vulnerable to jihadist attacks.

“The scope and lethality of the Paris attack changes everything. The U.S. will have to take the domestic threat of ISIS much more seriously now,” Threat Knowledge Group President Katherine Gorka told Breitbart News.

“We wanted to do this study because we felt that the Administration was downplaying the domestic threat of ISIS, focusing instead on ‘right-wing extremism.’ The problem with that is that it means law enforcement is not prepared. They’re looking out the window while the threat is coming in the door,” she added.

Threat Knowledge Group supports the Defense Department and FBI with strategic analysis and training, and this latest report unveils the Islamic State’s recruitment network inside of the United States.

They found that over 250 people from the United States have attempted to join ISIS, according to a report from the House Homeland Security Committee. Also, some 82 individuals in the United States have been interdicted by federal agents as part of ISIS plots, according to a database compiled by Threat Knowledge Group.

And the FBI already has almost 1,000 active ISIS investigations in the United States, the report adds.

In its study, TKG also compares and contrasts the Islamic State with Al Qaeda.

The report notes that “ISIS is a fully-fledged insurgency” and has been able to achieve far more than Al Qaeda has in its past. In such a short amount of time, ISIS has been able to recruit a force of tens-of-thousands of jihadis while also controlling territory, a feat that Al Qaeda has never accomplished by itself.

ISIS has trumped Al Qaeda’s recruiting capacity as well, according to the report. TKG found that from March 2014 to November 2015, ISIS arrests occurred over three times more often than for Al Qaeda members, with 4.1 ISIS cases per month compared to Al Qaeda’s monthly 1.5 average.

In an ultra-important measure to establish legitimacy in the Islamic world, ISIS “successfully declared the Caliphate after 90 years of absence, and it is growing,” the report adds.

The study also delves into several other issues related to understanding ISIS as a jihadi organization, covering topics such as “What ISIS believes in” and “Who is ISIS recruiting?”

TKG warns that the United States must steel itself for the “difficult times ahead” and be ready to counter the threats posed by ISIS inside of the United States. They recommend that U.S. officials follow five steps in countering the current threat environment.

In summary, TKG recommends that American officials should:

  1. “Stop downplaying the seriousness of the threat.”
  2. “Recognize that ISIS is targeting youth, and do more to protect youth from radicalization.”
  3. “Target the ideologues.”
  4. “Better utilize open-source intelligence.”

TKG Report the ISIS Threat

Geller: Obama’s Version of America Is the ‘Shameful’ One


Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Nov. 16, 2015:

Barack Obama implied Monday that opponents of his mad scheme to fill this country with Syrian refugees (including an untold number of active Islamic jihadists) were motivated by religious prejudice.

Obama said:

And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

But he does. In 2011, our international organization, Stop Islamisation of Nations (SION), appealed to the Obama Administration and the United Nations to grant emergency asylum to the real refugees of jihadi wars. Our call was met with deafening and deadening (literally) silence.

Obama’s American compassion.

In his speech at the G20 Summit in Turkey on Monday, Obama took a harsher tone with Republicans than he has with ISIS. In the wake of the Paris jihad slaughter, he is obsessed with… importing more Muslims, not defeating the Islamic State. And he calls anyone opposed to increased Muslim migration — namely the GOP — “shameful.” But it is Obama who is shameful. He’s the one who has applied a religious test to migrants. He has refused Christians seeking refuge from jihad genocide. He has refused to meet with Middle Eastern Christian leaders. They are the true victims of the jihadi wars.

Obama took to the world stage to push for more Muslim migration and to scold anyone who tied terrorism to Islam. Why is he admonishing us? We didn’t tie Islam to terrorism. The jihadists are the ones who have done that. Devout Muslims are waging war in the cause of Islam by their word and deed, so why is Obama blaming us?

Obama’s American compassion.

As the number of Christian and religious minorities who are refugees began to rise in concert with the ascent of Islamic supremacist groups, and as the violence continues against non-Muslims under the sharia, part of Obama’s anti-freedom foreign policy is to suppress the horror of what is happening under his watch. He has gone so far as to remove the Religious Freedom Section from the State Department’s Human Rights reports.

Obama’s American compassion.

Obama then went on to angrily school us on the meaning of America, admonishing opponents of his disastrous and suicidal refugee resettlement plan: “That’s not American. That’s not who we are.”

Was abandoning our ambassador and our soldiers in Benghazi American? Leaving Americans to die instead of rescuing them is the definition of anti-Americanism.

Blaming the First Amendment after a jihad terror attack is the opposite of Americanism.

Abandoning our closest ally in the Middle East is the opposite of Americanism. Ousting Mubarak and Qaddafi to install terror regimes is the opposite of Americanism. Aiding“moderate al Qaeda” (as if there really were such a thing) in Syria is the opposite of Americanism.

Who the hell is Barack Hussein Obama to tell us what is American and what isn’t?

While never holding Muslims to account for jihad, Obama has excoriated Christians for… the Crusades. Is that American?

The Islamic State has posted the names and addresses of U.S. soldiers, FBI agents, Navy SEALs, and other defenders of freedom. They have issued a fatwa (death sentence) against my supporters and me. Our assassins will gain entry under Obama’s refugee plans. Is that American?

Obama demands that we believe his lies. He insists that the refugees are fleeing the war in Syria when, in fact, four out of five of the migrants who have recently come to Europe are not Syrian. He insists that they are all fleeing war — how does he know? ISIS vowed last February to send a half-a-million-man army to Europe via refugee migration — and now they have done it. How does Obama know who they are and why they are coming? How can he possibly vet them, when he refuses to acknowledge the jihad ideology and scrubbed all counter-terror material of any mention of jihad and Islam? How can our intelligence agencies determine if they are jihadists?

Obama’s America — what is Obama’s America?

An America that supports BDS?

An America that abandons her allies?

An America that supports terrorism?

An America that partners with terrorist groups?

An America that denigrates America on the world stage?

That’s not America. That’s not American. Contrary to Obama’s claims, that’s what’s really shameful.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Also see:

Obama: ‘Un-American’ Not to Take in More Muslim Refugees

Calais-Migrants-Line-Up-AP-PhotoMarkus-Schreiber-640x480Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, Nov. 16, 2015:

President Obama wants more Syrian Muslim refugees in the West. Speaking in Turkey on Monday, Obama explained that the West needed to open its heart to Muslim refugees, who after all were fleeing from terrorism in the Middle East to the safe and warm arms of the West. Meanwhile, Obama continued to maintain that Islamic radicalism presents no threat to the world.

To President Obama, the issue of Syrian Muslim refugee immigration into the United States is a simple risk-reward analysis. The risk: terrorist attack. The reward: not being “Islamophobic.”

First, the risk. We know that President Obama believes that Americans can take a terrorist attack. Back in 2010, according to Bob Woodward, Obama stated, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever…we absorbed it and we are stronger.” And Obama acknowledged today that American intelligence officials have considered ISIS capable of attacks beyond its borders for months. So Obama knows that accepting Syrian Muslim refugees carries a risk above zero. He’s willing to accept that risk.

And the risk is substantial. We now know that at least one of the terrorists in Paris entered Europe as a refugee and carried an ID for Syrian refugees. According to CNN:

[The] bomber falsely declared himself to be a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad, born on September 10, 1990, and was allowed to enter Greece on October 3. From there he moved to Macedonia, then Serbia and Croatia, where he registered in the Opatovac refugee camp, the lawmaker said. Eventually, he made his way to Paris, where he was one of three men who blew themselves up at the Stade de France.

He’s not the only one. As Senator Sen. Ted Cruz explained, “If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation.” That’s true. According to The Express (UK), “An operative working for Islamic State has revealed the terror group has successfully smuggled thousands of covert jihadists into Europe.” Two Turkish refugee-smugglers agreed.

It didn’t take Syrian refugees to launch the risk of Islamic terrorism in France. In 2014, a poll showed that 16 percent of French people had positive attitudes toward ISIS, including 27 percent of French people between ages 18 and 24. According to Ann-Elizabeth Moutet of Newsweek, “This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds…these are the same people who torch synagogues.”

Beyond the risk of terrorism, heightened Islamic immigration to Europe has led to increased crime and massive cultural fragmentation as well. Yesterday, The New York Times admitted that Europe has its own no-go zones in Muslim areas; Belgium’s home affairs minister said that the government has no “control of the situation in Molenbeek,” a working-class area of Brussels. That’s been true in France for years, where “semi-autonomous” sectors have become more and more common. Increased Muslim immigration has spelled a significant rise in anti-Semitic crime as well as more crime generally. In Germany, crime rates have skyrocketed as the number of those seeking asylum has risen. In Sweden, Jews have fled certain cities like Malmo altogether over the rising threat of radical Islam; the rate of rape in Sweden has jumped tremendously as well.

So yes, increased Islamic immigration to the West is a major risk.

Which brings us to the reward. What’s the reward for allowing a certain number of Westerners to die, allowing Western welfare systems to be overloaded by poor immigrants, allowing Western culture to be fragmented by Islamic fundamentalism? Avoiding charges of Islamophobia. Today, President Obama explained that proposals by Republicans to house Christian refugees but not Muslim refugees were un-American:

When I hear folks say that maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who is feeling from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are.

So, to be clear, it’s un-American to accept only Christian refugees from a region of the world where they are routinely persecuted for their religious persuasion, despite the heightened risk of terrorism from Muslim refugees. But it’s perfectly American for the State Department to consider ruling that Christians living under ISIS rule are not victims of an impending genocide, and to insist that the West house, feed, and clothe Muslim refugees. It’s un-American to protect American lives; it’s perfectly American to take in un-vetted refugees of the same general religious persuasion as the terrorists of 9/11 and 7/7 and Paris, without regard to the safety of the citizenry.

While the West churns its guts over Muslim refugees, Muslim countries aren’t doing so. There are fifty Muslim-majority countries all over the globe. Just five Muslim countries have taken in significant numbers of refugees: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Only Egypt does not share a border with Syria. A huge percentage of refugees entering Europe are doing so not directly from Syria, but through Turkey, which has taken in approximately two million refugees but is housing hundreds of thousands in internment camps. This isn’t rare. For decades, Muslim countries have refused to integrate fellow Muslim refugees, which is why Palestinian Arabs still live in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan seventy years after the foundation of the State of Israel. The umma won’t deign to take in fellow Muslims the same way, say, that the Jewish state has taken in and integrated every Jewish refugee population from Russia to Ethiopia.

Nonetheless, President Obama says that morality requires the West to risk its own citizenry to save Muslim refugees without proper background checks and without any distinction between the capacity of Christians and Muslims to integrate into Christian-based societies.

No shock there. After all, President Obama obviously dislikes the West more than he dislikes radical Islam, seeing as he won’t even recognize radical Islam’s existence.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:



ISIS Sinai Leader ID’d As Potential ‘Mastermind’ of Russian Airliner Terror Attack


Does anyone remember how Morsi allowed jihadists to gather in the Sinai?

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Nov. 9, 2015:

Abu Osama Al Masri (also referred to as Sheikh Osama al Masri), has been identified by intelligence sources as the likely mastermind behind the attack on a Russian airliner that crashed in the Sinai Peninsula in late October, killing all 224 passengers on board.

al-Masri is an Egyptian cleric who graduated from Egypt’s infamous Al Azhar University, a known hotbed for jihadi theology. It is the same place from where U.S. President Barack Obama gave his famous Cairo speech in 2009, shortly after being elected president.

In recent months, al-Masri – whose jihadi outfit used to be known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM), before switching allegiance to ISIS – has often called for fellow terror sympathizers to attack members of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government.

On Sunday, British officials told the Sunday Times that the 42-year-old ISIS cleric is a “person of interest” in the suspected attack, adding that British forces may be utilized in a “kill or capture” mission targeting al-Masri.

In a statement following the suspected attack, al-Masri said the alleged bombing was a “blessing of our gathering under a single banner and leader,” in reference to the fact that the suspected attack also occurred on the one-year anniversary of the group pledging to follow ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“We are the ones who downed it by the grace of Allah, and we are not compelled to announce the method that brought it down,” al-Masri said defiantly, following the Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg jet crashing in the desert.

al-Masri’s jihadi group, which in the past had strong ties to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, has rebranded itself as an ISIS affiliate. Throughout this process, the Sinai Province (of the Islamic State) has continued its insurgent effort primarily focused on Egypt’s military and police.

Before joining the caliphatist ISIS, ABM had more immediate regional goals, such as plotting attacks against Egypt and Israel, strengthening its alliances with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip. Sinai Province has completed its objectives with some success, killing dozens over the past year alone and injuring hundreds more.

“Poison their food… Surveil them at home and in the street… destroy their homes with explosives if you can,” al-Masri said in a past message discussing Egyptian judges, a calling that was similar to countless more messages demanding the massacre of innocents.

ABM has been listed as a terrorist group by the United States and many other western nations. In November, 2014, the U.S. State Department added the Sinai Province as another alias of al-Masri’s terror organization.

In its initial terror designation of the Sinai-based organization, the U.S. State Department described the Islamic militant group as one that “shares some aspects” of Al Qaeda ideology and “generally maintains a local focus.”

Also see:

Frank Gaffney on Breitbart News Daily: Cruz’s Muslim Brotherhood Bill Is the ‘Essential Issue of the Day’


Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Nov. 9, 2015:

Frank Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy, appeared on Breitbart News Daily on Monday to discuss Sen. Ted Cruz ’s bill that seeks to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a terrorist organization. Gaffney also urged Republican nominees go on the record about Sharia-finance and Sharia law as a whole during Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate.

The bill “lays out the case” the add the MB on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, said Gaffney, who served as acting Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan.

The Center For Security Policy president said that Republican candidates should not be asked whether they support the pending legislation, but instead what reasons they have not to advocate for it, given the Brotherhood’s extremism.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, has “engaged with them, enabled them, empowered them,” and has even in some cases, decided to “fund and arm them,” Gaffney told Breitbart News Daily host Stephen K. Bannon.

Sharia law, the Islamic doctrine advocated by the MB, is a “totalitarian, brutally repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, and” is part of a “downright dangerous agenda of Islamic supremacism,” Gaffney said.

The Muslim Brotherhood is deploying a “subversive agenda that they call civilization jihad that is designed to take us down,” he added, explaining that the group explained in its own words that it wants to “destroy civilization from within” with the goal to make their God’s religion victorious over all other religions.

Bannon, who leads Breitbart News as its executive chairman, asked Gaffney what question he would want each candidate to answer in Tuesday’s debate.

Gaffney offered as a question in the economy-themed debate that is scheduled to air on Fox Business channel: “Do you believe that it is in America’s interests to have Sharia-compliant finance adopted in our economic system as a parallel to our capitalist system?”

This would “set the stage” for a larger conversation on what the American people “think of Sharia law, period,” he added. “It’s not just the finance piece, it’s the idea that [Sharia] should be superior to our constitution and the freedoms” it entails, Gaffney explained.

The Cruz bill is “the essential issue of the day,” he added, going back to the bills brought to both the House and Senate recommending the listing of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity. There needs to be a “counter-jihad campaign,” Gaffney said.

Most leaders are completely “unaware” about the deceptive tactics utilized by the Brotherhood to influence western leaders, Gaffney said, commending Breitbart News for bringing this issue to the forefront.

Also see:

FBI Suspends Counterterror Program After Pressure from Fringe Islamic Groups

GettyImages-73534290-FBI-seal-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Nov. 2, 2015:

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation has suspended the unveiling of a new counter-radicalization website designed for kids after fringe Islamic advocacy organizations said the anti-terror programming discriminates against Muslims.

The FBI website titled, “Don’t Be A Puppet,” was scheduled to go live Monday morning but has been suspended indefinitely after fierce opposition by Islamic groups, the Washington Post reports.

According to reports, the program was designed to lead children and teens through games that were designed to help them identify potential extremists. The FBI initiative also sought to help young men and women steer clear from the radical ideologies that lead people to join Islamic extremist groups.

A spokesman with the FBI told the New York Times late Sunday, prior to the program’s scheduled release: “The F.B.I. is developing a website designed to provide awareness about the dangers of violent extremist predators on the Internet, with input from students, educators and community leaders.”

Some Muslim leaders who were invited to beta-test the program were outraged that the FBI would take the time to develop counterterror initiatives.

“The greatest threat facing American schoolchildren today is gun violence,” Arjun Sethi, a Georgetown Law professor who was invited to screen the program over the summer, told the New York Times. “It’s not Muslim extremism.”

Members from the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a hard-line anti-Israel organization, were also invited to test the FBI program before it was rolled out.

Abed Ayoub, the ADC’s policy director, said his meetings with the FBI over the program were “very tense.” “If this is shown to middle and high-school students, it’s going to result in bullying of these children,” Ayoub said.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Muslim advocacy organization that wasfounded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, applauded the FBI’s decision to suspend the program..

MPAC Policy Director Hoda Hawa said in a press release:

While we welcome efforts to promote the safety and security of our nation, tools like this that improperly characterize American Muslims as a suspect community with its targeted focus and stereotypical depictions stigmatize Muslim students (or those perceived as such) and can actually exasperate the problem by leading to bullying, bias, and religious profiling of students.

MPAC wrote a follow-up letter to the FBI, declaring that the bureau has no business “educating our youth on countering violent extremism.” Creating programs that attempt to counter Islamic radicalism “can lead to bullying, bias, misperception, as well as racial and religious profiling of students,” the letter added.

Also see:

Hillary Clinton: Post-Qaddafi Libya Is ‘Smart Power At Its Best’

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Oct/ 14, 2015:

During the course of the Democratic Party debate on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton was asked to defend her disastrous intervention in Libya. In response, Clinton hailed Libya as “smart power at its best,” capturing a delusion that appears to be very common in the current iteration of her Party: the belief that magical “coalitions” of good guys can be whistled into existence to handle foreign-policy crises.

If such a belief had any grounding in reality – and it doesn’t – Hillary Clinton has proven herself an exceptionally poor choice to be America’s Whistler-in-Chief.

Clinton’s remarks on Libya, from the Washington Post’s transcript, began as follows:

Well, let’s remember what was going on. We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, “We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi.”

Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this. We will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya. And I’ll say this for the Libyan people…

There is no shortage of murderous dictators with blood on their hands in the world. Whether Qaddafi was poised to carry out a “mass genocide” is a matter of considerable debate, not the open-and-shut case for intervention Clinton presents it as. “Killing a large number of your insurgent citizens” is not the definition of “genocide,” no matter how reprehensible it might be, or how richly an evil dictator deserves to be deposed.

The Democratic Party has been driven so utterly around the bend by its Bush-hating rhetoric, and its determination to score political points by losing the Iraq War, that it thinks the presence of American boots on the ground is the sole metric of military success. Clinton’s definition of “smart power at its best” is the United States launching a far more unilateral, unwise, and poorly-conducted war than Iraq, because Europeans pushed Clinton into it, and then Clinton badgered President Obama until he agreed.

Comparisons between Libya and Iraq are silly. Libya is much, much worse than Iraq, from inception to its current disastrous state. Unlike George Bush, President Obama did not secure congressional approval.  The Iraq intelligence on WMD may have been substantially mistaken – although, contrary to Democrat mythology, it most certainly was not entirely mistaken, as Saddam did indeed have WMD stocks – but that intelligence was sincere. Professional analysts in multiple nations believed it with a high level of confidence.

President Obama and Clinton dithered too long and missed the best moment to strike, if they were truly inclined to do so. By waiting until Qaddafi recovered from early defeats and drove his rebels back to the verge of slaughter, they weakened Libya and made it easier prey for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the other bands of savages currently fighting for turf.

They worked hard to distract the American people from seeing the grisly fruits of their labors, which is one of the reasons the consulate in Benghazi was so disgracefully unprepared for a terrorist attack on Clinton’s watch – and that, in turn, is why she lied extravagantly about the nature of that terrorist attack during the 2012 election.  Then she worked overtime concealing her dereliction of duty and thwarting congressional oversight, which is why the Benghazi investigation she keeps complaining about is still in progress.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked Clinton about those deaths in Benghazi, although he sadly missed the opportunity to challenge her to name the four dead men. Her response:

But let — I’ll get to that. But I think it’s important, since I understand Senator Webb’s very strong feelings about this, to explain where we were then and to point out that I think President Obama made the right decision at the time.

And the Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to be followed.

But unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk.

Libya’s “free election” vote for “moderates” in the blossoming of the “Arab Spring” means absolutely nothing. The country is run by warlords and terror gangs, thanks to Clinton and Obama’s blunders. The “moderate” government can’t even sit in the capital of Tripoli, because a different gang controls that city. Clinton’s rival Jim Webb touched on this point after her remarks by saying, “Try to get to the Tripoli airport today. You can’t do it.”

The Arab Spring was no flowering of democracy – it was anarchy unleashed, followed by takeovers from organized Islamist thugs like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our choice is not between getting ambassadors killed, and never sending them anyplace dangerous. Hillary Clinton oversaw the first death of an American ambassador in decades. Chris Stevens died because of her failures, not because he rolled the dice by going somewhere dangerous and came up snake eyes. He was sent into a terrorist hot zone with nonexistent protection, in stubborn defiance of several violent outbreaks in the area, with absolutely no “Plan B” to rescue him if anything went wrong. Brave men defied instructions and raced to his side, dying in battle against a terrorist enemy whose identity Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lied about copiously to conceal for as long as possible.

The media action line Wednesday morning was that Clinton “won” the debate and firmed up her position as a front-running candidate. In truth, her competitors scored some points against her on Libya, including Webb pointing out her procedural errors: “We had no treaties at risk. We had no Americans at risk. There was no threat of attack or imminent attack. There is plenty of time for a president to come to the Congress and request authority to use military force in that situation.”

And even Martin O’Malley made a solid point about how badly Clinton and Obama fumbled the pre-war intelligence: “I think there’s lessons to be learned from Benghazi. And those lessons are that we need to do a much better job as a nation of having human intelligence on the ground so that we know who the emerging next generation leaders are that are coming up to replace a dictator when his time on this planet ends.”

None of that will matter much in the Democrat primary, because O’Malley is not a plausible candidate, while Webb is a plausible candidate for the Republican Party. But sharp Republican candidates should be able to see plenty of opportunities to hit Clinton hard on Libya, working from her ridiculous responses on Tuesday night. They should also clearly see that the debate moderators will not ask those questions for them.

If Libya was “smart power at its best,” we really don’t want to see what smart power at its worst looks like.

Also see:

Obama surrenders the Middle East to Russia, and it matters

20150928_obamaputinmiddleeast_Family Security Matters, by Dr. Robin McFee, Sep. 29, 2015:

Putin asserts it is difficult to defeat ISIS without the current Syrian government. Whether that government is a puppet of Iran and Russia, is currently irrelevant. Putin is correct. Syria could act as a magnet to draw in ISIS fighters, and a kill box within which to defeat them, or at least eliminate a not insignificant number of their fighters.

Putin has doubled down on Syria in recent days. No news there. He has had bases in that beleaguered nation for years. He is in a good position to weaken ISIS in the process – to a far greater degree than the US has been willing to do.

Speaking of which, Obama, not having learned anything from his many foreign policy misadventures in the region, has decided to invest in Syrian “rebels” who somehow have become virtuous patriots – instead of merely another assemblage of Jihadists, former mujahideen, current members of the various Al Qaeda franchises, and to be clear, NOT friends of democracy or freedom fighters. Obama just doesn’t get it. There are no freedom fighters or prodemocracy plays in that region. It is a war of the roses based upon religion, anti-West sensibilities, adherence to Sharia, tribal power skirmishes, and territorial control. The old saw ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ is both tired, misrepresentative of the landscape, and a dangerous game for amateurs to play.

Syria is an important place – geographically and geopolitically. Putin knows this. More importantly, Assad is his ally. Putin – spy master, politician, businessman, diplomat, quasi-dictator, martial artist, energy expert, possible assassin, and global force to be reckoned with – recognizes the importance of supporting your allies. We could learn something from him, as we continue to abandon our friends, and give benefits to our enemies. Reputations matter. Consider this….If you had to select a second for a street fight, would you pick Putin or Obama? A sad reality, but who does the world trust more? Not who does the world use more, or misuse more, or abuse more, but trust or fear more.

Like Assad or not, he has created a vortex within which ISIS is being drawn in. Al Qaeda is in play there as well. We ought to think of it as an opportunity to let savages kill each other, and their teams become severely degraded. Instead we are arming, at ridiculous expense, a handful (think meaningless) of jokers to represent our interests over there.

Yes Assad is an unsavory fellow, using chemical weapons. He isn’t alone. And to his credit – even bad guys have their good points – he has protected Christians far more than any other dictator in the region.  Putin is supporting Assad. And?

As an aside, think Christians have had any political patronage in Iraq lately? Or Iran? How are Christians faring in other Moslem nations with few exceptions, like Morocco? A bit closer to home, how are Christians treated in the US? While Obama is yammering about human rights, and taking in refugees from the Middle East (let us not forget much of this mess is his fault), he is about to deport Christian refugees, and has been hesitant to allow Christians under siege in Iraq to enter the US. Double standard anyone?

Like it or not, the world is one big Stratego ® or Risk ® game board. It is winner take all. The good guys can choose to be benevolent victors, and good trade partners, even good neighbors, but at the end of the day it is all about which team controls the natural resources, the transit routes, influences decisions, trade deals, and leads globally with manufacturing and distribution infrastructure that wins the game.

We are losing the game, and badly. This is not to be gloom and doom, but to remind that our future, and that of our children depends upon the economic and security future we create and pass along. The two are inextricably intertwined. One cannot separate the economy, energy, immigration, and security issues. Within that construct, the Middle East matters to our economy and security – unfortunately.

We blew Iraq – which has been and remains an extremely important nation in the history of the Arab and Middle Eastern world. Located in a strategic crossroads, and a former ally we misread (thank you Barack Obama), and abandoned a vital piece of real estate. Not to mention our feckless behavior has emboldened the behaviors of radical Islamists, including ISIS.

As for ISIS or Assad or Libya or…There are no consequences that our enemies face when doing barbaric acts against Americans or our interests. Obama’s laughable lines in the sand, and threats aimed at ISIS, ISIL, Russia, Assad or fill in the blanks, they are as fragile as a sand castle near the ocean during a tropical storm.  And as meaningless!

Could you, would you trust Obama if your life depended on it? Ask Pastor Saeed, who languishes in Iran, when he and 3 other Americans could easily have been ransomed for, say $150 billion dollars?! That is what BHO is giving Iran. Ask the Iraqis who risked their lives to provide intelligence to our military, and are now isolated, hunted, alone. Ask the Christians who are being butchered by ISIS and other Islamists in the region. Where is Obama? Where is the United States? Russia has provided more moral clarity on the issue than we have. Wow, the world is upside down, when that can be said!

The vacuum created when Obama placed politics over patriotism and popularity over leadership by removing our military from Iraq, and then added stupidity to idiocy, by reaching out to Iran to help us fight ISIS (tacitly giving Tehran the political cover to enter, and likely capture much of Iraq), and capped it off with a moronic two year diplomacy play that has been a major financial and political coup for Tehran, and completed the process of colossal foreign policy failures by mishandling Syria, betraying Israel, ignoring Egypt as well as Morocco, the Kurds, and screwing up North Africa, has set the stage for a new sheriff to emerge…Putin.

All small entities need a big brother. Whether it is Israel, or Bahrain, or the Kurds (Putin supports), Libya or Syria or the Falklands, most countries recognize it is a dangerous world with unsavory neighbors. Even the vaunted Israeli military recognizes it cannot control the region alone. It needs an ally. It used to be the United States without question. Now Israel has to play Oliver asking for more soup every time it needs something from Obama’s United States. Putin recognizes this, and has reached out to most of the countries in the Middle East, and starting with North Africa, establishing or reestablishing affiliations and alliances. Consider for a moment how Putin treats Netanyahu and Israel with more concern, and respect than POTUS; a deft, radical departure from prior Russian/Soviet strategy. And Vladimir has, in at least small ways, used his powerful influence to stem some of the attacks from Iran’s proxies.

Make no mistake about it – Iran, Syria, Turkey are all critical to Russia’s energy, security, and geopolitical strategy. Poking the US in the eye in the process is just a bonus for Putin. Israel offers potential for Russia, too. Keep a watch on that.

Obama has surrendered leadership of the Middle East to Russia. Pure and simple!  And we should not blame Putin for that. He is doing what the leader of Russia is supposed to do – look out for the interests of his nation.

Read more


GettyImages-490448488-11-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sep. 30, 2015:

Fox News is exclusively reporting that Russia has demanded American warplanes exit Syrian airspace immediately, as Russia begins its bombing campaign on behalf of Bashar Assad.

The news came from a senior U.S. official, who said there was “nothing to indicate” the U.S. was complying with Russia’s demand.

Another defense official said, “We have had every indication in recent weeks that (the Russians) were going to do something given the build-up.”  That’s an interesting claim, because just a few days ago, Secretary of State John Kerry was saying Russia’s long-term intentions were unclear, and he thought their buildup of air power in Syria was merely for “force protection.”

The inventory of aircraft and weapons Russia moved into Syria includes advanced air supremacy fighters and surface-to-air missiles, which would have no conceivable use against the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, or any other Syrian rebel group, as none of them have an air force.  The planes were slipped into Syria using clever subterfuge designed to defeat satellite surveillance, which is something else no element of the Syrian rebellion has.

“The Russian demand also mirrors one made by Turkey this past July, when Ankara asked U.S. planes to fly only in airspace south of Mosul, Iraq. In that case, 24 Turkish jets bombed Kurdish positions, catching the U.S. off guard,” Fox News writes.

Also on Wednesday, the Russian parliament unanimously voted to give President Vladimir Putin war-fighting authority in Syria.  Putin’s chief of staff, Sergey Ivanov, said only a “time-limited” air campaign is envisioned.

Russian bombs are already falling on Syria according to some sources, and the first targets reported include a rebel group vetted and supplied by the United States:

green lemon tweet

Update, 10:30 AM EST: According to CNN, the Russians sent an official to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad to announce the Russian strikes, and “request” the removal of American planes from Syrian airspace, with only an hour or two of warning before the Russian strikes began.

The CNN report also notes that the Russians have given “no geographical information” about where they planned to strike.  That’s a remarkable gesture of contempt, an incredibly reckless and dangerous approach, and possibly an indication that the Russians are planning to blow up some people they think the United States would have warned.

Update, 11:00 AM EST: Further testimony that Russia isn’t primarily interested in bombing ISIS positions, and has caused significant civilian casualties with its first wave of bombings:

conflict news tweet


Russians Conduct Airstrikes in Syrian City of Homs, Where Anti-Assad Forces Are Concentrated


ISIS-beheading-Christians-Libya-ap-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sep. 28, 2015:

President Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday morning was a rambling journey through a fantasy world where his foreign policy hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster.

Perhaps the most bizarre moment came when he tried to tout his Libyan adventure as asuccess.

There was plenty of tough-guy posturing that intimidated absolutely no one.  The Russian and Iranian delegations were especially good at looking bored and unimpressed when he called upon them to do this-or-that because The World supposedly demanded it. Obama hasn’t figured out he’s the only leader at the U.N. eager to sacrifice his nation’s interests to please The World.

Obama made the weird decision to vaguely threaten Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by claiming that The World would not stand idly by and allow it… when that’s exactly what The World, and especially First Citizen of the World Barack Obama, has been doing.  He essentially pleaded with Iran to stop supporting terrorist proxies and pursuing its aggressive regional ambitions, and focus on their economy instead.  (Of course, in Obama’s vigorous imagination, the U.S. has been enjoying an economic boom under his stewardship, instead of an endless grinding non-recovery and limp, sporadic growth, after Obama’s spending doubled the national debt in a single presidency.)

It was bad enough that the President talked about American troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan as the triumphant conclusion of an effective policy, rather than the hideous blunder that allowed ISIS to create a terror state, al-Qaeda to rise from the ashes, and the Taliban to begin planning its return to power.  At the same moment Obama was speaking, the Taliban was conducting a major offensive in Afghanistan, on par with the importance of ISIS taking Mosul in Iraq.  Obama’s pitifully small “New Syrian Force” of U.S.-backed rebels just handed a good deal of its American equipment over to al-Qaeda, and no one really knows what became of the unit itself.  Their predecessors were destroyed by al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria, with less than half a dozen survivors still on the field.

When Obama boasted of the Libyan operation as the successful removal of a tyrant, jaws must have hit the floor around the room.  Libya is an unholy disaster, a wasteland of warlords fighting to keep ISIS off their turf.  It’s a key gateway for the incredible migratory tide blasting out of Africa and the Middle East and now surging across Europe.  And yet, Obama portrays it as laudable example of tyrant removal… while modestly admitting that “our coalition could have, and should have, done more to fill a vacuum left behind.”

Of course he blamed everyone else in the “coalition” for the disaster in Libya.  He’s Barack Obama.  The day may come when he takes responsibility for something, but today is not that day, and tomorrow isn’t looking good either.

The scary thing about Obama is that he believes so completely in the power of his own rhetoric.

He thinks he can reshape reality with his words.  When he scolds the Iranians for their “Death to America!” rhetoric by saying bloodthirsty chants don’t create jobs, he’s asking Iran to live up to the silly talking points he foisted off on the American people to cover the Iranian nuclear deal.  He’s commanding Iran to act like the enlightened, responsible nation-state he gambled the future of Israel, America, and much of the Western world on.

The Iranians, on the other hand, see no reason to knock off the “Death to America!” chants, disband their theocracy, and begin spending their days arguing about stimulus bills.  Belligerence has gotten them everything so far.  They’ve been rewarded for it… by Barack Obama.  They’ve got $150 billion in sanctions relief coming their way.  They can afford to send a few guys to sit in the U.N. General Assembly with pissy expressions on their faces while Obama rambles on about how geo-political crime does not pay.  They know for a fact it pays, quite handsomely.  The Iranians are already using their Obama loot to reinforce terror proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, and secure Bashar Assad in power.

Ah, yes, Bashar Assad… the dictator Obama still blathers on about removing from power, even as his own diplomatic apparatus gets used to the idea Assad is not going anywhere.  The only really good part of Obama’s speech was when he spent five seconds glaring at the Syrian ambassador before launching into his denunciation of barrel bombs and chemical weapons.  But you know what?  That Syrian ambassador gets paid enough to take a few seconds of hairy eyeball from the ineffectual American president.  The Russians are smoothly replacing American influence across the Middle East, in partnership with Iran.  The new order is taking shape.  Obama isn’t going to reverse that process by telling aggressive, bare-knuckle conquerors they should be ashamed of themselves.

The other dangerous thing about this delusional President is his belief in the “judgment of history.”

He’s constantly hitting on the idea that all of the world’s villains are on the wrong side of history, and will find themselves buried in the sands of time any day now.  It’s a dodge, a way of Obama evading responsibility.  Bashar Assad is going to remerge from the Wrong Side of History in pretty good shape.  ISIS is very comfortable there, as is Iran.  Qaddafi didn’t assume room temperature because History caught up with him. Vladimir Putin has a lovely view of Crimea from the wrong side of history.  The history of Europe is being reshaped by the tramping of a million “refugee” feet.

In every example, Obama clings to the idea that he can change the world by talking and scoring debate points, while his adversaries seize territory and control the course of events.  It’s not as though Obama has some deep-seated reluctance to use deadly force – there have been a lot of deaths by drone strike since he won that Nobel Peace Prize.  What Obama lacks is commitment.  His foreign policy is all about gestures and distractions.  He cooks up half-baked plans that will blow up a terrorist here and there, so he can’t be accused of doing “nothing,” but he won’t do anything that could cost him political capital at home.  Even Libya was half-hearted and calculated for minimum risk, which is why the place went to an even deeper Hell after Qaddafi was overthrown.

Obama talks as if he’s taken action against numerous crises, but all he ever did was talk about them.  The men of action are stacking up bodies, and raising flags over conquered cities, while this President is writing speeches and trying to win applause from editorial boards.  The men of action know that Obama’s promises all have expiration dates, his vows of action always have escape clauses, and no matter how he loves to boast that he heads up the most powerful military the world has ever seen, he’s done everything he can to make it weaker.

President Obama is still clinging to a romantic vision of the “Arab Spring” as a flourishing of democracy, despite all evidence to the contrary.  He’s giving the same foreign policy speeches he gave in 2009 because he can’t bear to live in the world he made.  He talks about filling vacuums and voids… but those voids are already filled, by hard characters with plans to make the most of the extraordinary opportunity Barack Obama afforded them.



Brigitte Gabriel’s Speech at Values Voter Summit


Breitbart, by Robert Wilde, Sep. 26, 2014:

Brigitte Gabriel, an Arab Christian, who as a young girl was a victim of radical Islam during the Lebanese Civil War, joined Breitbart’s Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and Editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow on Breitbart News Saturday, broadcasting live at the Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C.

In her book Because They Hate, Gabriel recounts that in 1975 when she was 10-years-old living in southern Lebanon, militant Muslims from throughout the Middle East poured into her country and declared jihad against the Lebanese Christians. For over seven years Brigitte and her family lived in an underground bomb shelter. Her experience qualifies her well to speak about the current invasion of “migrants” into Europe from Northern Africa and the Middle East.

The first thing grass roots organizations in America have to do is to stop the “refugees” from these foreign countries from coming to Europe and America, the author and expert on Islamic terrorism insists.

Gabriel, the founder and President of Act for America, who  lectures internationally about national security and current affairs, told Bannon and Marlow that her group has 930 chapters working to protect America. “We do not want any ‘Syrian’ refugees coming into the country” she asserted.

Gabriel claims that they are not really Syrian refugees anyway. “They are people from Libya, Tunisia, Eritrea, Egypt, the Horn of Africa. They are not only people that are escaping wars, but they are people seeking economic freedom. T’hey are people trying to suck off of the people from the West. They know they can get a free ticket for money. They are not coming here to build empires and become great business men and entrepreneurs. They are coming here to get the free checks from you and me who work very hard to pay our taxes.”

Other issues that bother the Lebanon native about “refugees” are that terrorists embed themselves in the migrant population. Gabriel points out that last week an ISIS recruiter turned up in a vetting of a pool of migrants in Germany.

Moreover, she explained that the other countries in the Middle East are not taking them in. “What better place for these so-called Middle Eastern refugees to go than the ones in their own region, where they can write and speak Arabic.”

Gabriel suggest that “they should go to Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy Middle Eastern country, or Dubai. I mean look at Dubai. They have money growing on trees in Dubai. Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi.”

Bannon asked the Middle East expert,if it is an overstatement to call what is happening in Europe an invasion. “It is not an overstatement,” she replied. “Europe will no longer be Europe by 2050. Europe has already become Eurabia. Europe is Eurabia right now.”

Gabriel spoke of the inception of this transformation that should send chills down the spine of every American. “What happened in Europe, ever since they started bringing the Muslims workers to rebuild Europe in the 1970s after the war, was to bring them in under a guest-worker program. Does that word sound familiar? We’ll let them come in and work for two years and they will go back and then we will bring new workers. I will pay them less money and we don’t have to do the dirty jobs.”

The Europeans began to enjoy the cheap labor so much that they created a “family reunification  program.” Now the Muslims could stay and work with their families nearby and the Europeans felt better about themselves. The problem, Gabriel pointed out, is that the Muslim men tend to have multiple marriages and reproduce at a rate that has caused a huge Muslim population crisis in many of the countries. Many of the men now don’t work and live on welfare, she stated.

The entire phenomenon has morphed Europe, making it unrecognizable over the last forty years, claims Gabriel. The mistake Germany made by inviting all the “refugees” over the last month is that they “reacted on emotions and they were not thinking,” said the leading Middle Eastern anti-refugee activist. “They have no intention of assimilating into Western culture,” Gabriel asserted.


Also see:

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina debating last night

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina debating last night

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

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

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


Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

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

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

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

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

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

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

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

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

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

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

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

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

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

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


Businessman Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

Read more

Also see:

Yale Establishes Islamic Law Center Thanks to $10M from Saudi Sharia-Banker, Alleged Bin Laden Financier

Amr Dalsh / REUTERS

Amr Dalsh / REUTERS

Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Sep. 13, 2015:

Saleh Abdullah Kamel, a Saudi banker who is now worth billions of dollars thanks to his success with Sharia-compliant financing, has donated $10 million to Yale University as part of a successful effort to build an Islamic Law Center at the Ivy League school.

“Mr. Kamel’s extraordinary generosity will open up exciting new opportunities for Yale Law School and for the entire university, said Yale President Peter Salovey. “The Abdullah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization will enhance research opportunities for our students and other scholars and enable us to disseminate knowledge and insights for the benefit of scholars and leaders all over the world.”

Professor Anthony Kronman, a new co-director of the Islamic Law Center, said of the school’s new addition:

“The contemporary challenges of Islamic law are broadly relevant to political events throughout the entire Islamic world and those are developments that are watched by a much larger audience of people who in many cases have not much knowledge at all of the history and traditions of Islamic law.”

“It’s the responsibility of universities to teach and instruct and that obligation applies with particular force where an issue or a subject tends to be viewed in an incomplete or inadequate or even caricatured way. There the responsibility to teach and enlighten is even stronger,” he added.

Noticeably left out of the press release is the fact that Mr. Kamel’s Dallah Al Baraka Group, for which he is the Chief Executive, has been investigated by U.S. officials for bankrolling al-Qaeda’s operations worldwide.

Moreover, the bank was founded by former al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden along with a group of Sudanese jihadists, the State Department has alleged, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And in the 1998 New York City trials of al-Qaeda members, witnesses testified that Mr. Kamel’s bank had previously transferred hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda to help them buy an airplane, the report stated.

Additionally, Kamel’s father’s name appears on the “Golden Chain,” a list of alleged al-Qaeda funders that was confiscated by Bosnian authorities after raiding an al-Qaeda front group in 2002.

The new Yale Islamic Center becomes the latest of many Saudi-funded influence operations on American university campuses throughout the continental United States. Some more notable Saudi-funded campus outfits include the $20 million Prince Alwaleed Islamic Studies Program at Harvard University and the $20 million Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. More Saudi-backed Professorships and Islamic Centers have made their way to Columbia University, Rice University, the University of Arkansas, University of California in Los Angeles, the University of California/Berkeley, and countless other institutions.

Also see:

University president Peter Salovey added that the gift, announced once day before the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, was particularly timely because of the “changing relationship between the United States and states in the Middle East.”

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

711117._UY475_SS475_Heritage Foundation, Sep.10, 2015:

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

Hosted by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.


Paul Rosenzweig
Founder, Reb Branch Consulting, PLLC

David Shedd
Visiting Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

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

Steve Moore
Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation