America is Losing the War Against Sunni Jihadists and Empowering The Shia Caliphate

isis-640x480Breitbartby DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, March 13, 2015:

With its support of the Baghdad government and the wrong rebels in Syria, the US Administration is doing the unthinkable: strengthening the spread of Tehran’s control in the Middle East and at the same time also helping the Sunni extremists to grow in power.

The American strategy against Global Jihad is having the opposite effect of that intended. And even key government officials are beginning to openly admit the failure of our policies.

The Director of National Intelligence, retired General James Clapper, recently testified that the terrorist threat is worse than at any other time in history and Major General Michael Nagata, responsible for planning our response to the civil war in Syria, has stated that the Islamic State is now more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

Seemingly just to prove the broader point about the global appeal of Jihad against the “infidel,” ISIS has just accepted the African terrorist group Boko Haram’s pledge of allegiance, meaning that the Sunni Caliphate established last year in Mosul by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi now officially covers any territory that Boko Haram controls in Nigeria.

The spread of ISIS influence is not just about territorial control, it is about the staggering success of its international call to holy war, with an estimated 19,000 westerners having left their homes to wage jihad. The visual below, based upon a British think-tank’s unclassified research, shows just how international a recruitment wave this is, with almost every country on the map sending recruits to fight in just Syria alone.

image

Given all the evidence, even the most influential liberal commentators and pundits have admitted the failure of the Obama strategy against “Violent Extremism.” Writing recently in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman stated: “When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam” and added that as a nation “We’ve entered the theater of the absurd.” The left wing Atlantic magazine even dedicated 11,000 words to an article proving the Islamic roots of ISIS and the religious justification for its violence.

Fourteen years after the September 11th attacks and half way through President Obama’s second term, how can we explain a failure so egregious that even the pillars of the liberal left are finally prepared to call it out? The key mistakes upon which the current strategy is built are:

  • The White House’s belief in the ability to “degrade and destroy” ISIS through air power alone
  • The belief that Iran can be leveraged as an ally against ISIS
  • Gambling on Islamic rebels such as the Free Syrian Army as a way to remove President Assad of Syria, and mostly important:
  • The belief that ideology is irrelevant to the enemy we face and that this war can be won solely through military means or local proxies.

Each one of these premises is flawed and is undermining US national interests as well as the safety and stability of our regional allies.

Firstly, in the history of modern military air power, since the first hand grenade was thrown out of a biplane over a century ago, the number of insurgencies like ISIS that have been defeated by airstrikes alone is zero. Insurgents are defined by their capability to hold ground. This is what separates a rag-tag terrorist group from a real threat like the Islamic State. As a result, their control of territory by ground forces can only be countered by other ground forces contesting the same space and eventually destroying or pushing them out. This is not a call for the deployment of US troops, but for the recognition of the fact that only a ground response– for example, made up of Iraqi, Kurdish, Jordanian and Egyptian units– can defeat ISIS. (According to my sources even Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Adviser, has admitted that US airstrikes are not working because we do not have the intelligence on the ground to know what to hit.) Any such response on the ground will not happen without US leadership and support, and in this President Sisi of Egypt will play the pivotal role even if the Obama Administration doesn’t like the former General. Without Egypt’s military might, the Islamic State will continue to grow and threaten the US even more than it already does.

By bringing Iran into our plans against ISIS, we are in fact strengthening a rival brand of Jihad. The war today in Syria and Iraq is not about the corruption of the former Maliki government in Baghdad or the human rights record of President Assad of Syria. It is about whose version of Islam will dominate the region. One only has to read or listen to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s sermon from the Grand Mosque Mosul in which he declared the Islamic State. The speech is about reestablishing the theocratic empire of Islam – the Caliphate – under Sunni control. ISIS even posted their real intent on social media:

Iran, on the other hand, also believes in the need to re-establish the Caliphate, but under its control as a Shia empire, and the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, must be understood as the re-ignition of a 1,400 year old argument about who should control Islam. In fact, that is how the Sunni and Shia division of Islam occurred after the death of Mohammad, and those are the stakes for Tehran. The fact that the mullahs now control five regional capitals– Tehran, Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and now Sanaa– means that despite ISIS’s growth, the Shia extremists are winning. The White House’s belief that Tehran is an altruistic foe of Sunni jihadists like ISIS is driven by shortsightedness and a lack of understanding of the historic battle that is in play, and will simply strengthen the Shia proto-Caliphate, eventually even to include Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons should the nascent deal the President is pushing come to fruition.

By contrast, in Syria, since 2011, the administration has been driven by its pathological hatred of Assad and the belief that, despite his enjoying the support of both Beijing and Moscow, Assad can be removed through the support of indigenous rebels such as the Free Syria Army. Speaking to the few true moderates that have organizational capability in theater, the sad truth is that we have chosen the wrong rebels. The more organized and loudest rebel groups are not the moderates but the true jihadists, some of whom have in fact formally allied themselves with ISIS. (This is not just a failure of the White House, but also the Republicans in Congress, especially Senator John McCain, who has the uncanny knack of supporting those who would kill us after they have killed all the Shia in the region).

Most disturbing of all is the Administrations willful dismissal of the real center of gravity in this war: the ideology of Global Jihadism. With its constant refrain that “upstream causes” such as poverty and lack of education are the real reason for terrorist violence, the White House displays a total ignorance of the groups we face today, from Al Qaeda to ISIS, from the Fort Hood shooter to the Tsarnaev brothers who killed and maimed hundreds at the Boston bombing.

As political correctness has been forced onto the practice of national security in general and counterterrorism specifically, we see absurd conclusions being drawn and fantastical policies being implemented. The recent international summit on “Combating Violent Extremism” hosted by the President and the White House assiduously preached repeatedly that religion has nothing to do with ISIS or Al Qaeda and concluded with this visual that all we need is more community outreach:

White House Summit

Of course, if poverty and lack of education were the drivers of terrorist violence, then half of the population of India would be terrorists. But they aren’t. Why? Because terrorist violence does not happen in a vacuum. It requires a spark, a narrative that acts as the justification to violence and the catalyst to mobilize people to do horrific acts against their fellow man. That ideology can be secular – for example, the communist terrorism of the Weather Underground led by Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers – or religious, such as ISIS. How else, for example, can one understand why the Islamic state would behead the 21 Coptic Christians whose murder they filmed on the shores of Libya, but instead burn alive the Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh? These decisions were not random.

For the jihadists of ISIS, the Copts are kuffar, infidels, and as the Koran teaches, the infidel must be “smitten on the neck” (e.g. Koran Ch. 47 V. 4). However, Lt. Kaseasbeh was a Muslim, a Jordanian Sunni, who in taking arms up against the Caliphate made himself an “apostate” and as a result he had to be killed not as an infidel but as one who committed the sin of leaving Islam and therefore, he was to be treated as if he were in hell, i.e. burnt alive. Religion is therefore so important to this war that it even defines the way in which the terrorists will kill you should you be captured.

Today, the Global Jihad has two brands. It is a war of the “Sunni Coke” versus the “Shia Pepsi” which also targets the local minorities caught in the middle, most especially the ancient Christians of the region.(Incredibly, the Parliament of the European Union seems to understand the threat better than the White House based upon the resolution it just issued against ISIS.) The powers that be have allowed politics and ideology to distort and pervert the practice of national security to such an extent that, incredibly, we are not only helping the Sunni Jihadists, but also the Shia extremists of Iran. Whichever side wins the war for the crown of the Caliph is irrelevant, since once their immediate foe is vanquished we, the infidel West, will be their next target.

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.

Legal Experts: Future U.S. President Could Revoke Bad Nuke Deal With Iran

John Kerry / AP

John Kerry / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Wiser, March, 12, 2015:

Legal experts are refuting a claim by Iran’s foreign minister that revoking a potential deal on the country’s nuclear program would violate international law, amid confusion Wednesday regarding whether or not the deal the State Department is negotiating will be in any way legally binding.

Javad Zarif, Tehran’s chief representative in the ongoing nuclear talks among the United States, Iran, and five other world powers, criticized on Tuesday an open letter sent by 47 Republican senators concerning the negotiations. While the lawmakers said in their missive that a future president or Congress could revoke or substantially alter a nuclear pact, Zarif responded that such changes would be illegal under international statutes.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said, according to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, the U.S. State Department asserted on Tuesday that a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran would be “nonbinding.” Secretary of State John Kerry also confirmed in congressional testimony on Wednesday that the Obama administration is “not negotiating a legally binding plan” but one from “executive to executive,” Politico reported. Kerry insisted such a deal would still “have a capacity of enforcement.”

Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University and an expert in international law and Constitutional history, said in an email that “nonbinding” by definition means that the United States “will not violate international law if we don’t adhere to its terms”—contrary to Zarif’s assertion.

“In other words we’re saying it is NOT an international obligation, just a statement of intent,” he said.

The legal nature of a potential nuclear agreement remains a matter of dispute.

The GOP senators wrote about the necessity of congressional oversight for “binding international agreements” in their letter. But on Wednesday, Kerry rejected that  characterization as “absolutely incorrect,” because the plan would not be legally binding.

The potential deal’s executive and nonbinding nature means Congress could not amend it, Kerry said.

Rabkin said the question of whether a U.S. president can institute a binding international agreement without congressional approval is disputed among legal scholars, but the State Department’s declaration that an Iran deal would be nonbinding places it in a different category.

“What Kerry seemed to say was not that his Iran deal would be in the same category but that it would not be legally binding in any sense, just a kind of memorandum of understanding,” Rabkin said. “I wonder whether he understood what he was saying. It was more or less conceding that what Cotton’s letter said was the administration’s own view—that the ‘agreement’ with Iran would not be legally binding, so (presumably) not something that could bind Obama’s successor.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), one of the lead authors of the GOP’s letter to Iran, expressed confusion on Wednesday about the State Department’s classification of a nuclear deal with Tehran.

“Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?” Cotton tweeted.

John Yoo, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, wrote on Wednesday that Cotton and his fellow senators had it “exactly right” in their letter on matters of Constitutional law.

“The Cotton letter is right, because if President Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran using only [an executive agreement], he is only committing to refrain from exercising his executive power—i.e., by not attacking Iran or by lifting sanctions under power delegated by Congress,” Yoo wrote on National Review Online. “Not only could the next president terminate the agreement; Obama himself could terminate the deal.”

Additionally, Yoo said that under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause, Congress could still apply financial pressure on Iran regardless of an executive agreement.

“Obama’s executive agreement cannot prevent Congress from imposing mandatory, severe sanctions on Iran without the possibility of presidential waiver (my preferred solution for handling the Iranian nuclear crisis right now),” he said. “Obama can agree to allow Iran to keep a nuclear-processing capability; Congress can cut Iran out of the world trading and financial system.”

“As a matter of constitutional law, the Cotton letter should be no more controversial than a letter that simply enclosed a copy of the U.S. Constitution (without President Obama’s editing),” he added.

Also see:

***

Published on Mar 12, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

What Are You Really Willing to Do to Stop Terrorists From Entering the U.S.?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAFrontpage, March 5, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

The question that serves as the title of my commentary today is the question every American, irrespective of political affiliation, must ask their elected senators and congressional representatives.

For all too many of our leaders, while they claim that they would stop at nothing to protect America and Americans, the reality is far different. Despite their claims to the contrary, they will not do anything to truly secure our borders or instill real integrity to the immigration system or the process by which applications for visas or immigration benefits are adjudicated.

This is the dire reality our nation and our citizens face today.

My article today will provide crystal clear evidence that our immigration system has no integrity and that this lack of integrity threatens the survival of our nation and our citizens and that nothing being proposed under the aegis of Comprehensive Immigration Reform will address these deadly vulnerabilities.

The importance of the question about what would our leaders be willing to do to prevent the entry and embedding of terrorists and the issue of terrorism came into sharp focus during the stirring and powerful speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3, 2015 when he addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress to voice his extreme concerns about what the sponsorship of terrorism by Iran not only means for Israel but for the United States as well. Indeed, during his remarks the Prime Minister referred to the unsuccessful attempts, over three years ago, by Iranian-backed terrorists to bomb the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC and kill the Saudi ambassador. The Israeli embassy in our Capitol was also a potential bombing target for those terrorists.

On March 21, 2012 the House Committee on Homeland Security that was then chaired by New York Congressman Peter King conducted a hearing into these planned operations. The topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

The same day as that hearing, the Huffington Post published a report about that hearing, “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

Here is an excerpt from that news report:

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.

The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows afoiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a disturbing report, “Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela,” predicated on a Pentagon report to Congress on Iran’s military operations in Latin America. Here is an excerpt:

The report gives no details on the activities of the Iranians in Venezuela and Latin America. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted few attacks in the region. However, U.S. intelligence officials say Qods operatives are developing networks of terrorists in the region who could be called to attack the United States in the event of a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.

On May 30, 2013 UPI posted a report, “Immigrant allegedly failed to reveal Hezbollah membership.”

Here is an excerpt from this report:

Wissam Allouche, 44, who became a citizen in 2009, was arrested last week by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, the San Antonio Express-News reported Thursday. He has also been charged with failing to reveal membership in Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group classified as terrorist by the U.S. government, when he sought a security clearance.

A federal judge ordered Allouche held without bail after a hearing Wednesday.

Allouche has lived in the United States for more than a decade. His attorney, Cynthia Orr, said he owned a gas station at one point.

Allouche formerly worked for L3 Communications, a military contractor that supplies interpreters and translators. He spent several months with the company in Iraq.

It is inconceivable that any politician would not want to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and launching deadly terrorist attacks. However, the failures of our immigration system undeniably enable international terrorists to enter the United States and, indeed, facilitates their ability to hide in plain sight and embed themselves in communities across our nation as they go about their deadly preparations to launch an attack.

There is nothing in any proposed legislation that addresses or remedies these critical failures in the immigration system.

Read more 

Nearly Six Years After Obama’s Cairo Speech, Middle East in Total Disarray

AP Photo/Hassan Ammar

AP Photo/Hassan Ammar

Breitbart, by FRED GEDRICH, March 2, 2015:

The Arab world is rife with political turmoil and violence. The Sunni Muslim Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and other jihadi terrorists are continuing their savagery within its boundaries, and Iran’s theocratic terrorist rulers are still exporting and/or solidifying their brand of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Revolution to Arab countries and territories. And the Obama administration appears unable or unwilling to effectively deal with each emerging crisis there.

The competing goals of Sunni and Shiite jihadists are to dominate the Arab world, and their forces and surrogates are engaged in nasty fights for supremacy throughout the region. The area they seek to control generally spans 21 Middle East and North Africa countries as well as territories under Palestinian control in Gaza and the West Bank. Its riches include 364 million people, the world’s largest known oil and gas reserves which fuel developed world economies, and strategic waterways where the petroleum-based commerce flows. About 92 percent of the Arab World population is Muslim (336 million), of which 87 percent are Sunni Muslim and 13 percent Shiite Muslim.

In 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke in Cairo, Egypt and promised the Arab and greater Muslim world a ‘new beginning’ in relations with the United States.  However, hopefulness turned into hopelessness for tens of millions of Arab world residents after the speech and Arab Spring which followed. Consider the current state of affairs:

  • Freedom House –a non-profit global freedom watchdog – ranked Middle East and North Africa countries (e.g., most of the Arab world) in 2015 as the world’s most freedom-less area with only Tunisia granting citizens political rights and civil liberties to qualify as a free nation.
  • Freedom House also reported that not one Arab country or territory provided the necessary legal environment, political influences, and economic conditions to guarantee a truly free press.
  • The U.S. State Department reports that 29 of 59 groups on its Foreign Terrorist Organization List have gestated and operate in Arab countries and territories, all of which endanger local residents, Israel, and U.S. citizens and security interests. Twelve FTO’s were added during Obama’s presidency.
  • The U.S. State Department reports that three of four designated state sponsors of terror – Iran, Syria, and Sudan – apply their deadly trade in Arab countries. One of them, Iran, has an illegal nuclear weapons development program.
  • Four Arab states and one territory – Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Gaza– are heavily dependent on Iran’s terrorist leaders for their governments’ survival.
  • Five Arab countries – Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen – are either failed states or don’t exercise sovereignty over their boundaries.
  • The average annual income of Arab world residents is $9,700, which is 26 percent below the global average of $13,100, with a wide income disparity between rich nations like Qatar and poor nations like Somalia.

The persons most responsible for perpetuating these conditions are an assortment of Islamic terror groups and extremists and authoritarian leaders. However, the Middle East and North African landscape is littered with the remnants of dubious Obama administration decisions that contributed to them ranging from the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq; the Syrian ‘redline;’ the Libyan military misadventure; calling ISIS a junior al-Qaeda varsity team; unwillingness to admit jihadi terrorists are part of Islam; refusal to support Iran’s peaceful Green Revolutionaries, and thinking Iran’s terrorist state can be part of any peaceful Arab world solution.

Muslims consider the dominion of Islam as the central pillar of their global-domination political program. Sunnis and Shiites disagree sharply on which of them, and who, should lead. They agree that the prime basis of governance and administration of justice should be Islamic (Shariah) law as enunciated in the Koran and traditions of Muhammad, and further elaborated by classical Muslim legists.

The global Muslim population contains Islamists and jihadists.  An Islamist is any Muslim who wants to impose and enforce Shariah – whether by violent or nonviolent means. A jihadist is an Islamic terrorist.

Shariah law totally subordinates women and mandates many other human rights violations, such as relegating non-Muslim minorities to a much lower legal status than Muslims and dispensing cruel and unusual punishment. It also rejects freedom of speech and conscience and mandates aggressive jihad until the world is brought under Islamic hegemony.

In forging a path to some kind of durable regional peace, it is not only important to understand the aforementioned Arab world problems and radical Islamic-driven terrorism but to effectively do something about them. Egypt’s Muslim President, Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, showed the way by removing the repressive Muslim Brothers from power during a popular revolution, publicly meeting with non-Muslims being persecuted by the various jihadists, and calling on clerics to reform Islam by eliminating rhetoric that fosters violence.

The Arab world is the epicenter of a global jihadist threat, and it is time for the U.S. and its allies, regional and otherwise, to also act diplomatically, economically, and militarily if necessary against all of those jihadist forces – including ISIS and Iran – operating there who are using violence and Shariah to acquire and retain power.  However, seeking to degrade and defeat the Sunni Muslim jihadist brand while leaving the Shiite Muslim jihadist brand intact, as the U.S. is currently doing, will only perpetuate problems for those Arabs and others who genuinely seek a better life and to live in freedom.

The time for decisive and effective action is now. Regional and world peace depends on it.

Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst and served in the U.S. departments of Defense and State.

Vandalism in Arizona Shut Down Internet, Cellphone, Telephone Service Across State

Optical fiber and electronic component / AP

Optical fiber and electronic component / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Feb. 27, 2015:

Cellphone, Internet, and telephone services across half of Arizona went dark on Wednesday after vandals sliced a sensitive fiber optic cable, according to those familiar with the situation. The incident is raising concerns about the safety of U.S. infrastructure.

The outage shut down critical services across large parts of the state, preventing individuals from using their phones, bank and ATM cards, and the Internet. Critical services, such as police and state government databases, as well as banks and hospitals, also were affected as a result of the vandalism.

The services first went dead around noon MST on Wednesday, causing complete service interruptions across half the state, from Phoenix to such northern cities as Sedona, Prescott, and Cotton Wood, according to an official from CenturyLink, the Louisiana-based communications company that owns the severed line.

“There was a vandalism that took place on a fiber optic cable that basically runs from Phoenix to Northern Arizona,” said Alex Juarez, a spokesman for CenturyLink in Arizona.

The line, which is composed of extremely thick cable, appeared to have been cut with a hacksaw, according to Juarez. Phoenix police are currently investigating the incident and say they have yet to determine a motivation for the crime.

“We’re not sure what the intent was, but they were able to cut the fiber optic cable, possibly using a hacksaw,” Juarez explained. “It looks like a pretty straight cut.”

CenturyLink personnel responded quickly to the scene to locate where the line was cut and assess the damage. They were eventually able to repair the line and get services back up and running in the early morning hours of Thursday.

“Obviously CenturyLink takes a high concern in security. Anytime there’s an outage, it impacts customers and business. In this instance, it affected everything from banks to hospitals to state agencies, you name it,” Juarez said. “So it’s a high priority to have these lines secure. These types of instances do not happen very often.”

The cable is located in a desert area north of Phoenix, meaning it is not a site routinely accessed by passersby.

“It’s a desert area, so it’s very remote, extremely remote,” Juarez said.

While CenturyLink declined to provide specific numbers of those impacted, Juarez said that it was “a large number of customers” over a large portion of the state.

Phoenix Police Department officials said that officers assessed the scene following a call about “criminal damage.”

Police say vandals must have used heavy equipment to expose the cable.

“The fiber optic cable was encased in metal piping which would have to have been accessed prior to reaching the optics,” the police said in a statement. “This indicates a power tool of type may have been used.”

Security experts familiar with these types of incidents said they highlight the vulnerability of America’s critical infrastructure. In states across the nation, vandals have gone after power transformer lines and the electric grid in acts that have been characterized by authorities as forms of sabotage.

For some, incidents of this nature have sparked concerns that a domestic or international terrorist could tamper with U.S. infrastructure, throwing state and federal governments into disarray.

“This doesn’t look like ‘vandalism’ but rather like sabotage,” said Rachel Ehrenfeld, the founder and CEO of the American Center for Democracy (ACD) and its Economic Warfare Institute (EWI). “Next time it could be both the fiber optic cables and a cell-tower or two.”

“This reinforces the need to better protect our communication channels and prepare backup systems wherever possible,” she said.

Nicholas Hanlon, an official with the Center for Security Policy (CSP), which has long warned about vulnerabilities to the U.S. electric grid and other key services, said that would-be terrorists could attack these sites with relative ease.

“The Phoenix outage tells us that terrorists and otherwise hostile groups don’t have to probe our defenses to find soft targets in our electrical infrastructure when vandals can do it for them,” Hanlon said. “NERC [The North American Electric Reliability Corporation] and the electrical industry tell us they are doing good work on their security practices one day. The next day they tell you national security is not their job.”

“Bottom line, the NERC/FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Committee] regulatory regime is not getting the job done on the security front,” Hanlon said.

Media Hoax: 20 Muslims Holding Hands Become 1,000-Strong ‘Ring of Peace’ at Oslo Synagogue

oslo-ring-of-peace-afp-640x480

Update 2/23/15: Oslo Synagogue “Muslim Peace Ring” Organizer: Jews Were Behind 9/11, Mumbai Terror Attack by Patrick Poole at PJ Media

Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Feb. 22, 2015:

The weekend’s feel-good story about a Muslim “ring of peace” formed to “protect” Jews at an Oslo synagogue turned out to be a complete fabrication by the mainstream media, according to an eyewitness report, local officials, and attendees’ photos.

According to a local eyewitness, only about 20 or so Muslims formed the “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue. In fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front of the synagogue.

A local news outlet explained how the media got to its “1,300 Muslims” number. “According to police, there were 1300 persons present in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians,” read a translated report from Osloby.no.

Demonstrators also reportedly chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” conflating criticism of Islam and hatred of Jews.

Photos pulled off of social media appear to corroborate the narrative that only twenty or so people formed the “peace ring.”

Multiple news outlets, including wire services for hundreds of news sites, ran with the false narrative that 1,000 or more people–sometimes all of them Muslim–formed the ring of peace outside of the Oslo synagogue.

The AP incorrectly reported, “More than 1,000 people have formed a ‘ring of peace’ outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims.”

AFP reports almost identically, “More than 1,000 people formed a ‘ring of peace’ Saturday outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims. The newswire agency has no excuse for the false report, as it had a photographer taking shots of the “ring” at the scene–and one shows a man who appears to be at the end of the line of hand-holders, with his left hand in his pocket.

The far-left Think Progress site published a story titled, “More Than A Thousand Muslims Form Human Shield Around Norewegian Synagogue After Copenhagen Attacks.”

Even Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported, “More than 1,000 Muslims formed a human shield around an Oslo synagogue on February 21, offering symbolic protection for the city’s Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark the previous weekend.”

In even worse news, it appears as if the organizer of the Muslim “peace ring” is a virulent anti-Semite, 9/11 truther, a gay-basher, and an Israel-hater.

Ali Chishti, who organized the event, said bluntly in 2008, “I hate Jews and how they operate,” reports Daniel Greenfield. Chishti added in his conspiracy-laden rant about the Jewish people, “It is a fact that during the attacks on the Twin Towers [World Trade Center] 1600 Jews were absent from work. OK, OK, what’s even more suspicious, is how unusually many Jews there were present in Mumbai on the day that Pakistani terrorists struck. How come?”

At a March, 2008 meeting in Oslo promoting his 9/11 conspiracy theory that the Jews were responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, Chishti read his speech titled, “Therefore I Hate Jews And Gays,” Haaretz reports.

As it turns out, as many as 40 times more Northern European Muslims attended the funeral of a Copenhagen Muslim terrorist than those who decided to form the non-existent “ring of peace” around an Oslo synagogue.

Read more

Also see:

National Security Expert: U.S. Foreign Policy Leaders ‘Have Lost The Ability To Think’

coughlinDaily Caller, Ginni Thomas, Feb. 22, 2015: (video at Daily Caller)

From his time briefing generals in the Pentagon, Stephen Coughlin — a leading expert on national security and author of the soon-to-be-published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” — has always feared for our nation’s safety and thinks it’s time for the government to stop lying.

Coughlin is an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism. He says the “entire world, friend and foe alike, understands, that starting with the Bush administration and accelerating in the Obama administration, that our foreign policy community is absolutely incoherent and completely vulnerable. These people have lost the ability to think.”

He contends that government bureaucrats have become so focused on fighting “narratives” consistent with a post-modern, politically correct worldview, rather than the facts on the ground, that America’s war on terrorism has become a catastrophic failure.

Rather than be tethered to the professional canon requiring a “duty to be competent” and know the enemy, or their oath to support and defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, Coughlin argues the military has been persuaded, cajoled and perverted into fighting based on narratives.

“This country is in serious trouble,” he believes. “The people who hate us — and it’s not just radical Islam, it’s the Chinese, it’s the Russians, it’s the Iranians — they know that our leaders don’t know what they’re doing, because they’ve been kicking the tires.”

In this exclusive video interview with The Daily Caller, Coughlin says our allies in the war of terror “watched us change sides” in 2010 and 2011, but “the scariest thing” to him “is that our senior national security leaders seem to have no comprehension that they did.”

As for President Obama’s Summit this week, Coughlin sees the touted euphemism as an example of his point, and declares, “When you are fighting ‘violent extremism,’ you are not defending this country. You are bringing it down.”

His greatest fear is that “we may be put to sleep, like the frog that boils to death, mired in the pollution of our own politically correct narratives that has created a complete inability for us to understand and further the truth, so much so, that we have to treat the truth as propaganda just to be heard.”

Discussing the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Coughlin says this is a clear example that when you commit to a narrative, you can suppress the truth and undermine our national security. He says Hasan told us “at the Walter Reed and the Pentagon, over 20 times” to military officers that, “I am a Muslim. If you send me to war, I will become a jihadi.”

Coughlin describes the efforts by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an international organization with 57 Member States (56 countries and the Palestinian Territories) concerning their 10 Year Programme of Action to make defaming Islam a punishable crime.

The UN Human Rights Commission passed UN Resolution 1618, to implement OIC’s 10 year plan. If it becomes law, “it would have the effect of subordinating our first amendment to Islamic slander laws,” Coughlin says. He discusses a meeting then-Secretary Clinton had on July 15, 2011 in Turkey where Clinton promised to use the government’s “best efforts to pass 16/18, and would resort to peer pressure and shaming against Americans who might violate that standard.”

The security expert claims this would result in an “extra-legal means to attack Americans for exercising their free speech rights inside America if they say something that the OIC deems insulting.”

To Coughlin, this is a layered strategy that calls for the dots to be connected by astute citizens. There is Islamic slander law, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action and UN Resolution 16/18. Now, alongside Resolution 16/18 at the UN, is a new supporting effort to redefine “incitement” in international treaties to which the U.S. is a party to achieve their controversial objectives.

Coughlin’s hope is that more citizens should confidently and strongly ask, why is our government lying to us.

Muslim Immigration Poses Serious National Security Threat

This is Part 5 of a series called Know Thy Enemy: A Crash Course In Radical Islam

In this series, IBD breaks the political taboo linking Islamic violence with the religion of Islam by studying Muslim attitudes and beliefs.

It also examines the Obama administration’s refusal to identify Islamic terrorists as Islamic, which has led to a misdiagnosis of the factors driving terrorism and an unrealistic assessment of our enemy.

Because the administration has failed to understand the militant theology motivating the enemy, it has failed to develop a coherent strategy to defeat it. Worse, immigration and security policies are mismatched with the threat and actually aid the enemy. This exclusive series hopes to better inform the public about the source of growing world violence.

Know Thy Enemy: A Crash Course In Radical Islam

Investors Business Daily, BY PAUL SPERRY, Feb. 19, 2015:

France, Belgium and now even liberal Denmark regret letting in so many immigrants from Muslim countries. Their swelling Islamic communities have become breeding grounds for terrorists. So why is the U.S. opening the floodgates to foreign Muslims?

The threat Muslim immigrants pose to homeland security was not addressed during the White House’s three-day summit on terrorism.

Instead, Vice President Joe Biden assured Muslim groups gathered during one session that the “wave” of Muslim immigration is “not going to stop.”

Wave? More like a tsunami.

Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period.

This is a sea change in immigration flows, and it threatens national security.

Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there.

Now the State Department says it will quadruple the number of refugees brought here from Syria, where IS is headquartered.

The U.S. will admit as many as 2,000 Syrian nationals by the end of fiscal year 2015, up from 525 since fiscal 2011.

Yes, the number of displaced people inside war-torn Syria and Iraq, an estimated 3 million refugees, rivals the most in Mideast history. But rolling out the welcome mat for them in the middle of a mushrooming war on Muslim terrorism is dangerously shortsighted.

Top U.S. counterterror officials say terrorists could easily slip into the country from Iraq and Syria, in spite of promised screening procedures for such refugees.

“It’s clearly a population of concern,” National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen testified this week.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul called the new policy “a federally sanctioned welcome party to potential terrorists.”

That’s no stretch. If just a fraction of the 300,000 new Muslim immigrants already here follow in the footsteps of the Franco-Algerian brothers who recently terrorized Paris, we could be facing chronic terror in our cities.

The main homeland threat from groups like IS comes through our immigration system. If they also use our loose policies as a vehicle for jihad and Islamization, we will face the same crisis as Eurabia.

The British press is reporting that IS has threatened to release a huge wave of migrants from Libya across the Mediterranean disguised as refugees to cause chaos in Europe.

Who’s to say they aren’t setting a similar immigration bomb for America?

Authorities can’t even get a handle on homegrown IS jihadists who are already in America. Why would we risk adding so many potential jihadists from abroad to the already overloaded terrorist threat matrix?

The FBI director says he’s got open cases against IS suspects in every state but Alaska. More than 100 American Muslims have hooked up with the vicious terror group in Syria or Iraq, and at least a dozen fighters already have returned to America and may be forming sleeper cells to attack the homeland.

These suspects are hard for agents, who already are overstretched, to monitor. They’ve discarded their Islamic beards and garb and have blended into society. Analysts suspect some may have even infiltrated the military and government.

While America ushers in Islamic immigrants, Europe is pulling up the welcome mat. In recent months, both France and Britain have proposed imposing curbs on immigration out of fear of importing more terrorists. The bills will likely pass in the wake of the Paris massacre.

Thanks to mass immigration from North Africa, France’s Muslim population has swelled to 6.5 million, or 10% of its population. More than 1,000 French Muslims have joined IS. A recent poll found that 27% of French Muslims ages 18-24 support the Islamic State.

Growing pockets of radicalism are spreading in towns throughout France. There are “no-go” zones for non-Muslims and even local authorities, not just in Paris but all over the country.

Authorities say that they’ve lost control of the situation. Muslim attacks on police and synagogues are now regular events.

Similar problems are cropping up in Germany. After an influx of Syrian and other Muslim immigrants, a recent poll found that 40% of Germans say they don’t feel at home in their own country thanks to “Islamization.”

America will no doubt suffer the same nightmares if its Muslim population is allowed to reach a critical mass.

At current immigration rates, and barring a much-needed moratorium, our Muslim population will more than double over the next 15 years, hitting about 6.2 million in 2030, according to a recent Pew Research Center study — “in large part because of immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims.”

Fifteen years from now, Pew found, America will “have a larger number of Muslims than any European country” except for France and Russia.

If you think this huge influx of foreign Muslims will assimilate and adopt Western values, you haven’t been to Alexandria, Va., or Dearborn, Mich., or Minneapolis recently.

They resemble little Cairos, with their Arabic store signage, halal butchers, hookah bars and even blaring calls to prayer from mosque minarets. Such cultural diversity might be quaint if not for the fact these heavily Muslim immigrant enclaves are also breeding grounds for terrorism. More people from Dearborn are on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other American city except New York.

Recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen by Muslims operating with support from those cities’ swelling Muslim immigrant communities are an ugly reminder that Muslim immigration doesn’t bring the kind of diversity once cherished in the West. It leads to violence and Islamization.

All this raises serious national security concerns. But the White House is too busy defending Islam and portraying the Muslim community as victims of “discrimination” to consider them.

Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

***

Published on Feb 20, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

Rep. Mike McCaul on radical Islam spreading to American soil. Congressman concerned about possible influx of Syrian refugees

****

Melanie Nezer: We want the US to admit 75,000 Syrians over 5 years!

Melanie Nezer: We want the US to admit 75,000 Syrians over 5 years!

Media shock over Obama plan to bring in a couple of thousand Syrian refugees growing (refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com)

By Ann Corcoran:

This is just a quick commentary.

My alerts are filled with news stories about revelations last week and the week before that the Obama Administration is planning on bringing Syrian Muslim refugees to the US this year and in future years and everyone is shocked at the number being discussed—2,000.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad the media is now paying attention.

But, remember, up until December of last year the State Department was predicting that they would bring in 9,000-10,000 this year. (See our Syrian refugees archive by clicking here)

Remember also that it is the refugee resettlement contractors***and the UN lobbying us to bring in 15,000 a year!  See one of many stories on the subject here as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Societyleads the charge.  Not to appear to be picking on HIAS—the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Lutherans testified in Congress last yearthat they wanted the US to take 12,000-15,000 Syrians a year starting last year!

And, finally, why isn’t the same media paying attention to the fact that we brought in 20,000 Iraqis (three quarters are Muslim Iraqis) last year alone and 9,000 Somalis last year alone?

Come on media!  Where have you been?

***Update*** Here is one more of many stories on the media figuring out that the Syrians are coming!

***The federal refugee resettlement contractors:

And for some perspective on where all this is leading:

How many Muslims living in the US could justify “violence against civilians” in defense of Islam? (refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com)

By Ann Corcoran:

This past week as the theme coming out of Washington was—hug a Muslim—there were many press accounts saying that the US was somehow different from Europe in that our Muslims are more “integrated” into society than those young violent ones in Europe.  Ours also have more stuff according to Obama.

In our view, the only difference is that in Europe there are more of them! 

When we have a higher percentage here in the US, the Muslim population will be emboldened and along with higher numbers will come more demands from the Muslim ‘community’ for America to accept precepts of shariah law.

The numbers!

One important statistic being misused by the mainstream media and highlighted in an article from the Associated Press by Josh Lederman is drawn from this 2011 Pew report.

First, before we get to the news, put these numbers in your head:  By 2011, Pew Research estimates that the US population of Muslims stands at 2.75 million.  Pew’s numbers are now nearly 4 years old so I believe the population is higher.  It must be! because Pew says 100,000 legal immigrant Muslims enter the US each year.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) puts the number at 6-7 million (also a few years old).

From the Associated Press at Eyewitness News 3:

Ample evidence suggests that Muslims in America do feel more integrated into society than those living in Europe. Often marginalized and relegated to poorer neighborhoods in European cities, many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. have flourished as doctors and scientists and in other white-collar professions. Middle-class, predominantly Muslim or Arab-American enclaves have cropped up in places such as Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, allowing immigrants to carve out their own stories.  [So sick of this story c***!—we have stories too!—ed]

“That’s the story extremists and terrorists don’t want the world to know: Muslims succeeding and thriving in America,” Obama said during separate remarks at the summit Wednesday.

Now this is how Obama and the media use numbers in deceptive ways. AP continues with its editorial piece disguised as news:

There’s also reason to believe that sense of successful assimilation has offered a degree of protection against the allure of extremism. In 2011, a Pew Research Center survey of American Muslims found that just 2 in 10 Muslims in the U.S. thought there was a great deal or a fair amount of support for extremism among Muslim Americans. Roughly 80 percent said suicide bombings and other violence against civilians was never justified to defend Islam from its enemies, compared to just 8 percent who said it was sometimes or often justified. [Doesn’t sound bad, right?—ed]

By the way there is another 5% who say “rarely” justified.  (See the full report, here)

O.K. now look at it this way!

If 8% of the US Muslim population believes that VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS IS JUSTIFIED (often or sometimes) TO DEFEND ISLAM, then:

Using a low of 2 million Muslims in America and a high of 7 million, that means that 160,000 Muslims in the US could justify violence against civilians to defend Islam at the low end, to 560,000 at the high end!

Sounds like a ticking time bomb to me!

Fighting the War on Terror with Immigration Sanity

Long_border_fence-450x300Frontpage, February 17, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

Ever since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 many of our leaders justified sending troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by saying that we must fight them (the terrorists) “over there” or we would have to fight them “over here.”

Now that the president is asking Congress for resources to combat ISIS overseas to defend the United States against the rapidly escalating threat posed by that extremely violent terrorist organization it is vital that a serious effort be mounted to devise an all-encompassing strategy to achieve total victory.

Of course the United States must act and act effectively and decisively in bringing the battle to our enemies on their turf.  Going on the offensive overseas is essential.  That is the mission of our military.

But it is time for a serious reality check on what really needs to be done to win this battle and protect America and Americans from the defensive perspective as well.

On that horrific day in September more than 13 years ago, America’s enemies turned lower Manhattan, a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon into a deadly battlefield.  On that day, all of the casualties were inflicted “over here” by aliens who had gamed the visa process and/or immigration benefits program.  If the immigration system had worked effectively, most of those aliens who participated in those attacks should not have been able to enter the United States, let alone receive immigration benefits, including being granted political asylum or acquiring lawful status under the 1986 Amnesty program.

For all of the rhetoric about fighting al-Qaeda overseas, the Patriot Act and stringent security measures implemented at airports and other critical facilities made it clear that the battle was and is being fought within the borders of the United States.  The component of the “War on Terror” involving our borders brings us to the realm of effective immigration law enforcement.

While most politicians and others simply want to address the issue of border security along the U.S. Mexican border, the reality is that the legislative approach attempted by the House of Representatives would not succeed.  My disgust with that legislative disaster was the focus of my February 5, 2015 FrontPage Magazine article, “The ‘Secure Our Border First Act’ Deception” (tag line: Why it’s no solution to the immigration crisis).

The goal where immigration is concerned is multifaceted to actually succeed in protecting America and Americans.

We need to secure our borders against those aliens who would evade the inspections process by running our northern as well as our southern borders.  We need to tighten up surveillance of all ships entering our harbors to prevent stowaways from surreptitiously gaining entry into the United States and need to make certain that the Coastguard has the resources it needs to identify all ships approaching our coastline and interdict them.

We need to end the Visa Waiver Program and provide more resources to the inspections process conducted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) at ports of entry.

However, it is inevitable that no matter how much we will try, aliens will evade the Border Patrol and the Coastguard.  Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States will violate the terms of their admission.  The solution to these issues is to greatly increase the number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to locate and arrest those aliens who slip through the defenses I noted above.

By effectively enforcing our immigration laws, opportunities will be created to cultivate informants and cooperating witnesses to enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to more readily identify emerging threats before attacks are carried out.  This aspect of the significance of effective immigration law enforcement was the subject of  my November 10, 2014 commentary for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Lack of Intelligence in Failures to Enforce Immigration Laws.”

Finally, the process by which aliens are granted immigration benefits ranging from being granted political asylum to providing lawful immigrant status and the conferring of United States citizenship upon aliens via the naturalization process must have eaningful integrity.  This is essential to deprive terrorist “sleepers” the ability to embed themselves in communities around the United States as they await instructions to carry out an attack within our borders.

Again, this requires that many more ICE agents be hired and assigned to combatting immigration fraud — a serious vulnerability identified by the 9/11 Commission.

Terrorism has been defined as “asymmetrical warfare.”  America’s enemies, the radical Islamist terrorist groups, ISIS, al-Qaeda and others know that they can not win a conventional military battle with the U.S. armed forces.  Their goal is to get behind their enemy’s lines and inflict casualties among the civilian population to instill fear and terror.  For these terrorists, the “enemy lines” are the borders of the United States.

During the Second World War, when soldiers sought to go behind enemy lines they often boarded military aircraft that, under the cover of darkness, flew over the country they wanted to attack and parachuted behind the enemy lines to carry out reconnaissance missions and sabotage their enemy’s critical facilities.

Sometimes, under the cover of darkness, enemy combatants boarded submarines and other ships and stealthily approach the enemy’s coastline to send commandos ashore to carry out their deadly missions.

Read more

Rep. Gowdy Must Confront Clinton, Valerie Jarrett on Potential Roles in Benghazi

AP Photo/Jacquelyn-Martin

AP Photo/Jacquelyn-Martin

Breitbart, by Charles Ortel, Feb. 11, 2015:

After six years of a foreign policy strategy that observers have assessed as questionable at best, Americans and remaining foreign allies finally deserve an honest explanation of President Obama’s true aims across the Middle East. One person who should explain why the Obama Administration continually asserts the United States is making progress abroad despite so many appalling setbacks is senior aide Valerie Jarrett, whose influence shaping key policies is suggested in second-hand reports, but not yet adequately understood.

With Iran rising, and regimes falling throughout the region, now is the time to subject our President’s singular Senior Advisor to rigorous Congressional oversight, under oath, beginning with an appearance before Congress’s Select Committee on Benghazi.

Expose the real command structure inside the Obama Administration

Numerous accounts by high level U.S. government officials suggest that traditional reporting lines inside the Executive Branch are essentially irrelevant. Using Valerie Jarrett and other reliable associates, President Obama imposes his will everywhere that he can, outside effective scrutiny of political opponents, investigative journalists, and the American public.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, as head of Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, has the assignment and the resources he needs to retrieve answers and hold accountable those responsible for the disastrous events that occurred starting September 11, 2012. To do his job properly, he needs to widen his focus beyond Libya, expose how the Obama White House actually makes its decisions, and determine which foreign powers are prime beneficiaries of Executive Branch actions.

It is not enough for the Select Committee simply to identify which officials may have slowed, or even stopped, rescue efforts for beleaguered U.S. government employees and/or contractors mired inside Libya, almost three years ago. Instead, Americans need to understand how deeply involved in Federal government are organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and who has ultimate responsibility for vetting key government appointees and private contractors.

In addition, we deserve to know how deeply ties run between key Administration officials and the government of Iran, which seems to be the only clear beneficiary of Obama foreign policies. Furthermore, the American public should learn how widespread the practice has become wherein foreign interests purchase influence over government officials, theoretically independent scholars, and media watchdogs.

The truth actually matters

So far, Valerie Jarrett’s name does not figure on the published list of witnesses scheduled to appear before the Select Committee on Benghazi. Nor does Huma Abedin’s, a longtime aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Both of these individuals likely could help unravel the confusion concerning how America’s relations with Libya and with Egypt disintegrated so profoundly, opening up opportunities for Vladimir Putin to extend Russia’s influence in nations of key strategic significance.

Looking back before September 11, 2012, Congressman Gowdy should uncover who, other than Hillary Clinton (perhaps Ms. Jarrett?), must have approved the deeply troubling decision to let Huma Abedin simultaneously serve multiple masters– including the U.S. taxpayer, Hillary Clinton personally, Teneo Corporation and the Clinton Foundation. Given what happened after Mohamed Morsi took power by June 30, 2012, and given the continuing defiant support of the Obama Administration for the Muslim Brotherhood inside Egypt and the United States, the American public has every right to learn how someone with such suspect foreign connections became so involved in atypical ways influencing sensitive government initiatives.

Hillary Clinton apparently is eager to give her side of the story–though her attitude towards telling the truth is certainly flexible, as any fair-minded re-examination of her Bosnian landing under sniper fire reveals in retrospect.

Congressman Gowdy must summon the courage to examine closely the flows of official and intermediary communications and of money between and among interested parties in Libya and Egypt, not just in 2012, but from January 20, 2009 forward. Substantial U.S. government funds evidently disappeared under Hillary Clinton’s watch over the State Department–during the same period large donations flowed into Clinton Foundation while grants flowed to numerous recipients. Rather than shrugging off the confusing array of information, Congressman Gowdy needs to dive in and ferret out a comprehensible timeline that explains the motives and potential benefits derived by key interested parties.

When it comes to getting Obama Administration officials such as Valerie Jarrett to take Congressional oversight seriously, the record since January 2009 is certainly not encouraging–even now, on a potentially incendiary matter closer to home involving possible targeting of political opponents using the Internal Revenue Service, the Obama White House refuses to supply essential documents. So, teasing out the real timeline with regard to Libya, Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood will likely require aggressive tactics.

The difficult road ahead

Daunting as challenges seem across the Middle East, additional dangers threaten America in the potential splintering of Europe, the unrepentant rise of Putin’s Russia, and from China.

As Congressman Gowdy continues his important work, perhaps the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Egypt, and Israel can use their intelligence resources to help the American public understand exactly what the Obama Administration attempts as it continues redrawing the constellation of western interests across the Middle East.

Time is of the essence. Great nations with far more experienced leaders have floundered following misadventures outside their own borders. In the kind of Congressional oversight that has been sorely lacking until now, perhaps the United States can again find our best feet, and move these forward.

WATCH LIVE: Defeat Jihad Summit 9:00am to 3:00pm

3348068130The Center for Security Policy would like to invite you to watch what promises to be a remarkable event in Washington on 11 February. An international summit where the truth will actually be told about the real and growing danger facing our country and the rest of the Free World, a truth that is basically taboo in official circles these days.

All other things being equal, this practice of air-brushing out of presidential pronouncements, national strategies and the Obama administration’s public events any accurate depiction of the enemy or its ideology will be much in evidence at the “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” to be held at the White House on 18 February.

In the belief that the American people deserve better and, specifically, that they have a need-to-know who it is we are fighting and why, a small but representative sample of patriots and freedom fighters drawn from the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel and Australia will be joining forces for the “Defeat Jihad Summit.”

The event will be live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm at: http://youtu.be/xl-7nxBOWyU

This invitation-only event will be conducted in a roundtable discussion format involving some 35 distinguished counter-jihadists. Among the eminent participants will be: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Representatives Steven King and Mike Pompeo, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard and Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson.

In the course of the program, we will explore the reality that we confront not simply the Islamic State or al Qaeda, but what is truly a Global Jihad Movement – and the totalitarian, Islamic supremacist ideology that animates it: shariah. We’ll examine rigorously the adequacy of the measures taken to date by the United States and other Western nations to contend with this threat. And we’ll consider alternative strategies that may be considerably more effective in defeating jihad.

In that regard, we commend to you the Secure Freedom Strategy the Center for Security Policy rolled out on 16 January. It is modeled after the one President Reagan used to destroy the last totalitarian ideology that sought to vanquish us: Soviet Communism and the “Evil Empire” it begat. (A two-page paper outlining the Strategy’s highlights can be found HERE).

The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to the White House

Obama-and-Valerie-Jarrett-AP-Photo-Jacquelyn-Martin-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 7, 2015:

The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Also see:

How Badly Will American Foreign Policy Fail Under an Unaccountable Cabal Led by Valerie Jarrett?

Jarrett-AP-640x480

Breitbart, By Charles Ortel, Feb. 5, 2015:

Confirmation hearings in progress for crucial cabinet posts such as Defense Secretary and Attorney General miss an important reality in the Obama administration–the official chain of command apparently operates, when it does operate, only for show.

Tough decisions are seen to be made by President Obama who was scrutinized in the process of winning two national elections–yet, it would seem our undoubtedly distracted Commander-in-Chief and cabinet secretaries are only  junior partners to Valerie Jarrett who, to this day, never has been remotely vetted and sees issues primarily in terms of their domestic political relevance.
Previous Presidents certainly had personal friends serve as senior counselors, but few in American history have had such unbridled and profound influence over the Executive branch of government as has Valerie Jarrett.
If all were truly well again for America, perhaps the unusual ways in which the Obama administration functions here, and interacts with allies and supposed enemies abroad, would matter only to those who stand upon ceremony. However, dangers mount simultaneously inside our sputtering, and over-leveraged economy, and in numerous foreign hotspots.
How grave are today’s gathering foreign threats to America’s national security?
Ill-advised, secret foreign policy initiatives since January 2009
American Presidents pursue some international efforts in secret; however, in the past, these clandestine efforts have chiefly been led by diplomats and acknowledged experts in global affairs, and not by a chum whose chief experience lies in state and local government inside our borders and political campaigns.
As will likely come into clearer focus now that allies such as Israel, Canada, France, and Germany are rightly taking a much closer look at following the Obama administration in its conduct of foreign policy in the Middle East, President Obama and those who supposedly serve him are bungling efforts to make progress in one of the most volatile and important regions of the world.
Anyone who makes the barest of efforts to understand the background and aims of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, in America, and worldwide, must conclude this organization is one that a Western government should never embrace–yet, that is exactly what Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett have done ever since January 20, 2009, if not before.
So, in Egypt,while President Abdel Fatteh el Sisi courageously and rightly attempts a reformation of Islam from within, the Obama administration, no doubt with strong support from Ms. Jarrett, belligerently continues to lend aid to ousted members of the previous Egyptian government, unabashedly entwined with the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, in that country.
In Iran, after decades of bi-partisan failure, the Obama administration meanwhile rushes now, in secret, to seal a breakthrough nuclear deal.
Simultaneously, Iran resolutely continues down paths threatening American interests and allies numerous places.
These failures with Egypt and with Iran, come upon the heels of the evident error of trading five hardened radical Islamist jihadists for deserter Bowe Bergdahl.
Undeterred despite poor results, the Obama administration elsewhere races forward opening relations with the unrepentant dictatorship in Cuba and may even be moving towards making concessions to normalize relations with North Korea.
Time to bear down much harder and get to the truth
In stark contrast to the posture taken with regard to previous Presidents and their closest advisors, leading elements in the mainstream press have not gone far enough in warning the American public of dangers posed by the continued pursuit of Obama administration policies.
In 2015, most of the media complex faces raging structural headwinds, competes ferociously for a shrinking stream of potential advertising revenues, remains subject to regulatory oversight, and is capital constrained. So, it is little wonder that major organizations tread lightly for fear of losing access to key Administration figures.
This is a pity, for judging what we know of the economic and foreign policy record objectively, we can only conclude that a central operating premise in the Obama administration is that if at first you do not succeed, fail, fail, again.

Orwell and the Administration: The White House as the Ministry of Truth

1984-640x480Breitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Feb. 3, 2015:

In George Orwell’s landmark novel 1984, Big Brother’s dictatorial state uses “newspeak” and its Ministry of Truth to turn falsehood into manufactured “truth” and reality into lies. The administration’s explanation of what drives the terrorists responsible for 9/11, the Fort Hood shooting, and the Boston bombing sounds everyday more and more like a product of The Ministry of Truth.

This weekend, the President gave an interview on CNN in which he made several categorical assertions about the terrorists that have endangered America and her allies and, most recently, beheaded a Japanese hostage in the Middle East. As Breitbart has reported, the Commander-in-Chief explicitly “rejected the notion” that the war on terrorism is any kind of “religious war” against radical Islam. President Obama went on to explain how groups such as Al Qaeda and The Islamic State are not in fact Islamic but simply nihilists.

This message is not new or unique to the chief executive, since in fact, back in 2011, the administration banned any mention of Islam or even “Jihad” in counterterrorism training for the Department of Justice – to include the FBI – and the Department of Defense, to include all our armed forces. Since that time, the official line has been that religion, and specifically Islam, has nothing to do with events such as the Boston Bombing or the rise of ISIS.

But what are the facts?

Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Al Nusra Front, and ISIS all share the same goal and ideology. They all want to reestablish the theocratic empire of Islam – The Caliphate – that was dissolved in 1924, and they all see Holy War, or Jihad, as the only way to do so. Where does this ideology come from? Just like America and the Western military world, the Global Jihadist Movement (GJM) has its grand strategic thinkers, their own Clausewitzs and Mackinders. The three most important are the Egyptian, Sayyid Qutb; the Palestinian Jordanian, Abdulah Azzam; and the Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik. What did these three founders of the GJM have to say about Islam’s relationship to terrorism?

  • Qutb is perhaps the most important person to the Muslim Brotherhood after its founder, Hassan al Banna. After spending two years in the US and deciding that we are a heretical nation that must be destroyed, Qutb wrote his guide to Jihad, the manual on how to destroy us. Entitled Milestones, this text has been found on high-value terrorist targets killed or captured in every theater that jihad is currently being fought in. In it, Qutb is explicit: Muslims have lost their way, Islam must be purged of ignorance of Allah (jahiliyyah), and the only way to do so is through a jihad in which the infidel (kuffar) is subdued or killed. Qutb added that all democracies must be destroyed because in any system in which men make the laws, the sovereignty of Allah has been undermined. The Koran is the only constitution a Muslim needs or is allowed to follow.
  • Next there is Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s boss and spiritual guide. After the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets in 1979, Azzam issued a fatwa, or religious decree with the title: Defense of Muslim Lands. In it, he stated that, since the Caliphate had been dissolved in 1924 and that there was no longer an Islamic Emperor who could declare war against such invaders, Jihad was now fard ‘ayn, or an individual and universal obligation upon all followers of the Muslim faith. Importantly, because Azzam held a PhD in Islamic jurisprudence from the Al Azhar in Cairo, the most important Sunni theological institution in the world, he was fully qualified to issue such a decree, and it was duly endorsed by the greatest names in the Sunni religious establishment. Azzam is not only important because of his making Holy War a duty for all Muslims, but because he created an organization called the Services Bureau (MAK in Arabic) which recruited Muslims from around the world to come fight the infidels in Afghanistan. Not long after its founding, Azzam hired bin Laden as his deputy and it was bin Laden who would inherit the MAK upon Azzam’s death and rename it Al Qaeda.
  • The last and most important Jihadi strategist is the late Brigadier Malik. Also interestingly in 1979, Malik wrote a book which has become the most influential treatise on why Jihad is necessary and how it must be fought. The Quranic Concept of War is a long text on what the faithful Muslim can learn from the way Mohammad fought the infidels and non-believers when he established the empire of Islam. In it, Malik states three things: i) All war must only serve the realization of Allah’s sovereignty on this Earth through the reestablishment of the Caliphate. ii) The only target that matters in warfare is the soul of the infidel: the kuffar must be converted to Islam or be killed. iii) Because the soul is the only target that matters, terror is the best mode of warfare. In other words, it is events like 9/11, the Charlie Hebdo shootings, or the Fort Hood massacre that are the best way to defeat the infidel. (Note this wasn’t a fringe text when it was published – nor is it now – given that the introduction was written by the equivalent of the Attorney General of Pakistan and the preface which endorsed all that was in the book, was signed by none other than General Zia ul Haq, the Commander of all Pakistan’s Armed Forces and at the same time the President of Pakistan.

In other words, the greatest minds behind the threat groups we face today, the authors that shaped the ideology behind the atrocities we witness day in and day out, are all in agreement: Islam has lost its way and Jihad must be used to cleanse the world of disbelief until the theocratic empire reigns supreme.

Whatever the President and his newspeak cadre believe, it is clear what Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the head of ISIS/The Islamic State believes. Last September 11th, I was invited to brief an element of the US Intelligence Community that stills holds to the professional standard that one has to be honest about what the enemy says and what they are doing. In the brief, I took the speech Abu Bakr made earlier in the Summer of 2014 from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul, in which he declared the reestablishment of the Caliphate and represented as a “word cloud,” the visual representation of a text in which words are given a larger size and put closer to the center of the diagram the more often they are used.

word cloud 2

 It is clear that our greatest current enemy has no question about why and what he is fighting for.

Sebastian Gorka PhD is the Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and also adjunct professor at the Institute of World Politics. You can follow on Twitter at: @SebGorka.

CAIR SEEKS NON-VIOLENT SHARIA CENSORSHIP

Ibrahim-Hooper-CAIR-AP-640x480Breitbart, by ANDREW E. HARROD, Jan. 27, 2015

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-derived un-indicted terrorism financing coconspirator, recently demonstrated that there is more than one way to implement Sharia. CAIR’s feigned lofty concern for free speech following Paris’ Charlie Hebdo massacre is part of a duplicitous strategy seeking to impose non-violently Muslim blasphemy norms while deflecting any criticism of Islam.

CAIR “today condemned a shooting attack on the offices of the French satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo and repeated its defense of freedom of speech,” read a baffling January 7press release from the radical faux civil rights group. “We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack,” said CAIR executive director Nihad Awad of the globally infamous Paris jihad massacre of 12 at Charlie Hebdo. Awad then added that his CAIR associates “reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths.”

Awad, however, deemed that the “proper response to such attacks . . . is not to vilify any faith.” Thus he suggested the time-worn Islamic apologetic that the Charlie Hebdojihadists had no Islamic doctrinal basis. Although CAIR’s press release itself noted they were “shouting ‘God is great’ in Arabic” or Allahu Akbar, Islam’s Muhammad in CAIR’s understanding always “chose the path of kindness and reconciliation” when faced with “personal attacks.” Such hagiography of an often brutal “warrior prophet” overlooks well-established Islamic doctrine demanding the death penalty for blasphemy, as manifested in numerous incidents over the decades.

Awad advocated “instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions.” Awad therefore implicitly equated murderous jihadists with their free-speaking victims, the latter being “extremists” in their own way who “widen societal divisions” with criticism of Islam. Indeed, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper described in an email the “twin extremes of ISIS-type extremists and anti-Muslim bigots.” Hooper added in an interview that while CAIR members “are big supporters of the First Amendment and free expression . . . just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you have to.”

“Unfortunately,” Awad elaborated during a January 14 CAIR press conference, “we find ourselves, time and again, years after years, in the same position without any progress.” To “defend the right for someone to speak their mind” while being “not willing to respect the feelings of almost two billion” Muslims worldwide showed a “serious lack of balance.” Awad thereby equated an invented right not to be offended with the vital human right of free speech. “Our priorities are so messed up as a global community,” the Muslim Awad imperiously asserted for the world’s non-Muslims.

“The world is a global village,” Awad continued, whose “nature and reality” is “diversity of opinion . . . of cultures . . . of religions.” Therefore “we cannot impose our values on any culture” but must have “peaceful coexistence” and “mutual respect.” These Soviet-sounding terms precluded for Awad any expression of “diversity” offensive to Muslims.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks incited Awad not to rally around free speech under jihadist assault, but rather to seek greater non-Muslim “unity” with supposedly misunderstood Muslims. The jihadists “intended to divide” and “will win if we start to talk at each other instead of talking to each other,” an assertion buttressing Awad’s insinuation that concern for Muslim sentiments should entail non-Muslim deference in the future. “We cannot allow ourselves to become victims of extremists on both sides,” Awad continued his victim-perpetrator equivalence.

Speech by Charlie Hebdo and others allowed a “tiny minority” of a “few extremists who claimed to be Muslims” to recruit terrorists with the argument that the “West is against” and “offensive to Islam,” Awad warned. This veiled threat demanding non-Muslim self-censorship or else, however, contradicted Awad’s manifestly false assertion that the “overwhelming majority of Muslims” consider “freedom of speech” a “cornerstone of our faith.” “Muslims around the world” had “condemned universally” the Charlie Hebdoattacks and usually “don’t take to the streets . . . don’t take violence” when confronted with criticism of Islam in Awad’s alternative reality. That “Muslims are inherently violent” is merely “bigoted” and a “myth that unfortunately is predominant, especially in Western media.”

On January 14, Sahar Alsahlani from CAIR’s New York chapter claimed in an interview that “violence against a non-aggressor is completely against our religious principles” without specifying Islam’s often broad definition of aggression. Alsahlani reiterated the incomplete CAIR view of a Muhammad who always “chose to walk away” from insult. Muslims, one fifth of humanity, appeared in her optimistic view as “active, productive members of society,” violence and crises afflicting Muslim countries notwithstanding.

“Any attack on any religious figure offends me,” Alsahlani meanwhile said of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or others, while not explaining the mutually contradictory understanding of these individuals in various faiths. “Any act of slander is unacceptable to me,” she added absent any indication of how Charlie Hebdo or others had defamed Muhammad. With “freedom of speech comes great responsibility,” Alsahlani intoned. “The media has the responsibility to bring people together and to inform people,” she asserted as if media members had to forswear partisanship and knowledge always increased harmony. Sarwat Husain of CAIR-San Antonio likewise stated on January 15 that “even with the First Amendment, there are certain lines which you should not cross” and rejected “that you should make your life out of poking fun on others,” satire’s basic raison d’être.

CAIR therefore demonstrates that law and a societal cajoling can supply “soft power” jihad where “hard power” lethal methods are inopportune. Indeed, “moderate” CAIR’s warnings of violence can operate in tandem with “radical” terrorists in a previously noted “good cop/bad cop” routine demanding submission. Faced with such stealth jihad, freedom’s battles demand not just bullets, but the brain as well.