By Patrick Poole:
Tonight’s episode of For The Record investigates a series of policies established by the Obama Administration during 2011-2012 that effectively neutered FBI counter-terrorism training and blinded our nation’s intelligence agencies to the threat from Islamic terrorism.
In what some experts have termed a hostile “political warfare campaign” driven by an alliance between the administration, Islamic organizations and cooperating media figures, analysts and subject matter experts were blacklisted, and books and training materials were purged from official counter-terrorism training programs government-wide.
This “purge” has contributed to clues being missed by the FBI in major terrorism cases, including last year’s bombing of the Boston Marathon recounted this past September in an episode of For The Record:
One of the first indicators of these efforts was the cancellation of an anti-terrorism conference scheduled for August 10-12, 2011 hosted by the CIA’s Threat Management Unit.
As reported by veteran Pentagon reporter Bill Gertz at the Washington Times, the conference was cancelled at the demand of Islamic groups who objected to presentations that were to be conducted by former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst and international law expert Stephen Coughlin (who is featured in tonight’s episode) and Steve Emerson of The Investigative Project on Terrorism. An email sent to conference registrants explained that the Department of Homeland Security would be formulating new guidelines for vetting speakers and screening presentation content.
The cancellation of the CIA terrorism conference was followed in September 2011 by a series of articles by far-Left blogger Spencer Ackerman at WIRED Magazine that claimed counter-terrorism trainers and materials used by the FBI were promoting “Islamophobia.” One of Ackerman’s targets was books in the library at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, that he deemed offensive. It should be noted that as a general rule banning books in government-funded libraries is considered rank censorship.
While a number of claims made by Ackerman in his series of articles were later found to be manifestly false, inside U.S. government agencies individuals targeted by Ackerman’s articles were prohibited from speaking publicly in defense of themselves and their work and “The Purge” continued apace.
Then in October 2011, a remarkable series of events dramatically shifted U.S. government policies largely fueled by Ackerman’s reporting.
The first event was the circulation by Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to government agencies of a list of “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’ts.” Among those targeted in the DHS training ban were what the document called “self-professed ‘Muslim reformers,’” who the agency warned “may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased information.”
Among other “don’ts” declared by DHS was this warning:
Don’t use training that relies on fear or conspiracies to motivate law enforcement. Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include…Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations who true desire is to establish Sharia law in America.
Remarkably, some of the very organizations that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties had partnered with had been identified by the Justice Department as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007 and 2008, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). At the time these guidelines were published, the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Majid, was serving on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.
Not only had the Justice Department named these organizations as unindicted co-conspirators during the trial, but federal prosecutors had outline in court documents that these organizations were integral parts of an international conspiracy to funnel money to the terrorist group HAMAS. In one Justice Department filing, prosecutors noted that “numerous exhibits were entered into evidence establishing both ISNA’s and NAIT’s intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, and the defendants in this case.”
In another filing they observed:
ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with HLF than just a parent organization. They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financing support to HAMAS. Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support HAMAS with “media, money and men.” Govt. Exh. 3-15. The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP [Islamic Association for Palestine], and the UASR [United Association for Studies and Research]. CAIR was later added to these organizations. Govt. Exh. 3-78 (listing IAP, HLF, UASR and CAIR as part of the Palestine Committee, and stating that there is “[n]o doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide…”). The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF’s particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS’ organization inside the Palestinian terrories. (p. 13, emphasis added)
During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):
The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)
Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15)
One of the architects of the new DHS guidelines was Mohamed Elibiary, who served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, was appointed in October 2010 by Secretary Janet Napolitano to the Homeland Security Advisory Council and is now a senior fellow for the agency, who has publicly admitted to his role in developing the DHS guidelines. Unsurprisingly, he was a regular source for WIRED’s Spencer Ackerman.
Much more at The Blaze
Patrick Poole is a counter-terrorism and national security consultant for TheBlaze. You can follow him (@pspoole) on Twitter.
The Republican Party has long identified itself itself as the party of National Security. When the conservative movement has agents of influence like Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan in their high level ranks it is a personal assault on the GOP.
By Alan Kornman:
The buzz on the floor among CPAC 2014 attendees was the virtual absence of National Security issues being debated or discussed. During the three day conference John Bolton was the only speaker to address national security in depth. There were two breakout sessions that tested the perimeter of national security issues but that was it for CPAC.
CPAC 2014 had a total of 57 events on the schedule during the three day conference. Only 3 of those events discussed some national security issues.
Perhaps, current events surrounding the Ukraine, Crimea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Vladimir Putin, China, Russia, Venezuela, Islamic terrorism and expansionism, North Korea, Benghazi, Extortion 17, and our porous southern borders are not important enough national security issues for CPAC 2014 and the ACU Board of Directors.
Or, are there two or more individuals inside the American Conservative Union(ACU) successfully navigating the CPAC agenda away from national security issues – that will be for you to decide
American Foreign Policy Ignored At CPAC 2014
The American Conservative Union(ACU) positions itself as the oracle for conservative ideological issues important to conservative voters via the CPAC agenda. Why was CPAC not scheduling, at a minimum, one third of its agenda categorizing the failures of President Obama’s foreign policy and the threats to our nation.
This absurd notion floated by John Kerry that President Obama’s paralyzing weakness makes him strong while Putin’s takeover of the Crimea makes him weak is profoundly troubling. Daniel Greenfield sums it up nicely, “ Invading countries is an act of weakness. Being unable to do anything about it is an inaction of strength.”
Now lets turn our eyes to four Middle Eastern failures by the Obama Administration that were spiked from the CPAC 2014 agenda.
Egypt – President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi ousting long time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. When the Egyptian people voted out Mr. Morsi, President Obama stood and still stands with the Muslim Brotherhood, ceding most all of our past Egyptian influence into the hands of Vladimir Putin.
The new Egyptian government declared The Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, while Pres. Obama keeps political channels open with the Brotherhood further alienating the new Egyptian government. The ACU should be demanding Pres. Obama declare The Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Syria – President Obama sides with the ‘Syrian Rebels’ who are populated by various Al-Qaeda tied groups and The Muslim Brotherhood. Pres. Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists again. Pres. Obama ultimate folly was his famous shifting red line nearly drawing the USA into another Islamic civil war. Mr. Putin came to Pres. Obama’s rescue and brokered the ‘non-invasion’ and Syria is off the front pages. Vladimir Putin was playing chess and secured the warm water Syrian port of Tartus and cemented Russians long term influence in Syria. President Obama however, was playing checkers and America achieved nothing other than embarrassment on the world stage.
Iran – President Obama lifted partial sanctions on Iran if they open their nuclear production sites to inspections and stop their pursuit of weapons grade plutonium. The Mullah’s of Iran say they will keep up construction on the Arak heavy water plant, when operational, will produce plutonium. President Obama reacts by releasing hundreds of millions of dollars of Iranian assets. If Iran builds or buys a tactical nuke and threatens the free world, the dangerous geopolitical world as we know it, radically changes for the worse.
Israel – President Obama is pressuring Israel to recede to its 1967 borders and the formation of contiguous Palestinian State between the West Bank and Gaza. This two state option would leave Israel geographically incapable of defending her borders. Pres. Obama should be demanding the Muslim Brotherhood Hamas Palestinians and the West Bank Palestinians accept Israel’s unconditional right to exist and take all references to Israel’s destruction out of their respective charters, as a starting point for negotiations. However, President Obama is siding with The Muslim Brotherhood again as he did in Egypt and Syria.
These four national security issues plus homegrown Islamic terrorism should have front and center on the CPAC 2014 agenda. Why weren’t they you ask? For the answer to this question, all roads lead back to two individuals at the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Florida Rep. Allen West, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, former chief assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, and Frank Gaffney are putting their substantive knowledge of national security that this information on Norquist/Khan cannot be suppressed, ignored, or mischaracterized as it has been to date. The information these experts above are referring to is Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan’s documented ties to The Muslim Brotherhood and other convicted Islamic terrorists. (See Center For Security Policies 51 Page Report)
Suhail Kahn is an acting Board member of American Conservative Union.
Suhail Kahn, on video, declares that he has “devoted his life to the Ummah, the Muslim Nation’ ‘What are our oppressors going to do with people like us who love death more than they love life?”
Mr. Kahn has publicly acknowledged his parents’ leadership role in organizations that have been identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups, namely the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Student Association(MSA).
In June of 2001, at an American Muslim Council event Mr. Kahn personally thanked convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi as someone, “who have been helping me keep going…and for being very supportive of me.”
At CPAC 2011 Suhail Kahn denied on camera The Muslim Brotherhood exists. At CPAC 2014 he admitted there is a Muslim Brotherhood but he doesn’t know much about them.
At CPAC 2011 David Horowitz said, “Suhail Khan’s failure to disassociate himself from his parents’ movement (The Muslim Brotherhood) is instructive: Horowitz went on to say, “When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses. This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.”
At a 1999 ISNA Convention Suhail Khan articulated his heartfelt identity which in and of itself should cause great concern to the ACU. Suhail Khan said, “Our freedoms, my dear brothers and sisters, are under attack…And those rights must be defended with all the determination, all the resources, all the unyielding vigilance of the believing mujahid. That is the spirit of Islam. The mark of the Muslim.”
Mujahid is singular for Mujahideen which translates as a follower of Islam who struggles in the path of Allah. The word is from the same Arabic triliteral root as Jihad. Mujahideen has been closely associated with radical Islam, encompassing several militant groups and struggles.
Grover Norquist also has documented ties to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi provided seed money for Norquist’s Islamic Institute which shares space with his Americans For Tax Reform. Norquist was instrumental in getting the terrorist Alamoudi access to a White House prayer service after the 9/11/2001 attacks.
Mr. Norquist “served as a key facilitator between Al-Arian, Alamoudi and the White House. … In June 2001, Al-Arian was among the members of the American Muslim Council invited to the White House complex. … The next month, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom—a civil liberties group headed by Al-Arian—gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases.” (Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.)
The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) agenda is determined by the American Conservative Union(ACU).”
Sami Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ‘to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law.
For a window into Mr. Norquist’s core beliefs, he used Americans for Tax Reform to circulate a petition in support of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. The Ground Zero Mosque was the failed multi million dollar mega Mosque project a block away from the fallen twin towers on 9/11/2001.
In 2004, at age 48, Mr. Norquist married a Palestinian Muslim name Samah Alrayyes. Ms. Alrayyes-Norquist was the Director of the Islamic Free Market Institute which was connected financially to convicted terrorist Abduraham Alamoudi and founded by Grover Norquist.
Read more at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog
By quirk of fate or chance, while the world holds its breath over the crisis in Ukraine, while Washington stumbles toward the centenary of the First World War, Americans who are mindful that “Peace Through Strength” is the best way to avoid war, are meeting in a National Security Action Summit in Washington, D.C. at the Westin Hotel on March 6. We are concerned that not only Democrats, but Republicans too, have lost their way and are insufficiently focused on national security.
In the words of a flyer for the National Security Action Summit:
“A star studded panel of the world’s foremost experts in national security take the stage for a series of candid discussions. Hear from Vice President Dick Cheney, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Ambassador John Bolton, former Attorney General John Mukasey and many, many more. Also streaming live on www.HomelandThreats.com experts will analyze critical aspects of our national security and the lack of leadership provided by our elected officials in mitigating threats to our nation. This event is brought to you FREE by EMPact America and co-sponsored by Breitbart. For more information visit http://www.HomelandThreats.com”;
Ukraine A Global Crisis
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine starkly highlights that Washington is asleep at the wheel of America’s national security–with dangerous consequences for the entire world. If Ukraine falls and is re-conquered by the New Russian Empire, or becomes again a Russian satellite, the consequences for European and global stability are momentous and ominous.
Ukraine is the largest nation in Eastern Europe, a country as large as France, a geostrategically crucial territory that has been a pathway for invasions and the crossroads of armies during two world wars and throughout history.
If Ukraine is annexed or becomes again part of Moscow’s sphere, the Russian frontier will again directly confront NATO in central Europe. And the new NATO member states in Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland are no match for the Russian Army. Nor are the traditional NATO member states of Western Europe what they were during the Cold War. They are no match for the modernized Russian Army.
Now that the U.S. has dismantled virtually all of its tactical nuclear weapons, and under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) conceded a virtual monopoly of some 3,000-8,000 tactical nuclear weapons to Moscow, Russia is arguably the world’s only remaining military superpower.
Beyond Europe, if Ukraine falls, it will be a green light for aggression throughout the world by China, North Korea, Iran and other rogue states whose territorial aspirations, support of terrorism and other dangerous behavior has been checked by the credibility of U.S. military power and leadership.
President Barak Obama as commander in chief, and his slavishly obedient Democrat Party that blindly follows his lead everywhere, are primarily to blame for the steep decline in U.S. credibility that has contributed to the debacle in Ukraine.
President Obama and the Democrats have deeply slashed the defense budget, hollowing out the U.S. military and greatly reducing readiness. President Obama has already reduced the U.S. Navy to its smallest size since 1915 and plans to shrink the U.S. Army to its numbers in 1940–which unimpressive military posture tempted Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany to attack the United States in 1941.
Today, the U.S. could not perform the military miracles that were the First and Second Persian Gulf Wars.
President Obama and the Democrats have so neglected the U.S. nuclear deterrent that its credibility is in doubt. The numbers of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons slashed under New START will not support even the minimum deterrent required for Mutual Assured Destruction. Instead, Russia under New START not only continues to have an Assured Destruction capability against the United States, but also enough strategic weapons to launch a disarming first strike, as well as the virtual monopoly on tactical nuclear weapons noted above.
Never before in history has Moscow been allowed to capture overall superiority in the nuclear balance.
Today, the United States does not enjoy the numerical and technological advantages in the nuclear balance that, during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, made Moscow blink. Indeed, the balance of nuclear firepower is now reversed to heavily favor Russia.
Moreover, President Obama and the Democrats appear to have no real understanding that the nuclear deterrent is America’s ultimate weapon, the most formidable and ultimate guarantor of U.S. security and that of our allies. Minuteman missileers and strategic bomber crews are deeply demoralized under a commander in chief who does not grasp the importance of their mission. Mistakes are being made by missile and bomber crews. The general in charge of Minuteman intercontinental missiles has been fired for drunkenness.
The Republicans are to blame too.
Many of us who have dedicated our professional lives to national security have been urging congressional Republicans and the party to use their bully pulpits to educate the American people about the threats, to hold hearings and press conferences and use every opportunity to rally the people to support national defense. National security used to be the strongest pillar of the Republican Party.
But we are being told the people are war weary and do not care about national security issues any more. Too many Republicans want to hunker down, keep a low profile from a hostile press, and hope that ObamaCare will destroy the Democrats and bring Republicans back to power by default.
Why have Republicans in Congress failed to hold high-profile hearings on the following?
In 2013, Russia conducted a major military exercise, ZAPAD-13, that simulated an invasion of NATO member states, including a nuclear strike on Poland.
In 2013, China broadcast on television and in state-run media a documentary on how the Peoples Liberation Army would wage nuclear war against the United States, describing in detail how they plan nuclear strikes on cities and fallout patterns designed to kill millions of Americans.
In 2013, U.S. experts and Israeli analysts warned that Iran probably already has nuclear weapons–that it is too late to stop Tehran from building the Islamic Bomb.
Last but not least, over the past two years, I warned senior members of Congress about Russia’s designs on Ukraine, and urged them to rally support for imprisoned U.S. ally Yulia Tymoshenko, former Ukrainian Prime Minister, and for the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to live in freedom.
Imagine if House Republicans made a cause celebre of Yulia Tymoshenko and Ukrainian self-determination. Perhaps the Obama Administration would have been emboldened to be more assertive about Ukrainian independence and non-interference from Moscow. Perhaps the current crisis might have been avoided. Who knows? Now we shall never know.
Read more: Family Security Matters
This is an excellent review of Patrick Poole’s important piece published last June,
BLIND TO TERROR: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S DISASTROUS MUSLIM OUTREACH EFFORTS AND THE IMPACT ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY
FrontPage, by Arnold Ahlert on June 5, 2013
As the Obama administration seeks to move beyond a welter of scandals, a new report by investigative journalist Patrick Poole reveals that the frenzy isn’t quite over yet. On top of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the DOJ’s seizure of reporters’ phone records and the coverup surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the White House’s years-long collaboration with supporters of terrorism is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. Poole’s comprehensive GLORIA Center article, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” details the Obama administration’s extensive relationship with accomplices to terrorism and how these associations have shaped administration policy — and endangered the American public in the process. As Middle East expert Barry Rubin commented on the report, “[Y]ou may think that you know this story — but it is far more extensive than has ever before been revealed.”
The primary question at the heart of Poole’s report is simple:
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations ‘moderates’ and embraced them as outreach partners?
Many of the individuals under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy during the last three administrations. Under the Obama administration, these same Islamist organizations and their leaders have influenced vital policy measures, including a purge of counter-terrorism training that makes it virtually impossible for law enforcement officials “to connect the dots.”
For example, Poole cites the failure of the FBI to carry out an investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, despite Russian warnings. He attributes a portion of that failure to
a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the bureau and throughout the U.S. government under the Obama administration against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.
This regime of “political correctness” (to put it charitably) is no doubt a function of the Obama administration’s choice of Muslim “outreach partners,” which is rife with individuals like Shaykh Kifah Mustapha. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) extended an invitation to Mustapha to tour its top-secret facility in September 2010, as part of the FBI’s civilian training program, despite the fact that he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That trial represents the largest terrorist financing case in history. During the trial, an FBI agent testified that Mustapha undertook fundraising efforts for Hamas, glorified the terrorist group, and encouraged the slaughter of Jews. Furthermore, the visit also followed Mustapha’s previous removal as a chaplain for the Illinois State Police, due to media reports of his terrorist activities.
The same reckless discounting of radicalism and terror ties can be found at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where Janet Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010, despite his honoring Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini at a 2004 conference, and his open support for Islamist godfather Sayyid Qutb. In 2010, Mohamed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was sitting a few feet from Obama at the annual White House Iftar dinner in August, commemorating the Muslim celebration of Ramadan. ISNA was also cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).
The terrorist connections of Muslim aid programs and their financiers have also been scrupulously ignored. The Obama administration continues to fund the Sunni Ittehad Council to combat Pakistani extremism, despite rallies it held celebrating the assassination of a Pakistani governor opposed to the nation’s use of blasphemy laws to punish religious minorities.
Poole also cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who transition into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Louay Safi is one such individual. Safi, a former top advisor at the Pentagon, appeared at a 2011 press conference in Istanbul as one the leaders of the Syrian National Council, which seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad and is associated with the Brotherhood. That appearance occurred only weeks after Safi met with top White House officials. Safi was yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. According to Poole, Safi’s status at the Pentagon became an issue following the Fort Hood atrocity, “when 13 members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates complaining that not only was Safi endorsing Muslim chaplains for the Defense Department on behalf of ISNA [a Muslim Brotherhood front], but also teaching classes on the ‘Theology of Islam’ to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss under a subcontract with the Naval Postgraduate School.”
Five other men made a similar transformation. Ghassan Hitto, a Dallas businessman, former director of CAIR’s Texas branch, and a recent board member of the Muslim American Society that the FBI has identified as a North American “arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, has become “the provision premier of the Syrian resistance.”
Muthanna al-Hanooti is a former CAIR director and a former federal prisoner convicted for doing business with Iraq as part of a plea deal that stemmed from a far more serious indictment accusing him of attempting to influence Congress on behalf of Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (ISI). He is now regional director for the Detroit chapter of the Muslim Legal Fund of America.
Mahmoud Hussein is the current secretary general of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, recruited while studying at the University of Iowa. He was once president of a now defunct subsidiary of ISNA know as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), which sponsored several conferences featuring terrorists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ishaq Farhan, a longtime board member of the Washington-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) now heads the the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Jordan.
Ahmed Yousef was the director of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), identified as early as 1993 as Hamas’s “political command” in America. According to the terror group’s charter, they consider themselves a “wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Yousef, who fled the U.S. in 2005 on terror-realted charges, is currently a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, and a senior political adviser to their terrorist leader, Ismail Haniyeh.
Poole notes that, because so many of the Islamic outreach partners affiliated with the government turned out to be fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, the government is making “extraordinary efforts” to ignore that reality. This self-orchestrated denial has led to an incredible policy implemented by the Obama administration, one that was formulated as a result of the FBI’s continued relationship with CAIR, despite its aforementioned status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.
It began with the purge of hundreds of documents and presentations from counterterrorism manuals, leading to the creation of the FBI’s “Touchstone Document.” That document finally codified the Obama administration’s increasingly despicable approach to terror. It articulates a new policy that ought to enrage every American, even as it will undoubtedly endanger us all (emphasis added):
Training must clearly distinguish between constitutionally protected statements and activities designed to achieve political, social, or other objectives, and violent extremism, which is characterized by the use, threatened use, or advocacy of use of force or violence (when directed at and likely to incite imminent lawless activity) in violation of federal law to further a movement’s social or political ideologies. This distinction includes recognition of the corresponding principle that mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).
In other words, if a terrorist group performs any “advocacy” function, such as building a school or a day care center, the FBI cannot “jump to conclusions” about individuals associated with the group, even if it is also perpetrating mass murder. Thus, as Poole notes, the terror support of this administration’s Muslim outreach partners “is absolved with a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.”
The result? “This is why Mohamed Majid, who just a few years before was treated as a pariah by the Attorney General of the United States after federal prosecutors named his organization as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, can just a few short years later not only be rehabilitated, but can regularly be found–much as al-Qa’ida fundraiser Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi who preceded him–a frequent visitor to the White House,” writes Poole.
Poole then goes on to reveal a parade of “rehabilitated” terrorists and their organizations that have been, and will continue to be, welcomed into the country by the Obama administration. These include people like Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, who visited the White House in 2012 to demand the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Sudanese war criminal Nafie Ali Nafie, the architect of two genocides in that nation, also got the red carpet treatment, receiving an invitation to the State Department as part of a Sudanese delegation.
Poole further reveals that such monstrous accommodation begets an even more insidious downside. “No sooner had the White House’s new outreach policy been announced, when it became clear that one of the policy outcomes of this relationship was the administration’s enforcement of a blacklist of subject matter experts deemed ‘enemies’ by their Muslim partners,” he writes. Coupled with the “Islamophobic” purge of law enforcement training manuals, the Obama administration began fully embracing this Alice in Wonderland approach to terror, best described as one that allows enemies of the United States to help us decide who our enemies are — and who they aren’t.
Poole uses a quote by Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, to encapsulate the insidiousness of this policy. “I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims…And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award,” McCarthy writes. “Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind.”
It is far worse than that. When five members of Congress led by the retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to ascertain the level of Islamic infiltration into the government of the United States, members of both political parties, along with the media, excoriated their efforts to protect the American public. Their ire was further stoked by the group’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family, despite the reality that her mother, brother and deceased father are/were members of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate organization, the Muslim Sisterhood. Ironically, given the parameters of the Touchstone Document, it would now likely be irrelevant if Huma Abedin herself belonged to either branch of the organization.
Yet as this extensive investigation by Poole reveals, Bachmann, et al., have not only been vindicated, they may have underestimated the problem. It remains to be seen if Congress, already up to its necks in administration scandals, will be willing to take this one on as well. As the atrocity in Boston indicates, American lives literally depend on it.
Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at email@example.com.
- U.S. Lifts Ban on Immigrants With Links to Terrorism by Clare Lopez
To the savvy analyst of Muslim culture, Obama’s immigration policy is clearly supporting the Islamic jihad agenda and helping to transplant jihadists’ activities in a new unsuspecting land.
By Nonie Darwish:
President Obama has unilaterally changed the immigration law to allow asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists, to immigrate to the US. This is happening at a time when force is being used in Egypt — and elsewhere in the Middle East — against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, terrorists and their sympathizers. This is a time when Islamists have few places to go to in the wide-open desert atmosphere of the Middle East, except perhaps to join the mess in Syria and Iraq, or otherwise reform and become ordinary citizens.
Obama could not have picked a worse time to ease immigration requirements for those linked to terror, and who have nowhere else to go and have suddenly found themselves, after the counter-revolution in Egypt, as targets for imprisonment, contempt, or even shooting.
Islamists are now undoubtedly celebrating Obama’s decision to ease the pressure on immigration of terror-linked individuals. Indeed, where else can they go to practice their fanaticism and find newly found respectability and hospitality? To America.
By weakening immigration laws that protect Americans from Islamic terror, Obama is now sending the wrong message both to his own citizens and to the Muslim world. He is basically saying that he does not mind taking in fleeing terrorists and their sympathizers. And he does not seem to care at all about appearances or if he this casts more suspicion on his reputation, despite the constant rumors we all know about, that he is a secret Muslim and that his brother Malik has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
What is also strange is the US State Department is not welcoming fleeing Christians in the Middle East as they should. Most of the visa applications submitted by the desperate and oppressed Egyptian Christians are denied. It was reported that only about 800 to 900 applications were approved by the US for Christian Egyptian immigrants out of 20,000 applications.
This also comes amidst accusations and rumors in Egypt that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are aiding terrorists and conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. One would think that the US would be happy that the Egyptian government and others are clamping down on radical Muslim groups who are ruining the lives of the ordinary citizens in the Middle East. But instead, the Obama administration changes immigration laws for their “eyes only” to welcome escaping Muslim troublemakers whose activities are now unwelcome in Egypt.
Obama is doing this not only amidst claims that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but he also appears to the Muslim world as responding positively to the radical Sunni Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently called on the US government to wage jihad for Allah, to help support the “freedom fighters,” meaning terrorists, in Syria, and adding that “Allah willing, your [US] aid will increase.” This is the first time in history that a radical Muslim leader publicly asks America to join in the jihad for the sake of Allah.
Read more at Front Page
This is just another step in the ongoing efforts to legitimize what US policy has traditionally defined as terrorism. Remember the FBI Touchstone Document on Guiding principles for counter terrorism training?
mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s)
They are going after our most effective tools for fighting terrorism by changing the defintitions of terrorism and material support for terrorism. We’ve all seen Obama “defining down” al Qaeda and declaring the war on terror to be over. There are ongoing efforts to delegitimize the findings of the Holy Land Foundation trial and don’t be surprised when you see them take Hamas and Hezbollah off the designated terror list.
Please read Clare Lopez’ article from last June to understand the peril we are in:
Listen to Stephen Coughlin discuss this with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:
For background see Jerry Gordon’s article at NER:
The Metcalf Incident: California Power Station Terrorist Attack Reveals Highly Vulnerable National Grid
Jeanine Pirro is helping to get the message out:
And Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney together with EMPact America and the Reserve Officers Association hosted a live webcast on Feb. 6
Ted Cruz: Nuclear Iran greatest national security threat to US:
Woolsey: EMP catastrophe worse than effects of nuclear war:
In the name of the missing Twin Towers and the thousands of victims of this heinous terrorist attack, in the name of the thousands of fallen men and women in the war on terrorism, in the name of the Israelis, who have suffered Islamic terrorism for decades, the United States must have the will to face up to the enemy. The American challenge is to abandon denial, define our enemies, stop appeasement, face the threat, and acquire the will to use all means at our disposal to grant the ultimate wish to those who proclaim that they love death more than we love life.
by JOHN GALT:
Working in the Arab world during the last decade, I have met many Muslims who insisted that they had nothing to do with terrorism. The problem is that they remain silent, in fear of the so-called extremists. They do not publicly condemn terror, and they continue to donate money to the mosques and charities and cover organizations that offer moral and financial support to the terrorist movement. They, just like most Germans during the Nazi regime, do not want to know. In any event, we should not be confused by this silent minority regarding the true nature of Islam, just as the world was not confused about the nature of Nazism because of the small anti-fascist movement inside Germany.
I was in a hotel in Tripoli after the fall of Khadafy, watching Arab TV showing gruesome images of beheadings. A few men were on their knees, blindfolded, with hands tied behind their backs. A young man took a butcher knife and start cutting the neck of the first victim. The executioner did not appear to know what to look for in order to cut through the spine quickly; it took him some time. It was horrific beyond belief! Finally, he found the spot, cut through, and severed the head. A huge crowd of bearded men and boys cheered loudly. I was sick to my stomach. That was the moment I realized the contrast between Muslim extremists and moderate Muslims. The extremists carried out the execution, while the moderates cheered, recording the event on their iPhones and enjoying watching it on TV. We should not be apologetic for judging all of them by the behavior of most of them. The Left’s position on the Muslim threat is inconsistent, immoral, and reprehensible. But that should not surprise us: the Left did not consider Hitler extreme at the time, and supported the proposal to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Left has always had a natural attraction to totalitarian, bloody regimes. They admired Stalin, Mao, and in more recent times Castro, Che Guevara, and Hugo Chavez.
Americans have been in denial about this danger since the early 1970s when the Palestine Liberation Organization began committing terrorist acts against Israelis, but the world was silent because the victims were Jews and we are not Jews. Adding logs to that proverbial fire, the world endorsed and encouraged the terrorists by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to PLO chief terrorist Yasser Arafat. Since then terrorists have taken to Europe, but we are not Europeans; and Asia, but we are not Asians. The evolving history of terrorism is captured well by what German Lutheran Pastor Niemoller wrote about the Nazis:
In Germany they first came for the communists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
They came for the Jews
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade Unionists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Today in the United States, the terrorists are living among us, but the administration still practices appeasement. The president and the former mayor of New York City, with the support of the Left, were perfectly willing to let the Muslims build their Mosque of Triumph in close proximity to the destroyed World Trade Center, just as they built the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after conquering the city in the seventh century.
In Afghanistan, the administration’s policies are just as confusing as on the domestic front. During an interview with Newsweek, the vice president told the magazine, “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical.” If the Taliban is not our enemy, who are our military men and women fighting? And why are they dying in Afghanistan? Can anybody make sense of this? If we do not know who our enemies are, how can we defeat them? As Yogi Berra said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might never get there.” And, we are not.
The first order of making sense is to acknowledge that we are in the age-old struggle between freedom and tyranny, and that the value of human life in the world of Islam is dramatically different from ours. Saddam Hussein said it best: “If you kill a man, you are a murderer; if you kill hundreds, you are a hero; but if you kill thousands, you are a conqueror.” This is the mentality of the other society, where terrorism is an instrument of power. Whether it is a war on terrorism or a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, if we are not prepared to kill thousands, we cannot be respected. Conventional thinking embraces the belief that democratic civilizations are based on humanitarian principles, and those principles separate us from the barbarians. About which Henry Kissinger wrote, “While we should never give up our principles, we must also realize that we cannot maintain our principles unless we survive.”
Read more: Family Security Matters
The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry signed the exemptions.
DHS contends that the law change is “commonsense” and that immigration procedures will remain the same in other respects.
“In addition to rigorous background vetting, including checks coordinated across several government agencies, these exemptions will only be applied on a case-by-case basis after careful review and all security checks have cleared,” the official added. “This exemption process is vital to advancing the U.S. government’s twin goal of protecting the world’s most vulnerable persons while ensuring U.S. national security and public safety.”
Read more at Daily Caller
One must oppose any group and anything that works against one’s right to make choices, in a peaceful and self-determinig manner, and individual Liberty, whether it is Nazi fascism, Stalin’s communism, Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, or Islam and its islamoNazi core doctrines. With this said, it is not “islamophobia” to analyze and discuss Islam’s intolerance, inherent violent nature and the documented facts concerning Islam’s continuous assaults on the West and Islam’s disruption of civilized societies: This is Islamo-Reality.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a growing enemy within our sovereign borders. From its own charter, we have read the very words calling for the destruction of America. Its influence extends throughout the U.S. government and local areas across the nation; and this should greatly trouble everyone, especially in light of the December 23, 2013 bombings in Mansoura, Egypt, historical events preceding this, and Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi’s declaration that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “terrorist organization”, a designation the MB has worn numerous times.
Imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali addressed the Muslim Student Association at UCLA, and at one point he shouted, “I will die to establish Islam in America.”
Today, seventy percent of Egypt’s population desires a government and a constitution based on Sharia law. And yet, after democratically electing Mohammed Morsi and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, they soon rejected MB rule due to the extremely violent measures it employed. Journalists were imprisoned along with Mubarak supporters, and recently an audiotape has indicated that Morsi was cooperating with Al Qaeda in targeting Christians for murder. All of this contributed to “Field Marshall” Sisi, a Mubarak associate, grabbing power and imprisoning Morsi,as the turmoil continues and the violence rages.
Current day Egypt parallels Egypt during the 1950s. Jamal Abd al-Nasser needed the support of the MB leader Hasan Ismail al-Hudaybi to create an Egyptian republic, after seizing power in 1952. In 1954, Nasser refused to fully apply Islamic law, as Hudaybi demanded, and he outlawed the MB on the grounds that they were plotting a counter coup. On October 26, 1954 a member of “The Secret Apparatus”/ al jihaz al-sirri, a MB terrorist unit, shot Nasser at a rally; by the end of November 1954, over 1000 Brothers had been arrested and brought to trial: From their inception, the MB had rejected Nasser’s brand of “true” and “liberal” Islam and secularism, and they embraced violent Sunni fundamentalism and the Theocratic State.
In 1982, Hafez al Assad, Syrian dictator, brutally suppressed a savage revolt by Muslim Brothers in Hama. The MB cut the throats of the families of government workers and Baath Party officials, murdered local policemen and beheaded teachers who insisted on secular education__just as the Groupe Islamique Arme did in Algeria, when these MB allies decapitated seven Catholic monks in 1996. Sound familiar? Just look at Syria’s current situation.
Ask James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, “Just when did the MB become ‘a largely secular’ organization?”
Murfreesboro’s local MB hero, Saleh Sbenaty is closely aligned to Nihad Awad, the terrorist from CAIR, and Jamal Badawi and the movement to force America to submit to Islam. Sbenaty openly supports Hamas. And yet, he fled Syria in 1982. If he believed in the “truth” of Islam so strongly and loved Syria so much, why did he not stand and fight? Some freedom fighter, huh?
Instead of isolating the MB, the Obama administration has taken an unnatural delight in coddling them, because Obama never severed his implanted Islamic sympathy from his childhood days. This partially explains the visa issued to Hani Nour Eldin by the U.S. State Dept in June 2013. Eldin is a member of Gama’a al Islamiyya, the terrorist organization responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and one of five signatories of Osama bin-Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders’, America and Europe. Shouldn’t it be imperative to review the policy protocol that permitted a member of bin-Laden’s jihad front into the White House?
Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott reported three weeks ago that retired General Tom McInerney essentially confirms that the Obama administration has exposed national security information through Huma Abedin. Abedin is Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and she has deep personal and familiy ties with the MB.
John Guandolo, former FBI counter terrorism expert, goes one step further in explanation: “Mr Brennan, now head of the CIA, did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity for the U.S. in Saudi Arabia. He has given them access to the National Security Council, the National Security staff. He has brought known Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operatives into those positions of government.”
The Progressive/Democratic Party mindset, which has enabled MB infiltration of the U.S. government, is of the same nature that allowed Gehad al-Haddad to serve as a top official for the Clinton Foundation, while he simultaneously served as the MB spokesman and advisor to Egyptian President Morsi, from February 2011 until his arrest for inciting violence in September 2013.
Two days after the Boston Marathon bombing, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stated, “It’s very clear to everyone but this administration that radical Islam is at war against us…This administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they are just making wrong decisions for America.”
Interestingly, since September 2013, Al Jazeera and numerous sources, such as the Director of Research at Brookings Doha Center, have alleged that Barack Obama is a “full on member” of the Muslim Brotherhood, and in November 2013, Egyptian lawyers charged Barack and his brother Malik Obama in the International Criminal Court with “crimes against humanity” and many other crimes ranging from murder to “deprivation of physical liberty.” While Malik is accused of funding terrorists in Sudan, Barack Obama is also accused of using the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to provide direct financial support to MB operatives, with Morsi’s complicity.
Obama and his administration have assured a dramatic and accelerated measure of success for the Muslim Brotherhood globally and in America. Whether it is the so-called “refugee” program that is allowing terrorists a cover for entering our nation or Obama’s outright support for the jihadist movements, from Al Qaeda militias in Libya to the MB in Egypt and on to both groups in Syria, this twisted and perverse Middle East policy is unrecognizable as American and is not in the best interest of the U.S. And, in the best light of day, as I recall American lives lost and the Twin Towers collapsing, only one word can possibly describe Obama’s actions___treason.
(Washington, D.C.): The Center for Security Policy has released its report commenting on the recommendations put forward by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies in the wake of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s unauthorized disclosure of vital intelligence programs. The Center’s report, A Critique of the Recommendations by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies, concludes that most of the Review Group’s recommendations for adjustments to NSA intelligence-gathering protocols would be highly detrimental to national security, and offers its own alternative recommendations on striking the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberties in a 21st Century threat environment.
The report – authored by CSP Senior Fellows and former Central Intelligence Agency officers Fred Fleitz and Clare M. Lopez – in part consists of the following observations/recommendations:
- The Review Group’s recommendations on the NSA metadata program would eviscerate an important counterterrorism program and create real privacy concerns. The President should instead work with the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on new legislation to bolster these capabilities.
- The Review Group’s notion of extending U.S. privacy rights to non-U.S. persons outside the United States and barring intelligence agencies from collection against foreign persons based on their religious or political beliefs should be categorically rejected on national security grounds.
- The Review Group’s recommendation to add additional layers of bureaucracy to the intelligence collection process would greatly slow down that process and create new security concerns.
- The Review Group’s recommendations to add additional privacy officials to the intelligence-gathering process are a solution in search of a problem, and would overlap the existing Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
- While making the NSA Director a Senate-confirmed post is long overdue and will help restore public confidence, the Review Group’s other recommendations for NSA organizational reform are unnecessary steps that would interfere with NSA effectiveness.
- The Review Group’s recommendations barring US intelligence agencies from cracking internet encryption methods or penetrating computer software would greatly undermine critical intelligence collection. Terrorist communications and software must be maintained as legitimate targets for the NSA.
- The pursuit of international norms or agreements to prohibit cyberwarfare or industrial espionage is unrealistic and will be disregarded by adversary nations which will take advantage of such self-imposed restraint.
- Most of the Review Group’s proposals on security clearance reform are supportable in principle, but require further study by an intelligence clearance task force.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, commented: “It is highly unfortunate that in response to Edward Snowden’s actions, this Review Group – convened by President Obama – is advocating measures that will fundamentally interfere with vital US intelligence operations, as the Center’s Fred Fleitz and Clare Lopez make alarmingly clear in their report. The threats our nation continues to face demand an empowered and agile intelligence capability with appropriate oversight by Congress, and it is our hope that President Obama’s response to his Review Group’s report will reflect an understanding of that need, rather than a capitulation to those whose real agenda is to weaken America’s capacity for self-defense.”
The full Center for Security Policy report is available here:http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NSA_report.pdf
Report and Recommendations of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies is available here:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf
Full coverage in the Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com/altering-nsa-surveillance-programs-would-interfere-with-vital-intelligence-operations/
As al Qaeda raises its black flag of jihad over parts of Iraq liberated from its clutches at the cost of enormous American blood and treasure, we are getting a taste of what President Obama’s serial national security fraud is wreaking around the world.
Remember back in the 2012 campaign when he told us, repeatedly, that al Qaeda was “on the path to defeat”? That was a deliberate fraud, meant to shore up his Commander-in-Chief credentials at a time when he (wrongly) thought they might properly be seriously challenged by Republican Mitt Romney.
Remember when the jihadists’ flag was flown over the U.S. embassy in Cairo and accompanied the murderous sacking of two American facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? These events were symptomatic of our nation’s perceived weakness – a perception that is, as Donald Rumsfeld says, “provocative.” (The failure of the Republican leadership in the House to hold the Obama administration accountable for such outrages – or even to establish the truth about the latter – is the subject of a scorching letter from conservative leaders, families of the fallen and others delivered on Monday.)
Remember when Mr. Obama assured us that there were “moderates” among the Syrian opposition and that we should bomb their enemy, Bashar Assad, to punish him and, presumably, with a view to bringing them to power. As a practical matter, the only people who count among the “rebels” are Islamists, whose supremacist shariah doctrine requires them inevitably to seek our destruction.
The same goes for Assad’s Shiite backers in Iran and Hezbollah. They hate the Sunnis of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, like al Qaeda. But they are perfectly willing to make common cause against us whenever the opportunity presents itself. Think 9/11.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. We have been repeatedly deceived by Team Obama about the nature of the enemy we face. And our Islamist enemies have only grown more formidable, more numerous, on the march in more places and more emboldened by what they rightly see as our submission.
What is especially worrisome is that the wages of the ineptitude – or worse – of American leaders in the face of such threats are immensely increased by the fact that scarcely any among them are even aware that we face yet another kind of jihad: the stealthy type the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”
Read more at Center For Security Policy
WASHINGTON, DC– Today the Center for Security Policy released a web ad and email campaign entitled, “Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud,” featuring former federal prosecutor, National Review columnist and bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy.
The Center’s campaign focuses on what it calls “Obama’s national security fraud” and makes parallels from the president’s misrepresentations on Obamacare to our nation’s defense and security. The text Americans are urged to send to Obama, declares, boldly, that “We, the people, refuse to be lied to, especially about our national security. Too much is at stake – our children, our country, our lives. Your promises about health care and other domestic issues have seriously damaged your credibility.”
Transcript: Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud
Can we afford to leave national security to a president accused of fraud and repeatedly lying to the American public?
McCarthy: “‘You want your plan, you keep your plan’ is just the beginning. We’re talking about serial fraud on multiple levels…”
Now, he’s rushing to make a deal to leave Iran with nuclear weapons that Israel warns will make the entire world more dangerous and unstable. After what he did to healthcare, America cannot risk the same Obama train wreck… on national security.
- Former Federal Prosecutor: Obama is guilty of SERIAL FRAUD (therightscoop.com)
- Top US Lawyer: Obama Is Guilty of Serial Fraud – Impeachment Is a Remedy (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
American Betrayal 2.0 (counterjihadreport.com)
Welcome to Appeasement in Geneva (counterjihadreport.com)
by FRANK GAFFNEY:
On October 15th, our military personnel will receive their paychecks as usual, thanks to a last-minute act of Congress passed in spite of the government shutdown affecting much of the rest of the government.
But our servicemen and women are being paid to work in a military that is rapidly being hollowed out to the point where it may be incapable of winning the nation’s wars. The federal government will not be shut down for long. The same can’t be said of those we expect to keep us safe and free.
In fact, the “fundamental” transformation promised by candidate Barack Obama in 2008 is arguably manifesting itself most dramatically in the systematic dismantling of our military capabilities. It has lately become so severe that, on September 18th, the nation’s senior officers testified to Congress that the armed services are at risk of being unable to meet even this administration’s sharply scaled-back requirements.
Recall that the President had justified the first nearly half a trillion dollars he cut from the defense budget by claiming that we no longer needed to be able to fight two wars nearly simultaneously. But at least they were supposed to be able to win one.
But now, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if the sequestration process is permitted to continue to reduce Pentagon budgets over the next ten years by another half a trillion dollars, the uniformed leaders of three of the four services say they will not be able to execute even a one-war mission. And the Marine Commandant says his would have difficulty in doing so.
These dire predictions are the predictable – and predicted – results of both the sheer magnitude of the cuts themselves, compounded by the inherent, across-the-board nature of the sequestration mechanism. Insult is added to injury by the fact that the Pentagon has to bear a wildly disproportionate percentage of government-wide sequestration reductions: fifty percent of the total, even though defense represents just twenty percent of federal expenditures.
At present, every aspect of the military budget except for compensation for military personnel – including, in particular, training, operations and maintenance, procurement and research and development – is being ravaged.
What is more, regardless of the outcome of the fights over Obamacare this week, and raising the debt ceiling later this month, the structural damage resulting from the defense budget cuts to the nation’s industrial base is becoming increasingly irreparable.
The production line for the Free World’s only large military air transport aircraft, the C-17, is the latest to be threatened with termination. As with the supply chains associated with other critical weapon systems and components – from fighter aircraft to combatant warships to armored vehicles – we are seeing disruptions and, in some cases, the outright elimination of the required manufacturing capacity, especially among second- and third-tier subcontractors. Over time, such short-sighted behavior will tremendously compound the impact of the other reductions in the military’s resources and make any comeback that much more problematic.
Read more at Breitbart
Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence says gov’t shutdown “seriously damages” nat’l security and is ideal for foreign intelligence to recruit.
BY RYAN MAURO:
The U.S. national security apparatus is loudly warning about its weakened state in the wake of the government shut-down that began October 1. Personnel considered to be “necessary to protect against immigrant threat[s]” remain at work, but are overburdened.
The government shutdown has caused 800,000 federal workers to be furloughed, or sent home without pay until further notice. President Obama signed a bill ensuring that military personnel will continue to be paid.
Reuters reports that the precise affect on active intelligence operations is unknown because that information is classified, but “…among the types of activities likely to be cut back as a result of the furloughs are strategic planning and analyses and some ‘foreign liaison’ activities.”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says it “seriously damages” national security and is making a “dreamland for foreign intelligence to recruit, especially as our employees, already subject to furloughs driven by sequestration, will have even greater financial challenges.”
Adversaries wishing to spy on the U.S. often try to bribe individuals with access to classified information and take advantage of the target’s financial stress. Large amounts of cash are offered in exchange for secrets. From that point on, blackmail can be used to ensure the target’s future cooperation.
Clapper claims that 72% of the intelligence community’s civilian employees have been furloughed because they qualify as “non-essential.” The only employees permitted to work during a government shutdown are those who are “necessary to protect against imminent threat to life and property.”
“The fraction of Intelligence Community employees who remain on the job will be stretched to the limit and forced to focus only on the most critical security needs,” said DNI spokesman Shawn Turner.
Read more at The Clarion Project