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.”

U.S. Welcomes Millions of Aliens ‘Sight Unseen’

customs-450x340Frontpage, May 12, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

On May 6, 2015 Fox News reported, “Purported ISIS warning claims terror cells in place in 15 states.”

Here is how that ominous report began:

A grim online warning from a self-described American jihadist said Sunday’s terror attack in Texas was the work of ISIS and that the terrorist group has scores of “trained soldiers” positioned in 15 states, awaiting orders to carry out more operations.

The warning, which was posted on a file-sharing site, could not be verified, but was signed by Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki. That name matches the moniker of a shadowy American known to have joined a terrorist group in Pakistan several years ago and who has appeared in propaganda videos before. The chilling threat named five of the states where it is claimed that ISIS has terror cells in place.

News coverage about this threat included statements by the administration that it was prepared to pay millions of dollars to anyone who could provide information to enable them to locate leaders of terror organizations. Monetary payments for information is a good strategy. However, although it is not generally known, immigration benefits or visas for aliens illegally present in the United States and their families can provide a far greater incentive to get aliens to provide vital information. I base this assessment on my personal experience.

I spent roughly half of my career involved in conducting investigations into large-scale narcotics trafficking organizations. I had a desk at the DEA, FBI and ATF. One of my key responsibilities was to use my authority as an INS agent to identify and cultivate informants and cooperators.

The administration’s outrageous immigration policies have largely undermined this important and highly successful incentive. Consider that the administration is willing to provide just about any illegal alien with the ability to remain in the United States and even be granted employment authorization.

I addressed the nexus between immigration enforcement and the cultivation of intelligence in my November 10, 2014 article for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Lack of Intelligence in Failures to Enforce Immigration Laws.”

In its continuing coverage of this threat, Fox News interviewed Congressman Peter King on the day that the above article was posted on the Fox News website. King had been the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and currently is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. He also serves on the Financial Services Committee and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The interview included a discussion about the dangers associated with the Visa Waiver Program and the threat posed by terror “sleeper cells.” My article, “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat,” was published by FrontPage Magazine on January 23, 2015 and addressed this serious vulnerability.

The visa process requires aliens who seeks to enter the United States to complete an application that contains approximately 40 questions and is interviewed, in person, by a consular official. Aliens who are eligible to enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program do not fill out that application and face no in-person interview at the U.S. consulate or embassy.

On 9/11 the Visa Waiver Program permitted aliens from 26 countries to enter the United States without first applying for a visa. Today that list has been expanded to cover 38 countries.

Given the severity of the threats posed by international terrorists, the Visa Waiver Program should have been terminated and not expanded. However, a new threat to national security has been created within the past two years. That threat is a program known as Automated Passport Control (APC). Under this program, aliens who are eligible to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program may now enter the United States by interacting with a kiosk that looks similar to an ATM and is not to be confused with “Robo-Cop.”

Installing these kiosks began in March 2013 at international airports around the United States and the list of airports using these devices has been expanding ever since.

It is worth noting that the program references “controlling passports” but ignores the term “immigration.” Do we need to control passports or aliens who enter the United States?

This is yet another example of Orwellian Newspeak. The term “alien” has all but been expunged from the conversation except, of course, when we talk about “DREAMers” (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors). Now the term immigration is about to be eradicated as well. In point of fact, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had moved most of their special agents to a new subdivision known as HSI (Homeland Security Investigations) to expunge that apparently offensive term (immigration) from the vernacular.

Read more 

Dr. Mordechai Kedar – A Warning To America, Israel, the West

Published on Apr 24, 2015 by theunitedwest

Dr. Mordechai Kedar – A Warning To America – National Security And Understanding The Muslim Mind.

The United West is proud to bring you another installment of our Israel Trip Series featuring Israeli Scholar and National Security subject matter expert, Dr. Mordechai Kedar.

Dr. Kedar combines his 25 years in various IDF Intelligence Units, fluency in Arabic dialects, and a stellar academic career at Bar Ilan University into a National Security Briefing you must watch from beginning to end.

“We in the West often delude ourselves into believing that all cultures have exactly the same goals (peace, prosperity, freedom) and exactly the same values (human life, honesty, human rights). And although all of these goals and values are undoubtedly part of every human culture, not all cultures value them to the same degree that we do in the West.”

In this briefing Dr. Kedar will present a compelling look into understanding the Middle Eastern mind, culture, religion, and how the Muslim world sees Western culture. Only by understanding how the Muslim world sees us will we be able to properly defend our culture from The Global Jihad Movement.

In this briefing Dr. Kedar will cover these topics:

1. The Family unit and population demographics are a National Security issue.

2. 14:43 Understanding Islamic immigration to the West and why the export or Hijra is vastly important but misunderstood by Americans and Europeans. How this works into the framework of the Greater Middle East.

3. 45:40 Understanding the two types of threats emanating from the great Middle East and Persia.

4. 1:03:00 The Big Picture. The West’s Geo-Strategic picture with Iran.

5: What the Israeli message to Iran will have to be.

6. 1:11:00 How the Iranian mind thinks and processes information using their own imagery. The Shia Iranians do not think like us politically. Dr. Kedar takes Iranian political propaganda and deconstructs what it means from their perspective. What we think is irrelevant in dealing with the Iranians.

After you watch and absorb what Dr. Kedar is telling you about the Iranian mind you will be angry at how the current U.S. administration is dealing with our Iranian adversaries geo politically and even more urgently with the Iranian Nuclear program.

This lecture should be mandatory watching for President Obama, John Kerry, and everyone at the US State Department.

To follow Dr. Kedar’s body of work go to: http://mordechaikedar.com/

Go to http://www.TheUnitedWest.org and listen to Tom Trento’s simulcast daily AM radio show – Enemies Of The State.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Troops

Did the Clintons’ Greed Endanger U.S. National Security?

724476682

CSP, by Fred Fleitz, April 23, 2015:

Although Peter Schweizer’s new book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” will not hit bookstores until May 5, it has already set off a firestorm of controversy that foreign governments bought influence with the Clinton’s – including when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State – by contributing millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paying the Clinton’s millions in speaking fees.

Bill Clinton, according to Schweizer, earned $48 million in speaking fees while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State.  Although Hillary Clinton claimed she and her husband were “dead broke” in 2000, their current net worth is estimated between $100 million and $200 million.

The Clinton’s and their attack dogs have already launched an offensive against Schweizer’s book and are trying to discredit him because he is a conservative.  Several media organizations, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Breitbart news have advance copies of the book and exclusive rights to the research compiled by Schweizer.

Most press stories on the Schweizer book have focused on the impropriety of the Clinton Foundation taking large foreign donations while Clinton was Secretary of State and how those donations may have influenced U.S. foreign policy.  Mrs. Clinton also has been criticized for tens of millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation while she headed the State Department from regimes that persecute women such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the UAE.

A more troubling angle in the Clinton Foundation scandal surfaced over the last few days: that foreign donations to the foundation may have put U.S. national security at risk.

According to an article in today’s New York Times, some of these contributions involve Uranium One, a Canadian uranium mining company that was taken over by the Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency.  The Uranium One takeover gave Russia control of one-fifth of U.S. uranium production and advanced Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal of controlling most of the global uranium supply chain.

Because uranium is considered a U.S. strategic asset with implications for national security, this deal had to be approved by a several U.S. government agencies, including the State Department.  According to the Times article, while the Russians were gradually assuming control of Uranium One from 2009 to 2013, the Uranium One chairman used his family foundation to make $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.  The Times article states that “those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton’s, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.”

According to an April 18  Newsweek article, the Clinton Foundation also accepted donations from a firm that was violating nuclear trade sanctions against Iran.  Interpipe, a Cyprus-incorporated company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, sold oil pipelines to Iran in 2011 and 2012 in violation of U.S. sanctions but was not sanctioned for these sales while Clinton was Secretary of State.  Fox News host Megyn Kelly reported last night on “The Kelly File” that between 2009 and 2013, Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.  Kelly reported that Pinchuk also pledged more than $20 million more to the foundation.

The Fox News Channel will air a special report anchored by Bret Baier, “The Tangled Clinton Web” on the Clinton Foundation scandal on Friday, April 24 at 10 PM ET.

For years, the Clinton’s have glided past the sea of scandals that engulfed Bill Clinton’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s complicity in the Obama administration’s foreign policy disasters.  I believe the Clinton Foundation story dwarfs all previous Clinton scandals because it appears to be an unprecedented case of foreign governments and entities buying influence with a U.S. government official.  But the Uranium One and Pinchuk contributions could make this story significantly worse since they suggest the Clinton’s were prepared enrich themselves even at the cost of endangering U.S. national security.

The Clinton Foundation scandal obviously requires media attention, congressional hearings, and an investigation by the Justice Department.  Despite their unmatched skill at deflecting controversy and blaming their enemies, could this this scandal be too big even for Bill and Hillary Clinton to skate by?

KRAUTHAMMER: CLINTON FOUNDATION ‘GIGANTIC ACCESS INFLUENCE MACHINE’

How DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist Operations

Image: Abdirahman Sheik MohamudFrontpage, April 20, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

On April 16, 2015 Fox News posted an Associated Press report, “Ohio man accused of traveling to Syria, plotting terror act.” [1]

My focus today will be on the way that the alleged terrorist was provided with United States citizenship and consequently, a United States passport. The adjudications process failed to uncover material facts that would have barred the individual, Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, from becoming a naturalized citizen and hence receive that highly valuable United States passport.

The immigration component of this story and similar stories, has been largely ignored by the media, although the issue about his having immigrated to the United States from Somalia and then becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen was raised in some news reports.

The complete immigration component of this case is extremely important, as you will see — indeed, this element, had it worked as it should have, could have thwarted the ability of this alleged terrorist to have traveled to Syria to join his brother who was killed in combat while fighting on the side of terrorists. This is why I frequently make the point that our borders and our immigration laws are our first and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.

While the Fox News headline simply identified Mohamud as being an “Ohio man” the body of the article did provide solid information about his country of birth and his having become a naturalized citizen, unlike many other news reports that were content to simply describe the alleged terrorist as simply being “An Ohio Man.”

Here is how the Fox News news report began:

COLUMBUS, Ohio – An Ohio man traveled to Syria and trained alongside terrorists, then returned to the U.S. with plans to attack a military base or a prison, according to a federal indictment announced Thursday.

Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, a U.S. citizen originally from Somalia, wanted to “kill three or four American soldiers execution style,” according to the indictment. Attacking the prison was part of a backup plan if that didn’t work, the charges said.

The indictment also says Mohamud’s brother, Abdifatah Aden, fought with Jabhat al-Nusrah, a State Department-designated terrorist group, until he was killed in battle in Syria in June 2014.

Mohamud, 23, of Columbus was charged with supporting terrorism, supporting the same terrorist group and making a false statement involving international terrorism when he allegedly lied to an Ohio FBI agent by saying he was in Istanbul when authorities say he was in Syria.

Here is critical bit information contained in the report:

Mohamud became a U.S. citizen in February 2014, according to the government.

The government didn’t say how it learned of the plot, but the indictment mentions two “unnamed” associates of Mohamud in the U.S. to whom he gave information about his activities, including a video of Mohamud carrying an AK-47.

One of them said he believed Mohamud was trying to recruit him to participate in the plot, according to the indictment. The government also said Mohamud made terrorism-related Facebook posts in 2013.

An April 16, 2015 New York Post article. “ISIS-trained Ohio man was ordered to attack US: feds [2]” pinned down the nexus between Mohamud becoming a United States citizen and his departure for the Middle East in these paragraphs:

An Ohio man who left the US a year ago to train with Islamic State jihadists was nabbed by the feds Thursday for allegedly plotting to unleash terror in the country, authorities said.

Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, 23, of Columbus, left in April 2014 — two months after becoming a naturalized citizen —to train and fight with the extremists in Syria, the Justice Department said, ABC News reported.

Islamic State wannabe Mohamud — who has posted the group’s propaganda online — was charged with providing material support to al Nusrah, an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, according to the feds.

The jihadists trained him in shooting, home break-ins, explosives and hand-to-hand combat, authorities said. He was then ordered to return to the US and commit a terror act, an indictment said.

He returned in June 2014.

A review of his indictment [3] will dispel any doubts (should any exist) as to whether or not Mohamud made acquiring United States citizenship and a U.S. passport an integral part of his plans, you need to review in which it is alleged that he had communicated with his brother Aden who asked him how his “papers” were coming along. He responded by saying that, having obtained his U.S. citizenship, he was waiting to receive his U.S. passport before traveling to meet Aden. The indictment states that Aden was killed in combat in Syria in June 2014.

When disclosures were made about the NSA spying on Americans the argument was made that this was done to protect our citizens and our nation. I am cautiously supportive of appropriate measures, within reason, being taken to protect us, however, for the NSA to scrutinize U.S. citizens, yet apparently failing to uncover the postings of the alleged terrorist in this case, raises many serious questions.

If the NSA did have this information, was it shared with the DHS?

The indictment states that Mohamud was posting material online about his desire to carry out terror attacks in 2013. How did USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services), an agency that is under the aegis of the DHS, conduct its investigation into his application to become a naturalized American citizen at least six months later and then approve that application?

Back when I was an INS Special Agent, applications for naturalization required that a GMC (Good Moral Conduct) investigation was conducted to determine that the alien not only had no criminal convictions but also met other, more stringent standards. Today our government makes a big deal about running fingerprints to verify criminal histories.

A critical question is whether or not any GMC field investigations are still being conducted by USCIS. Indeed, how are applications for citizenship vetted? The likelihood is that there are no such field investigations being conducted. Even without knowing about the FaceBook postings noted in the indictment, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that individuals who know Mohamud would have potentially raised some questions about his hostility to the United States.

Let’s in fact consider the obvious in this specific case: Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud immigrated to the United States from Somalia, a country that has a strong association with terrorist organizations. In point of fact, there have been a succession of reports of young members of the Somali community, from Minnesota and elsewhere, abruptly leaving the United States to join terror groups in the Middle East. At the time he applied for naturalization Mohamud was in his early twenties, an age often shared by terrorists. USCIS adjudicates hundreds of thousands of applications for naturalization each and every year and consequently there is an abject lack of resources available to thoroughly screen each application.

However given the ongoing concerns about terrorism, it would certainly seem that applications filed by those who may be prone to involvement with terrorism should come under extra scrutiny including an actual field investigation.

There is ample justification for such investigation. The USCIS Policy Manual, contains specific guidelines about how the naturalization process is to be conducted. The obvious question hopefully that will be asked at a hearing that should be conducted by Congress is whether or not USCIS is meeting these standards. The consequences can, as we have seen, be of grave significance.

***

Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.

Read more