VIDEO: New Hampshire National Security Action Summit

2159545341

Center for Security Policy, July 30, 2015:

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FEATURED KEY LEADERS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES   –   NSAS-NH-Agenda-25July                         

Manchester, NH: On Saturday, July 25th, the Center for Security Policy, in partnership withFirst Principles and High Frontier, hosted The New Hampshire National Security Action Summit. A number of America’s most influential national security leaders addressed the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policies in an increasingly dangerous world. Its purpose was to ensure that the common defense receives the priority attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, at both the federal and state levels.

Specifically, the event covered four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of New Hampshire:

  • The threat from Iran, shariah and the Global Jihad Movement
  • The hollowing-out of the U.S. military
  • The border insecurity and immigration crises
  • America’s electrical power grid and threats to critical infrastructure

 

    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
    • The Honorable “Steve” King, Congressman from the 4th District of Iowa

America’s Electric Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure

      • Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security
    • Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman of High Frontier
    • George Baker, Professor Emeritus, James Madison University
    • Thomas S. Popik, Chairman, the Foundation for Resilient Societies, New Hampshire
    • Hon. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas*
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

Border and Immigration Insecurity

    • Phyllis Schlafly, Founder of Eagle Forum
    • Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, Numbers USA
    • James Simpson, Economist, Author
    • Karen Testerman, President, First Principles
  • Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania, 2016 Presidential Candidate
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

America’s Military in Decline

    • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Retired)
    • Peter Huessy, President of GeoStrategic Analysis
    • Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute
    • Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Testerman, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
    • Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, 2016 Presidential Candidate

Shariah, the Global Jihad Movement, and the Islamic Republic of Iran

    • John Guandolo, Founder of Understanding The Threat
    • Ted Cruz, Senator for Texas, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
    • Julianne Cooper, Founder, Liberty Harbor Academy, New Hampshire
    • George Pataki, former Governor of New York, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

he New Hampshire National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents alike – both at the federal level and the state level.

Previous National Security Action Summits have been hosted in South Carolina and Iowa, drawing hundreds of attendees, significant media coverage and a considerable online audience for the live-streamed events. Footage from those summits can be found at the following links:

NSAS South Carolina: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/south-carolina-national-security-action-summit/

NSAS Iowa: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/05/18/the-iowa-national-security-action-summit/

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, said:

Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world.  The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that. At the state-level, these summits are an invaluable method of connecting a concerned citizenry to the forefront of policymaking, at both the state and federal levels.  This program could not be more timely, more content-rich or more important.

OBAMA’S SWINDLE: CONGRESS CUT OUT OF THE IRAN DEAL

AP/Susan Walsh

AP/Susan Walsh

Breitbart, by Joel Pollak, July 17, 2015:

President Barack Obama’s announcement that he will approach the UN Security Council to approve the nuclear deal with Iran, and rescind past resolutions and international sanctions, before Congress approves the agreement, came as something of a surprise to many. When Congress passed Sen. Bob Corker’s Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and President Obama signed it into law in May, the public understanding was that Congress would have the final say.

It turns out that the President had no such intention. He is exploiting a loophole in the law, which states that the Act only applies to “statutory sanctions”—i.e. those passed by Congress. Other sanctions are within the power of the president to impose or remove. (There is another loophole, too: even statutory sanctions have a waiver provision that allows the president to remove them for reasons of national security.) Corker is reportedly angry, but there is nothing that he can do.

At the time the Corker bill was passed, critics (including this author) focused on the fact that the bill lowered the threshold for passing an international agreement. Instead of requiring a two-thirds majority for approval in the Senate, the Iran deal would now require a simple majority for approval in both houses, and a two-thirds majority to rejectthe deal by overriding the president’s veto.

Other critics, notably Andrew C. McCarthy, warned that the text President Obama gave to Congress would not necessarily be the one that he submitted to the UN Security Council.

But even that criticism assumed Obama would present the Iran deal to Congress first. Instead, he is going to the UN first, avoiding Congress entirely regarding core aspects of the deal.

That means that when Congress considers the deal, it will not be able to review the entire agreement. Certain aspects will be out of its hands and impossible to reverse.

Moreover, if Congress rejects the deal, it will not be able to send world powers back to the negotiating table. The best it can to is retain the sanctions the U.S. has imposed unilaterally—yet the president can still use waivers to lift those.

Unless the UN vote is delayed, there is only one way for Congress to exercise its full oversight powers on the Iran deal: the agreement could be introduced into the Senate as a treaty. That is the only way to stop Obama from implementing the agreement. But that, in turn, depends on Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell allowing such a vote to come to the floor—which he will not.

The problem remains that under the Corker bill, it does not matter whether Congress rejects the Iran deal. Obama will use what he claims to be his executive powers to implement the deal, regardless.

The battle on Capitol Hill may still be worth having, because a deal that fails in Congress will lack legitimacy, especially if two-thirds both houses overrides Obama’s veto. That would embolden Obama’s successor to end the deal, as some Republicans have vowed to do.

Realistically, however, there is only a small chance that a Republican president would revoke the Iran deal unilaterally in 2017, even if he or she could overcome international pressure to retain it, since doing so would provoke Iran to withdraw from the deal and race to the bomb.

The real purpose of the congressional fight over the Iran deal, then, is twofold.

First, Congress must expose the weaknesses of the deal, as well as the many blatant lies told by Obama and his toadies.

For example, there are no “anywhere, anytime” inspections, as promised to us by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. We are now told by Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman that these promises were just “rhetorical flourishes,” and we have also learned U.S. inspectors will be barred from even entering Iran.

Obama and his hapless team must own this terrible deal—and must be publicly shamed for it, to deter future presidents from the disastrous course of appeasement with America’s sworn enemies.

The second purpose—unspoken, perhaps unwitting thus far—is to prepare the basis for Israel to take unilateral action.

By exposing the Iran deal as a fraud, Congress can lay the foundation for Israel’s later arguments justifying a pre-emptive strike on Iran. It is a cop-out: the U.S. is better able to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Israel bears greater risk of retaliation. But it may be the only way to use this calamitous episode in U.S. foreign policy to any positive effect.

Once it is clear to all that the Iran deal is a sham, but that Obama is determined to implement it anyway, the most difficult question will be managing U.S.-Israel relations once Israel strikes.

Will Obama wink and nod? Or will he punish Israel? The time to consider those questions is now.

Also see:

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool

Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, July 14, 2015:

The deal the Obama administration cut today with the Iranian terrorist regime signals once and for all that the Obama administration considers both the United States and Israel to be the key threats to peace in the world.

Why else would the American president have lifted sanctions and granted the Iranian mullahs decades of American cover in the face of overwhelming evidence they support anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-Sunni terror across the region and the globe?

President Obama’s statements today about the strength of this deal carry no weight, given that he has coordinated with the Iranian regime – which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans over the past few years – in Iraq, has allowed them to prop up Bashar Assad in Syria, has allowed them to continue their subjugation of Lebanon, watched in silence as they flexed their muscle in Yemen, and attempted to cut off weapons shipments to Israel in the midst of its war with Iranian proxy terror group Hamas.

Obama wants Iran to be a regional power, because Obama fears Israel more than he fears Iran. The same day that Obama announced his deal, “moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted, “To our neighbours: Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the warmongering Zionist regime. #Iran & its power will translate into your power.”

Obama’s counting on it.

Obama had one motivation in this deal: he believes that any Western attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear development with force is more dangerous and less moral than Iran’s elevated terror support and even its eventual nuclear development.

America and the West, in Obama’s global worldview, are so dangerous that he wouldn’t even make minor requests of Iran, such as releasing American prisoners, if that meant the minute possibility of actual Western action on the horizon. Obama doesn’t care if Iran is lying. To him, that risk is acceptable when compared with the certainty of Western action, no matter how constrained, against Iran.

Obama consistently posed the choice about his nuclear deal as one between diplomacy and war, as though a military strike against Iran would have precipitated World War III. But this deal is far more calibrated to provoke World War III than any targeted strike by Israel, the United States, or anyone else.

The deal pats itself on the back with wording about ensuring that “Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful,” and how the deal will be a “fundamental shift” in the international community’s relationship with Iran. Then it gets to details. And the devil isn’t just in the details; the devils in Iran wrote them.

The deal “will produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.” Those sanctions end on the first day of the deal: “The UN Security Council resolution will also provide for the termination on Implementation Day of provisions imposed under previous resolutions.” The EU “will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation.”

Money will now move between “EU persons and entities, including financial institutions, and Iranian persons and entities, including financial institutions.” Banking activities will resume abroad. Full trade will essentially resume. After five years, the arms embargo against Iran will end. After eight years, the missile embargo against Iran will end.

The deal explicitly acknowledges that Iran is gaining benefits no other state would gain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In terms of its nuclear development, instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, that program is now protected:

Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran’s enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex I, and Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of uranium as specified in Annex I. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years, as detailed in Annex I.

We have no way of knowing what Iran has done additionally, however, since the deal has no provisions forcing them to turn over information about what they’ve already done.There is no baseline.

So who will implement this deal? A “Joint Commission” comprised of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United States and Iran is charged with monitoring all developments under the agreement – meaning that all the signatories, all of whom have an interest in preserving a deal they signed, will be the “objective” monitoring agents.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will monitor and verify Iran’s nuclear program. But not everywhere. Only at key nuclear facilities will the IAEA have access – military sites were not included in the deal in any real way – and even then, the process for access is extraordinarily regulated:

74. Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA. In line with normal international safeguards practice, such requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities, but will be exclusively for resolving concerns regarding fulfillment of the JCPOA commitments and Iran’s other non-proliferation and safeguards obligations. The following procedures are for the purpose of JCPOA implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran and are without prejudice to the safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto. In implementing this procedure as well as other transparency measures, the IAEA will be requested to take every precaution to protect commercial, technological and industrial secrets as well as other confidential information coming to its knowledge.

75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.

76. If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.

77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.

78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wrote into the deal provisions designed to hamstring Congress and local authorities:

If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

And if Iran cheats, the United States and EU will have to take the matter to dispute resolution rather than re-implementing sanctions, as Obama has lied:

The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions…

Obama is already moving on this front. While calling for an open conversation on the Iran deal, President Obama has already said he will veto any attempts to curb the deal by Congress. So feel free to chat, gang, so long as you don’t attempt to do anything.

In brief, the agreement trades enormous amounts of cash for Iran’s pinkie swear that they will not develop nuclear weapons now, and the blind hope that Iran’s regime will magically moderate over the next five to ten years – a hope made even more distant by the fact that this deal reinforces the power and strength of the current Iranian regime. The West has no interest in holding Iran to an agreement since, to do so, they would have to repudiate the deal they cut in the first place. Anything short of actual nuclear aggression will draw no response from the West. No wonder Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a “historic mistake for the world,” explaining:

Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe… One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: ‘Death to America.’ We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement.

So here’s what happens next in the region.

Israel Waits. The chances of an Israeli strike on Iran are now somewhere between slim and none. Obama’s deal prevents Israel from taking action without risking sanctions from the European Union and the United States for endangering this sham deal.

Nothing would make Obama happier than to levy sanctions against the Jewish State – and should Israel act in its own interests, undercutting Obama’s Epitaph Achievement, Obama will react harshly. Israel will be busy enough handling all the Iranian proxies on its borders who will now see cash and resources flow to them, all sponsored by the West.

Hezbollah and Hamas Are Strengthened. Terrorist groups across the Middle East rejoice today, knowing that the money Iran just gained through lifting of sanctions will end up restocking their rocket supply. Hezbollah has already destroyed Lebanon as Iran’s arm; Hamas has already taken over Gaza. Both routinely threaten war on Israel, firing ordinance into Israeli territory.

Now they will not only be emboldened – after all, what happens if Israel retaliates against them, Iran threatens to get involved, and the world, seeking to preserve its newfound magical relationship with Iran, puts pressure on Israel? – they will be empowered. Obama just made the next war between Israel and its terrorist neighbors a certainty.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt Go Nuclear. President Obama came into office touting “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Given that Iran is months from a bomb, and that there are no real verification techniques and no real consequences for violation, Iran’s enemies will quickly seek to go nuclear in order to establish a deterrent, not just to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but to their expanded conventional capabilities.

Iran has the largest active military in the Middle East, along with its massive paramilitary terror groups. They’ve built that in the midst of heavy sanctions. With Iran getting active on the borders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, those regimes would be foolhardy not to attempt to develop a nuclear capacity – especially given that Obama has shown there are no detriments to doing so. What’s he going to do, threaten Egypt’s General Al-Sisi? He’s been doing that for years already.

Bashar Assad Stays In Power. Remember the time Obama said Syrian dictator Bashar Assad needed to go? That’s not happening anytime soon, given that Assad is Iran’s tool in Syria. When Obama drew a red line against Syria based on Assad’s use of chemical weapons, he apparently meant that Assad should stay forever, and that his sponsor state should be rewarded with billions of dollars in relieved sanctions. No wonder Assad called the deal a “major turning point” in world history, adding, “We are confident that the Islamic Republic of Iran will support, with greater drive, just causes of nations and work for peace and stability in the region and the world.”

Iraq Splits Permanently Between Iran and ISIS. Supposedly, the United States opposed Shia exclusionary policy against Sunnis in Iraq, and blamed such policy for the breakdown of security there. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has now taken over the southern half of the country; the new Iraqi Prime Minister is an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, Sunnis, seeking some sort of security against the Iranians and having no secular American-backed regime to rely upon, have been turning in increasing numbers to the barbarians of ISIS. President Obama has made ISIS a permanent feature of the world landscape, and has turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state, just like Syria and Lebanon.

Iran Will Foray Into Iran, Afghanistan. Iran’s expansionist ambitions have been increased exponentially by this deal. The deal does nothing to demand Iran stop its military activities abroad, of course, which means that their sponsorship of the Houthis in Yemen and terrorist groups in Afghanistan will continue apace. Al Jazeera has evenspeculated at sectarian unrest in Pakistan.

Obama’s defenders today ask his detractors, “If the deal works, isn’t it a good deal?”

Sure. If the Munich Agreement had worked, it would have been a masterpiece of diplomacy.

But promising a unicorn in a diplomatic negotiation isn’t quite the same thing as delivering one. And delivering billions of dollars, international legitimacy, and a protective shield around a terrorist regime in exchange for that unicorn makes you either a fool or an active perpetuator of that terrorist regime.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author 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.

***

Also see:

THE MIDDLE EAST PROSPECT

unholyalliancePowerline, by Scott Johnson, July 12, 2012:

The David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Texas retreat took place last month in Dallas. I have posted videos of the presentations by Stanley Kurtz and Bret Stephens at the retreat. Other videos from the retreat are posted here.

In the video below, Daniel Pipes presents a survey of the Middle East in the Age of Obama. It works as an excellent companion to Stephens’s presentation; Pipes provides a regional close-up following Stephens’s global view (to borrow the title of Stephens’s weekly Wall Street Journal column). As with the the other two videos, I commend this one to your attention with the thought that it is worth your time. Even if you follow the news closely I think you are likely to learn something from this presentation.

The son of Richard Pipes, the prominent historian of Russia, Daniel Pipes is a brilliant student of the Middle East. He is the author of notable books including The Rushdie Affair and, most recently, Nothing Abides.

One of the ladies at PolitiChicks caught up with Pipes after his presentation in Dallas last month. She asked him to identify the greatest threat to the United States (video below). Let’s just say that we’re on the same wavelength.

I have been a reader and fan of Pipes for a long time. I saw him speak about Islamic terrorism before a campus audience at Yale in 2005 or so. He struck me as a scholar with the soul of a warrior. I caught up with Pipes in Minneapolis in 2012 when he was in town for a family wedding and posted a brief video in which I inarticulately asked him about the current relevance of the Rushdie affair here.

***

Politichicks also interviewed Andrew McCarthy. They discussed threats to U.S. & justice for Benghazi

Video: Cyber Security Expert Says It’s Not Feasible that Today’s Glitches Were All a Coincidence

New York Stock Exchange

New York Stock Exchange

PJ Media, by Debra Heine, July 8, 2015:

After a technical glitch that stopped floor trading for hours, the New York Stock Exchange re-opened trading Wednesday afternoon late in the session.

Also experiencing “glitches” today were United Airlines, the Wall Street Journal, the New York City subway system, and 2,500 people in Washington, D.C., who mysteriously lost power.

While both the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI insist there was nothing “malicious” about the the NYSE glitch, a cyber security expert said that he “cannot fathom how this can be a day that is just chock full of coincidences.”

Greg Keeley of the National Cybersecurity Institute  told Fox News that the North Koreans have taken credit for the “glitch” that took down the New York Stock Exchange today, although the Obama administration maintains it was not a cyber attack.

“For the administration to come out so hard and so fast and say this was not an attack I think is disingenuous…. This is a major attack and for us to bury our head in the sand is very troubling,” Keeley said.

“It’s just not feasible that this is all happening at once, and this is all some kind of technical glitch,” he concluded.

Video via Gateway Pundit:

Also see:

Update, 3:30 PM EST: After more than three hours, the NYSE resumed trading at 3:10 in the afternoon.  Acknowledging the widespread speculation that it might have been some sort of cyber-attack, Fox News quoted a law enforcement source repeating the official position that “the technical glitch that prompted the halt at the exchange does not appear to be malicious, but federal law enforcement officials are continuing to monitor the situation.”

However, Fox also had quotes from experts who weren’t so sure hostile action could be completely ruled out yet.  Bryan Finch of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman observed that while a technical glitch – perhaps caused or exacerbated by the Chinese situation and global market volatility – remained the most likely explanation, the NYSE systems are simply too large and complex to make any firm pronouncements yet: “We need more information to know an answer, and right now [we] don’t have enough to make a hard decision.”

On the other hand, Cendrick Leighton, CEO of a risk management consulting firm with experience in cyber-attacks, remained “very suspicious” of the timing: “This is too coincidental. You have United, NYSE, and Wall Street Journal so my suspicion is something is going on here. My suspicion is this was a test run by a cyber-hacker or potentially from a nation state.”

One Chance is All a Terrorist Needs

150622dc

How DHS is failing to heed its own warnings.

Frontpage, by Michael Cutler, July 5, 2015:

On June 22, 2015 the ICE Newsroom posted a startling “Top Story” news release under the category, “Document and Benefit Fraud.” The title of the news release was obviously crafted to create the illusionthat a major vulnerability to U.S. national security, the threat of a terror attack, was being addressed: “ICE-DMV partnership combating identity, document fraud.”

The news release was accompanied by a poster. If a picture is worth a thousand words, imagine how many words the above poster is worth.

Here is how the news release begins:

If you walk into your local Department of Motor Vehicles office (DMV) on any given day, you’ll most likely find a crowd of people waiting to get a new license or updating their vehicle registration.

What many aren’t aware of is that while they’re waiting in anticipation of their number to be called there may be document and identity fraud taking place just a few feet away.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) identified a potential vulnerability in which DMV employees exploit their positions by selling DMV-issued identification documents for financial gain. The access DMV employees have to the tools and technology needed to produce identity documents has been exploited by criminals who seek these documents to mask their identities and commit crimes ranging from narcotics trafficking, firearms distribution, and murder to even terrorist acts.

With these factors in mind, in December 2009, HQ HSI Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit (IBFU) launched a national outreach campaign to raise awareness about potential employee misconduct at DMV facilities. HSI Special Agent Keith Fowler, a National Program Manager within the IBFU, was charged with implementing and overseeing the outreach campaign.

Since day one, Mr. Obama and his administration have created a larcenous narrative that was carefully crafted to skirt the nexus between immigration and the threat of terrorism. The news release is consistent with that narrative and ignores the nexus between immigration and terrorism.

The 9/11 Commission certainly made note of failures of state agencies, especially Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) that enabled a number of the terrorists who wrought such destruction to assume multiple false identities by acquiring multiple driver’s licenses. However, the 9/11 Commission made it clear that failures of components of the immigration system enabled the terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves in the United States.

At the risk of stating the obvious, for the terrorists to game the process by which driver’s licenses are issued, they first need to enter the United States. If the terrorists could not have acquired visas and could not have entered the United States. They could not have attacked us.

Even if the terrorists had managed to enter the United States by stowing away on a ship or running our borders, but were unable to successfully defraud the immigration benefits program they could not have attacked us.

While the poster seeks to create the illusion that DHS is working aggressively to protect America and Americans, In reality, some of the greatest threats to national security are the direct result of the many failures of the DHS that fundamentally undermine national security and public safety.

To this point, the staff of attorneys and federal agents who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission issued a report known as the “9/11 and Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.”

This report focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States as they went about their deadly preparations. Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

The poster and press release above focus on how the administration is trying to convince state motor vehicle agencies to go after their corrupt officials who provide criminals with licenses they should not have. Does DHS have to convince state governments to seek to identify corrupt officials?

The irony is that DHS is providing lawful status to immigration law violators without any legal underpinning. USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services), the division of DHS that adjudicates all applications for various immigration benefits has provided hundreds of thousands of “DREAMERs” with official identity documents to signify that they have been granted temporary lawful status and employment authorization- without a face-to-face interview and without field investigations. This is a virtual open invitation to fraud.

Read more

Birthday for A Caliphate

Reuters

Reuters

Breitbart, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, June 29, 2015:

After Friday’s deadly jihadist attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, Prime Mister David Cameron has stated that ISIS is an existential threat to the West. Today’s anniversary of the re-establishment of the Caliphate give us good cause to assess the threat to America in this, the first part of a two part piece by Dr. Sebastian Gorka.

One year ago, a man unknown to most of the world achieved a feat that has eluded Islamic extremists for the previous 90 years.

On June 29, 2015 Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, after almost a century of absence, formally reestablished the theocratic empire of Islam in a sermon from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul. In the last year, his terror group, ISIS, which today we should call by its new name of the Islamic State, has grown to become the most dangerous insurgency of the modern era.

On September 10th, 2001 it would have been impossible to imagine that humans would soon be crucifying each other again, or that there would be an anti-American terrorist group able to capture and hold territory in multiple nations of the Middle East without Washington or her allies and partners being able to stunt its growth. We are now living in such a world. A world where innocent prisoners are burnt or drowned alive, or unbelievably decapitated with the use of detonating cord. A world in which hundreds of thousands have been killed in a civil war in Syria and an insurgency in Iraq, both together driving millions of survivors into refugees camps or into the hands of human traffickers.

The Islamic State that is at the center of this tragedy is a unique threat for four reasons:

  • Firstly, it is the richest group of its kind in modern history. No other sub-state actor has the resources available to IS. Since capturing city after city in Iraq it has netted close to a billion dollars from state coffers, augmenting this stupendous sum with illicit oil salesransoms, and the sale of plundered antiquities. This income will allow IS to continue operations for years to come, and not just in Iraq and Syria. (Note: according to the official 9/11 commission report, that stupendous attack only cost Al Qaeda $500,000).
  • Second, it is the first ever transnational insurgency. In the modern era of guerrilla warfare, the insurgent force was defined by its desire to defeat an incumbent government and replace it. This was true of Mao Tse Tung in China, or the FARC of Colombia, and all the other insurgencies of the 20th century. The Islamic State is an international insurgency recruiting as it does from Muslim communities all around the world and enjoying the sponsorship of more than one foreign government. However, it is also a transnational insurgency. Not only does it hold territory in both Iraq and Syria, with the intent of displacing both the Assad government and the government in Baghdad, it has the goal of destroying all regimes that it deems to be un-Islamic. The fact that Nigeria’s Boko Haram was recently accepted into IS and subsequently changed its name to The West Africa Province of the Islamic State means that Abu Bakr is now technically the Caliph or emperor of not only all IS land in the Middle East, but also former Boko Haram territory in Africa.
  • Third, in its ability to recruit jihadi fighters, the Islamic State has out surpassed Al Qaeda in every measure. Exact figures are impossible, but the best estimates are that, in the space of less than a year, the Islamic State has drawn 20,000 foreign fighters from around the globe, including Western Europe, Australia and North America. Al Qaeda, the original jihadi group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, did manage to attract foreign recruits, but never in the tens of thousands.
  • Lastly, and most problematically for any hope we may have for defeating IS, the Islamic State has built a global Social Media-based propaganda platform that is very sophisticated and effective and that the nations its wishes to destroy – America included – have been impotent to combat.

Alone, these four attributes would make any irregular threat like IS/ISIS a formidable enemy. Where it is located makes it a strategically deadly one.

Just like Judaism and Christianity, Islam has a very deep eschatology. The Sunna, or traditions of Islam, go into great detail about how the world will end and how all humans will be finally judged on the final day by Allah. Before that end comes, the religion is explicit that there will be a great final holy war, or Jihad, in the land of Al Shaam, the Arabic word for Greater Syria and the Levant, or the territory in which Abu Bakr has successfully established his new Caliphate. In fact, between its origins as Al Qaeda in Iraq and its current name of the Islamic State, the group specifically referred to itself as The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham. As a result, Abu Bakr, the leader of the new Caliphate, has the eschatology of a faith followed by over 1 billion Muslims on his side. He knows that, by being successful on the ground that all Muslims know is the site of the last holy war before judgement day, he can rely on a steady stream of recruits for as long as there is no opposing ground force set against him in Al Sham.

Plainly put, in the last 12 months since he declared the new Caliphate, Abu Bakr has achieved more than Al Qaeda did in the preceding 13 years. Also, instead of being the “JV team” to Ayman al Zawahiri’s professional team, it is America that has presented itself as the amateur foe.

After Abu Bakr and his Al Qaeda in Iraq franchise was kicked out of the original terror group by Zawahiri for disobeying his orders, he took his small terrorist force in Syria from Iraq and used the civil war there to train and expand his force. As the bloodshed mounted both there and in an Iraq increasingly divided by the corruption and brutality of the Maliki regime, hundreds of thousands of local residents fell victim to the depredations of the competing fighting forces. Yet America decided not to respond. Having pulled our forces out of Iraq in 2011, we were unready and unable to respond to the growing threat. At the same time, President Obama made repeated statements about “red lines” that President Assad was not to cross. The lines were crossed but without triggering a US response. Not until thousands of Yazidis were hounded by ISIS up to the top of Mount Sinjar did the President decide to act by deploying air assets to target ISIS units on the ground.

The delay in an American response has cost America’s reputation in the Gulf dearly, perhaps more dearly than anything done by the administration of George W. Bush. As it was recently explained to me by a very senior U.S. General with responsibilities in the region: “Our Sunni allies just don’t trust us anymore. The region already runs on conspiracy theories, but after the Sunni see more than 200,000 of their people murdered in the last three years and we do nothing until a minority sect is attacked, they draw the conclusion that we are on the side of the mullahs and the Shia revival.”

If one agrees with the summary by Prime Minister Netanyahu that the violence on the Middle East and North Africa cannot be understood unless seen as “a game of thrones” for the crown of the caliphate between the Shia and Sunni extremists, then it is obvious that giving the impression that we have already chosen sides will only feed the flames of war. Especially when this impression is apparently confirmed by every additional concession made by the White House to Tehran in the hopes of closing a nuclear deal with the Revolutionary Republic.

Nor can these threats any longer be relegated to events happening far away. As the targeting of Pamela Geller’s free speech event in Garland, Texas by two armed jihadis demonstrates, those who wish to impose a puritanical and violent version of Islam upon America and her citizens are already here. And Garland is not a one-off. The FBI has confirmed that the Bureau already has ongoing IS-related investigations underway in every state of the Republic. Recently, the first IS recruiter was arrested in New Jersey. And in preparation for this article I had a research assistant simply collect all open-source reports of IS arrests and plots uncovered in the US in the last 24 months. We found 56!

When will America take the threat of a hyper-violent organization with tens of thousands of adherents who wish to destroy America seriously? When did we take Al Qaeda seriously? On September 12th, 2001. At the moment, short of a mass-casualty attack occurring on US soil in a way that links the perpetrators directly to the Islamic State, it seems highly unlikely that the Obama administration will truly take the fight to IS. Of the 400+ troops the White House has decided to deploy to Iraq to help train the trainers, less than 150 will in fact work on that mission, with the rest providing security to the trainers. The Islamic State has more than 30,000 active jihadis, more than half of whom were recruited from abroad. And the most powerful nation in the world can only spare an extra 150 trainers? As another senior officer recently commented in front of a meeting of US generals: “Every day that ISIS still exists and the most powerful nation in the world does nothing, we can chalk another propaganda victory up to the jihadis.”

Consequently, it seems unavoidable that IS will continue to grow and spread its barbarity until a new Commander-in-Chief is sworn in. The good news is that in an election campaign that is already underway and which almost each day sees the cornucopia of at least the Republic candidates increase, national security is at last back on the front burner, or rather both front burners. As a result we may have a chance after November 2016 to engage our newest enemy in the way the jihadists deserve.

The details of a possible strategy that could be used to measure the candidates will follow in Part Two.

Sebastian Gorka Ph.D. is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. You can see his briefing from the Global Counterterrorism Summit on Why ISIS is Much More Dangerous than Al Qaeda here and follow him on Twitter at: @SebGorka.

Brigitte Gabriel Speaks at 2015 Watchmen on the Wall Conference

10441013_10152789305602581_5210403848035624314_n

Brigitte Gabriel recently addressed the gathering of pastors attending the annual Family Research Council “Watchmen on the Wall” event. She gave a fantastic speech about the dangers facing our country from radical Islam, and what we must do as a nation to confront this very real threat.

Blindfolded America

John-Brennan-CIA-660x350-1434704398
Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

A Contrast in Delusions: The TSA vs. Domestic Immigration Enforcement

Berlin_Schönefeld_Airport_metal_detectors-427x350Frontpage, June 9, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

On June 2, 2015 the Washington Times published a report about how massive failures of screeners employed by the TSA, an agency that operates under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), failed to find weapons, in the great majority of instances, when undercover operatives went through the screening process. The article, “TSA chief ousted after airport security flunks test, misses most weapons, explosives” included this excerpt:

The acting chief of the Transportation Security Administration was ousted late Monday night after an embarrassing new report found that airport security officers badly failed a new test, missing almost every firearm and explosive investigators tried to sneak by them.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced the move, saying Melvin Carraway had been “reassigned” to another part of the department and his deputy would take over, serving until the Senate can confirm a new chief.

Earlier in the night Mr. Johnson had said he’d just been given a classified briefing on the inspector general’s findings that found a major loophole in security that could allow people to sneak prohibited items by TSA screeners and into what were supposed to be secure areas of airports.

Mr. Johnson said the preliminary findings were classified and said it wasn’t “appropriate or prudent” to talk about them — but ABC News reported that IG investigators managed to sneak contraband material by TSA screeners in 67 of 70 tests.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and contains a number of agencies that are charged with addressing the failures that enabled the terrorists who carried out those attacks, to enter the United States, embed themselves in the United States and then hijack airliners, using them as de facto “cruise missiles.”

Among the agencies that operate under the aegis of the DHS are:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA): This agency is charged with keeping weapons or other harmful materials off of airliners along with people who appear on “no fly lists.” It is a simple concept and one that is apparently easy for people to comprehend. In order to achieve this goal officers employed by the TSA carry out ever more intrusive searches of airline passengers and their baggage. Passengers are subjected to x-rays, raising concerns. Passengers are also prohibited from bringing certain items into the passenger cabin of the airliners including large quantities of liquids, etc.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP): The mission of this agency, which includes inspectors at ports of entry, and Border Patrol, which operates between ports of entry, is to make certain that aliens and cargo are not smuggled into the United States and that the inspection of both people and objects keep criminals and terrorists along with other foreign nationals whose presence would be problematic, from entering the United States.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): This agency is charged with enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States to backstop the personnel at CBP. When aliens evade the inspections process by entering the United States without inspection, ICE is supposed to seek them out and take them into custody so that they can be removed (deported from the United States). ICE is also responsible for identifying, locating and arresting aliens who are lawfully admitted but then go on to violate the terms of their admission by overstaying their authorized period of admission, accepting unlawful employment, failing to attend schools (in the case of foreign students) or being convicted of committing crimes.

ICE is also supposed to conduct investigations into possible fraud when applicants lie about material facts in applications for various immigration benefits for aliens filed with USCIS and to conduct investigations to identify, arrest and prosecute fraud document vendors.

Finally, ICE assigns agents to work on various multi-agency task forces.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): This agency employs adjudications officers who are responsible for adjudicating applications for immigration benefits. If an Alien Registration Receipt Card, a “Green Card,” and especially United States citizenship are the “keys to the kingdom,” then USCIS is America’s locksmith. This agency confers these benefits, in addition to others, upon aliens.

The ink was barely dry in the newspaper reports about the failures of the TSA to find planted weapons when the director of that agency was re-assigned. Jeh Johnson wasted no time in shaking up the agency that is supposed to keep weapons and terrorists off of our airliners.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if he was as determined to keep alien criminals, terrorists and narcotics out of the United States and off the streets of towns and cities across our nation?

Read more

Senate “Jihad Caucus” to bring 65,000 Syrian refugees to U.S.

Refugee_Hijra_Widget (1)CSP, June 2, 2015:

Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch warns that 14 Democratic Senators constituting a “jihad caucus” plan to aid the UN in placing 65,000 unvetted Syrian refugees into U.S. cities and towns. She also breaks down the nefarious influence of 9 unaccountable State Department contractors who control the process.

Presidential Race 2016 Candidate Profile – Rick Santorum

Presidential-Profile-Rick-Santorum

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, May 27, 2015:

Rick-Santorum(1)The Presidential race for 2016 is gearing up and candidates are preparing themselves for the upcoming campaign. As each candidate announces their intention to run, Clarion Project will provide a summary of each candidate’s positions on issues relating to Islamic extremism, in order to help our readers make the most informed possible choice come voting day. Should there be any significant changes, we intend to update our readers on the positions of any given candidate.

As Clarion is a bipartisan organization, we will not be endorsing any party or any candidate. All information provided is intended as informative only and should not be taken as evidence of Clarion’s preference for any given candidate.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum announced his bid for the Republican presidential nomination on May 27, 2015. The following is the Clarion Project‘s compilation of Senator Santorum’s positions on Islamist extremism. It will be updated as the campaign develops.

Relevant Experience     

  • Two-term Pennsylvania Senator (1995-2007)
  • Served on the Senate Armed Services Committe
  • Republican presidential candidate (2011-2012)

View of Islamism

  • Sees the threat as ideological in nature and not a response to political grievances against the West.
  • Faults President Bush for not identifying the enemy as Islamist after the 9/11 attacks and instead describing the conflict as a “War on Terror.”
  •                –“[C]alling these people, Al Qaeda, terrorists, is like giving a speech calling the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s ‘Blitzkriegers.’
  • Terrorism is a tactic that is not an ideology. When you identify the ideology, and until you recognize the ideology, and realize that’s their motivation.
  • “The enemy is a retrograde version of Islam that “wants to bring back a version of Islam that was popular in the 7th century.”
  • Islamism must be properly defined in order to compel the Muslim world to address it.
  • “By not correctly identifying these Islamists for who they are, they’ve given all Muslims a pass for identifying a cancer within their own body.  We don’t help them treat that illness when we refuse to identify that their body is sick.
  • Sharia Law and the doctrine of jihad are the fundamental problems.   “Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is…. Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”
  • U.S. must ally with Muslims who oppose Islamic fascism, specifically praising those who provide intelligence to thwart terrorist attacks, Iranian democratic activist Akbar Ganji and Iraqi politician Muthal Al-Alusi.
  • U.S. must support democracy and “modern Islam.”
  •  “I believe this war against Islamic fascism will only be successful with the triumph of modern Islam… One of the ways to do that is to create a foundation for modern Islam to flourish. I believe democracy is one such place to allow that to occur. There are others; I mean, certainly you have a situation in Morocco where they have a king who allows modern Islam.”

Domestic Islamists

Muslim Brotherhood & Egypt

  • Describes the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically its founder Hassan al-Banna and prominent preacher Sayyid Qutb, as the “ideological forefathers” of Al-Qaeda. Santorum says the Brotherhood deceptively uses a “cloak of non-violence” and is a threat to the U.S.
  • Criticized President Obama for expressing support of the Egyptians protesting the regime of President Mubarak; accusesObama of “throwing Mubarak under the bus.”-
  •  U.S. erred in pushing for elections after Mubarak’s overthrow instead of “laying the foundation for democracy,” turning Egypt into a “center of leadership for Islamists.”

Iran

  • Does not believe that “Mutually Assured Destruction” will work with the Iranian regime and views its ideology as messianic in nature. He views the regime as the Shiite equivalent of Al-Qaeda and accuses it of committing “acts of war” against the U.S.
  • Regime change in Iran is the most important objective in fighting Islamist fascism.
  • “The largest piece of this mosaic, the keystone of the Islamic fascist structure, is Iran.”
  • Supporting the democratic opposition in Iran to achieve regime change increase American diplomatic leverage in negotiations.
  • Favors funding the democratic opposition and bringing international attention to the regime’s human rights abuses and suppression of minority religious groups.
  • He would finance labor movements, such as bus drivers who went on strike, comparing it to U.S. support for workers’ strikes in Poland during the Cold War. He also recommends providing communications equipment and covert support.
  • Authored the Iran Freedom and Support Act in 2004 to provide $100 million to democratic forces opposing the Iranian regime.
  • Blames the Bush Administration, specifically Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for undermining his efforts to fund the Iranian democratic opposition. Rice was concerned that it would complicate negotiations with allies.
  • Faults both the Bush and Obama Administrations for the failure of the Green Revolution in 2009.
  • Would tell Iran that “we will close the nuclear facilities for you” with military action if the sites are not shut down.
  • The U.S. should assist Israel in military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program if it decides action is necessary.
  • Increase funding for research into the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) nuclear threat.
  •  Treat any Iranian nuclear scientist as an “enemy combatant” that can be targeted.

ISIS, Iraq & Syria

  • U.S. should send 10,000 troops to Iraq to fight ISIS and increase aid to the Kurds, Jordan and Egypt.
  • Opposes having an ambassador to the Syrian regime.
  • Authored the Syria Accountability Act in 2003 to implement tough sanctions on Syria for its sponsorship of terrorism, WMD programs and alliance with Iran.        U.S. should have supported democratic Syrian rebels at the start of the Syrian civil war to help remove the Assad regime and fight Islamist terrorists.
  • Opposed potential U.S. airstrikes on the Syrian regime in 2013 after it used chemical weapons in its civil war.
  • Supported the U.S. invasion to topple Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq.   Opposed the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq; would have kept 20-30,000 troops there to assist Iraqi security forces.

Afghanistan / Pakistan

  • Opposes a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan; would not have U.S. forces leave until the Taliban is “neutered.”
  • In a Republican presidential debate, he criticized Texas Governor Rick Perry for being too confrontational towards Pakistan. He said allies “work through their problems.”
  • Santorum also said he’d try to work with Pakistani intelligence if a Pakistani nuclear weapon got loose.Opposes cutting financial aid to Pakistan.

Libya

  • Supported U.S. military intervention to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but says the U.S. should have acted quickly to support moderate rebels and implement a No-Fly Zone.
  •  Accused the Obama Administration’s policies in Libya of assisting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist radicals.

Palestinian Terrorism

  • Supports Israeli military operations against Hamas.

Saudi Arabia & the Gulf

  • Saudi Arabia does not promote Islamic fascism.
  • “No, I would not put Saudi Arabia in that category simply because they don’t subscribe to the same ideology. They don’t have designs on world conquest, which Islamic fascists do. They practice Islam, and different kinds of Islam are obviously practiced throughout the world, but this is not one that is intent on world domination.”

*****

Rick Santorum is the only candidate to score an “A” in the NumbersUSA Presidential hopefuls scorecard on immigration and jobs

VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: The Iowa National Security Action Summit

2572951204

Center for Security Policy, May 18, 2015:

NSAS Iowa

Des Moines, IA— On Saturday May 16th, The Center for Security Policy, in partnership with THE FAMILY LEADER Foundation and High Frontier, hosted The Iowa National Security Action Summit. The conference featured many of the most influential national security practitioners of our day addressing the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policy in an increasingly perilous world. Specifically, the event covered four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of Iowa:

  • Border Insecurity and Illegal Immigration
  • America’s Electrical Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure
  • The Hollowing Out of The U.S. Military
  • The Threat from Iran, Shariah and The Global Jihad Movement

The following noteworthy policy experts and national leaders addressed a packed room at the Point of Grace Church in Waukee, IA, just outside of Des Moines:

Border and Immigration Insecurity

  • Iowa Congressman Arnold “Steve” King

  • Phyllis Schlafley, Founder, Eagle Forum

  • Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement Watch

  • Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government

  • Jan Michelson, WHO Radio, Iowa

America’s Electric Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure

  • Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security

  • Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Chairman, High Frontier

See more at Center for Security Policy

Frank Gaffney: Iowa National Security Summit Will Tackle Need to Defeat Jihad, Secure Border

frank-gaffney-AP-Photo-640x480Breitbart, by EDWIN MORA, May 14, 2015:

The Iowa National Security Action Summit this Saturday is expected to feature experts and leaders who will address the need to defeat jihad, border security, and the hollowing out of the U.S. military, among other topics, according to the organization hosting the event.

Frank Gaffney, Jr., the president of the Center for Security Policy, spoke to Breitbart News about what to expect from the conference, which is hosted by his organization in partnership with The FAMiLY LEADER Foundation and High Frontier.

The May 16 conference is the second National Security Action Summit hosted by Gaffney’s organization.

On March 14, Gaffney’s group hosted a conference in South Carolina that drew hundreds of participants as well as preeminent national security experts, senior federal officials, and individuals seeking to lead the nation.

“The national security action summits are issues forums designed to educate the public and their representatives about the critical security challenges we face and the imperative of addressing them decisively,” Gaffney told Breitbart News.

“They showcase the necessity of: defeating the global jihad movement and its ideology of shariah; securing our borders and fixing our dysfunctional immigration system; rebuilding America’s military; and securing America’s electric grid,” he continued.

The summits are aimed at “equipping and empowering state and local representatives and their constituents to engage constructively in the national security debate,” later added Gaffney.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Dr. Benjamin Solomon “Ben” Carson, Sr.

• Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman, High Frontier

• Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement Watch

•Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

• Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

• Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute

• Peter Huessy, President, GeoStrategic Analysis

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

•Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

• Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.)

• Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government

• Iowa Republican State Rep. Zach Nunn

• Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security

• Air Force Col. Al Ringgenberg (Ret.)

• Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

• Phyllis Schlafley, Founder, Eagle Forum

• Donald Trump

• Bob Vanderplaats, President, The FAMiLY Leader Foundation

“The Iowa National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, alike – both at the federal level, AND the state level,” said a press release announcing Saturday’s event.

“Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world,” explained Gaffney in the release. “The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that.”