CAIR SEEKS NON-VIOLENT SHARIA CENSORSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Muslim group attacks “American Sniper,” demands Eastwood and Cooper denounce fictional “islamophobia”

american-sniper-bradley-cooper-640x480

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Jan. 6, 2015

One of the foundational principles of the Bush Doctrine was and is the oft-repeated dictum, “You are either with us or against us.” Little did President Bush know that the American Muslim community was…against us.

George Bush believed that the moderates in the Muslim world would denounce and destroy the devout (that is, the “radicals”). He was expecting a war within Islam that never actually took place. Imagine Bush’s dismay when he discovered that no one was behind him, like John Belushi in Animal House when he goes running out the front door shouting, “Who’s with me?!?,” only to discover that he is utterly alone.

The faked hate narrative that Muslim groups and leaders use is now the default talking point any time that jihad — or patriotism, for that matter — is being discussed. If Muslims spent as much time instituting programs in mosques and Islamic centers against jihad recruitment and the jihadic doctrine as they do fighting the myth of “Islamophobia,” the world would be a vastly safer place.

A Muslim-dominated group, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), alleges that Muslims have become targets of “violent threats” because of American Sniper. Nobody believes it. They are demanding that American Sniper director Clint Eastwood and actor Bradley Cooper denounce the alleged hateful language directed at Muslims because of the film.

This it is what they do: victim jihad. When one part of the Muslim world kills, the other half cries victimhood. Whack and whine. It is a distraction to get people to stop talking jihad and instead address their demands.

Apparently, the ADC is claiming that a couple of tweets offended their sensibilities. They want action! More like submission. It’s called free speech, brutes.

Why don’t Muslim groups demand that leaders of the Muslim world, imams, Al Azhar university, et al denounce the hateful, racist, anti-semitic, misogynist, anti-kuffar language in the Qur’an that is responsible for all of these Muslim wars across the world?

The idea that the film “glorifies war and sanitizes [Chris] Kyle,” as the ADC claims, is laughable. The only war talk or war movie that the left enjoys is a war in which the US loses or stands down. The left demands that we hang our heads in shame if we triumph. Which is why American Sniper is such an invigorating breath of fresh air.

As for “sanitizing Kyle,” let’s get real. It is the enemedia and the elites that sanitize jihad and Islam. And they do it every day, in every news story. Hollywood doesn’t just sanitize jihad and Islam; they avoid them at all costs. It is the gravest threat to freedom, and Hollywood pretends that it doesn’t exist.

As my colleague Daniel F. points out:

Now it’s American Muslims who are complaining about ‘violent threats,” allegedly incited by the hit movie American Sniper. And this time the media is trumpeting this story. Two rules of history converge here:

1) When Muslims in an a non-Muslim country reach a certain critical mass, they seek to dominate the surrounding community – and then move on from there. cf. Britain, Germany, Sweden and France, inter alia.

2) Free speech is unknown in the Muslim world, actually it’s anathema. So it starts with trying to shut us up and stopping us from casting Islam in a negative light. And does it work? For one thing, you can be certain the entertainment industry is now poring over their scripts and deleting “offending” sections. Other “projects” will simply bite the dust. Of course, Obama didn’t need cajoling. As soon as he took office he banned certain phrases from the government’s lexicon that might reflect poorly on the Muslim religion. Makes you wonder what that man is all about, doesn’t it?

For the record, I saw the film back in December when it was first given a very limited release — just two theaters in New York City. I loved it. I tweeted that it was the best film in decades. It’s hardly a rah-rah cheerleading film. It is a film about a deeply good and decent man, a true American patriot.

The record breaking box-office numbers show how out of touch the elites are with the American people. And that is even more true of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Pamela’s temporary site:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/pamela_geller/2015/01/american-muslim-group-attacks-american-sniper-demands-eastwood-and-cooper-denounce-fictional-islamop.html

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

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points

Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat

Long_border_fence750x420-450x252Frontpage, by Michael Cutler, Jan. 23, 2015:

In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, France terror raids were carried out in Belgium and Greece to identify, locate and hunt down so-called “sleepers cells.” Journalists and politicians have finally raised the issue of the threats potentially posed by sleeper agents in the United States, going back to the future — the same concerns about sleeper cells in the United States were voiced in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 including by the then-director of the FBI, Robert Mueller.

Of course any discussion about sleeper agents gaining entry into the United States would logically call into question the multiple and massive failures of the immigration system. Today politicians from both sides of the political aisle are hell-bent on making certain that the flood of foreign workers, foreign tourists and foreign students continue without impediment. Consequently admitting that immigration is a vital component of national security and must be treated as such would run contrary to the goals of advocates for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The “solution” politicians and journalists who oppose effective immigration law enforcement have devised to resolve the quandary that this creates is to describe sleeper agents as being “homegrown,” hoping that Americans will ignore the obvious: That foreign nationals are seeking to enter the United States to launch terror attacks.

Incredibly, even such foreign national terrorists have come to be referred to as being “homegrown” by journalists, politicians and high-ranking members of the law enforcement community who should know better. This is nothing short of Orwellian propaganda.

Former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly apparently fell victim to this mis-identification of foreign terrorists when he described Faisal Shahzad, the so-called “Times Square Bomber” as being “homegrown.” The title of a New York Post article, published on May 11, 2010, quoted Commissioner Kelly, “Kelly: NYC bomb suspect ‘homegrown,’” and contained the following statement:

The Times Square threat was “a classic case of homegrown terrorism,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said at a briefing for private security executives.

Shahzad had legally immigrated to the United States when he was roughly 20 years old. How on earth is he “homegrown”? He may not have come to the United States with the intentions of ultimately carrying out a terrorist attack, however it is impossible to know when he made that decision. What is clear is that he is absolutely not “homegrown.”

In fact, in that article, Kelly was also quoted as referring to Najibullah Zazi, the leader of a group that planned a suicide bombing of the New York City subway system, as also being “homegrown,” blatantly ignoring the fact that Zazi had immigrated to the United States from his native Pakistan when he was a teenager

Does this mean that native-born Americans are not being recruited by ISIS or al-Qaeda? Of course they are, but it is lunacy to ignore the failures of the vetting process by which we admit immigrants and grant them visas and provide them with immigration benefits including political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship through the naturalization process.

While some native-born American citizens, who for a variety of reasons may have decided to heed the call of terror organizations to take up arms against America and Americans, to date, most of the terrorists who have carried out terror attacks inside the United States were foreign nationals who, in one way or another, often through the legal entry system, managed to enter the United States, bide their time, hiding in plain sight or, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embedded themselves in communities around the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.

The terror attacks carried out at the CIA Headquarters and at the World Trade Center in 1993, the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and most recent, the attack on April 15, 2013 at the Boston Marathon were all carried out by foreign nationals – not “homegrown” terrorists.

I have raised the issue of “sleeper agents” at congressional hearings year ago. What I had to say is a part of the congressional record — a record I suspect many of today’s politicians would rather not want Americans to even know exists.

In fact, to cite one such hearing, roughly ten years ago, on March 10, 2005, I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “Interior Immigration Enforcement Resources.”

Read more

It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy

1092263568CSP, by Frank Gaffney, Jan. 16, 2015:

A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions.

The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah.

For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them.

Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.

Until now.

At the National Press Club at noon on January 16th, an ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals will unveil an alternative plan of action that has been proven effective in protecting us against relentlessly aggressive totalitarian ideologues in the one environment that matters: the real world. The resulting approach, called the “Secure Freedom Strategy,” is modeled after the one President Ronald Reagan successfully employed to take down Soviet communism and the Evil Empire it spawned.

The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers a detailed prescription for a clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront and actionable steps for vanquishing it. Its key components include:

Understanding the Enemy’s Threat Doctrine: Having conclusively demonstrated that Sun Tse’s admonition that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t know still operates, the United States must now abandon past practice by adopting a realistic understanding of the enemy and its doctrine. That requires, in particular, clarity concerning shariah, the jihad it impels, and the various ways in which such warfare is being waged against us.

The Tiger Team makes clear that its use of the term shariah is informed by the practice of Islamic law by the recognized authorities of the faith since at least the 10th Century. (It is noteworthy that, when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complained publicly and courageously about the jihadist character of contemporary Islam, he did not berate so-called “radical extremists” of al Qaeda or Islamic State. Rather, he took to task the leading imams in Sunni Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican, al-Azhar University.) Such use of the term shariah, therefore, does not refer to an idiosyncratic, personal, or purely pietistic observance of Islamic law which may or may not conform to the entirety of established Islamic doctrine.

The jihadism of shariah is being advanced by both violent techniques and by means other than terrorism. We must, accordingly, be prepared to deal kinetically where necessary with the perpetrators of violent jihad. But it is also imperative that we contend no less effectively with what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – its stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within…by [our own] hands.”

Establishing Our Objective: Next, the United States must enunciate a national commitment to – using a phrase President Reagan employed as the object of NSDD 75 – “contain and over time reverse” shariah-driven Islamic supremacism, including establishment of the Caliphate. The rising tide of shariah and various efforts to impose it here and abroad make abundantly clear an unalterable fact: America and, indeed, Western civilization cannot coexist with the Global Jihad Movement.

Reestablishing “Peace Through Strength”: Just as President Reagan did in his day, the contemporary hollowing out of the U.S. military must be reversed as a matter of the utmost priority. The perception of American weakness only reinforces our shariah-adherent enemies’ conviction that the time has come for intensifying jihad operations. It is also emboldening other adversaries, including Russia, China and North Korea.As the United States is not confronting simply terrorist organizations, or even their state-sponsors, but prospectively “peer competitors,” the rebuilding of American military power must be balanced across the spectrum of nuclear, missile defense, conventional and special operations forces. We must also continue to develop asymmetric capabilities (e.g., in space and cyber space) while correcting our most egregious vulnerabilities to these enemies’ asymmetric attacks (notably, electromagnetic pulse, cyberwarfare, counter-space, economic/financial warfare, smuggled weapons of mass destruction, etc.)

Counter-Ideological Warfare: As in the Cold War, America’s ability to challenge and neutralize its enemies’ animating ideology is at least as important as the task of countering their kinetic threats. Once we are clear about the nature and centrality of the shariah doctrine to the existential danger we currently face, the need for a serious and effective counter-ideological strategy becomes self-evident.Putting such a strategy into practice will require, first and foremost, identifying the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicitly jihadist organization it has always been and is now.

Continuing to treat its operatives and organizations (overt and covert) in America and overseas as “partners” because we are told they “eschew violence” is a formula for our incremental destruction. Wherever and as soon as possible, these foes should be neutralized as political forces. At a minimum, they must be denied access to U.S. government agencies, funds, arms and, via television cable packages, American household subscribers.

Intelligence Operations: We must take a page from the playbook developed during the Reagan administration by then-Director of Central Intelligence William Casey and use covert means wherever possible to counter, divide and undermine our enemies. To the traditional intelligence techniques should be added aggressive use of psychological operations, cyberwarfare and, where necessary, clandestine and special operations.

Economic Warfighting: As with the Reagan NSDD 75 plan, there must be a central economic/financial warfighting component to a new American strategy for defeating our time’s existential enemies. This component would include: constricting the principal source of revenues for the jihad – vast petrodollar transfers from Western nations to OPEC states; reversing the present practice of accommodating and even encouraging shariah finance, a technique employed by civilization jihadists to penetrate and subvert our capitalist system: and exposing shariah-inspired sovereign wealth funds as instruments of financial jihad.

Cyber Warfighting: Cyberspace is the new battlefield of asymmetric warfare where attacks across domains and technologies by the Global Jihad enemy, as well as peer adversaries, must be countered with 21st Century capabilities drawn from the best and brightest in the civilian, intelligence and military worlds.

Were these and similar policy priorities articulated by the Tiger Team to be adopted and executed appropriately, it should be possible to effect the necessary second step: the adoption by the nation of a true warfooting, a state of national commitment that will bring to bear the popular vigilance and support that will make it possible for the Secure Freedom Strategy to be fully executed.

If we are to have a prayer of bequeathing, as President Reagan put it, to our children and children’s children an America that is free – and not one that has submitted to the jihadists and shariah – we must get about the business of securing freedom in a strategic and time-tested way.

And we must begin to do it now.

Uploaded by theunitedwest

Secure Freedom Strategy v1.0

Press Release

Highlights

Executive Summary

FAQs

“Tiger Team” to unveil strategy for defeating Global Jihad Movement

3215722920Recommends Approach Reagan Used to Destroy Last Totalitarian Ideology Threat

Press release from Center for Security Policy:

(Washington, DC): Murderous attacks by Islamic supremacists in recent weeks in France, Nigeria, Australia and Canada have made obvious a fact long ignored by too many Western governments and elites:  The Free World is under assault by Islamic supremacists.

The perpetrators of this assault may have different organizational affiliations, alternative state-sponsors, divergent sectarian views about Islam or even be acting individually.  But they have two things in common:  They seek to impose their ideology or doctrine, shariah, on the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And they intend to create an alternative form of governance, often called a Caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.

Consequently, the United States and the rest of the Free World urgently needs to identify this Global Jihad Movement as our enemy and to bring to bear an effective, counter-ideological strategy for defeating this political, supremacist shariah doctrine.

The Center for Security Policy, which prides itself on being the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” has sponsored in recent months an informal “tiger team” modeled after an actual special operations A-Team drawing upon individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction: Soviet communism.

WHO:

Participating Members of the Secure Freedom Strategy “Tiger Team”:

  • Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former senior Special Operator and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
  • Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorist unit.
  • Kevin Freeman, Chartered Financial Analyst and best-selling author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Attacked the U.S. Stock Market and Why it Can Happen Again
  • Clare Lopez, Senior Vice President Center for Security Policy for Research and Analysis and former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service
  • Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on information warfare and influence operations
  • David Yerushalmi, Esq., co-founder and partner, American Freedom Law Center, and expert on shariah
  • Fred Fleitz, career intelligence professional who served under William J. Casey at the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Moderator:  Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) under President Reagan

WHERE:

National Press Club
Zenger Room
529 14th St NW, 13th Floor
Washington, D.C.

WHEN:

Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:00-1:30 pm  Luncheon will be served.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Reagan and now is president of the Center for Security Policy said of this effort:
President Obama recently justified his abandonment of decades of U.S. policy towards the despotic regime in Cuba on the grounds that, if it hadn’t worked, it needed to be changed.  It is beyond dispute that the policy he and his predecessors have pursued towards the Global Jihad Movement, its ideological wellspring – shariah, and its sponsors and enablers is not working.  In this case, we actually must make a change.
President Reagan’s successful counter-ideological strategy, formalized in his National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, is one that has worked in the past.  In the professional judgment of some of America’s finest national security professionals, as adapted in the Secure Freedom Strategy, the NSDD 75 approach can work now as well, if employed decisively against today’s totalitarian ideology and its adherents.

Gohmert Reads Obama Admin’s Top 10 Mistakes of 2014

 

PJ Media, The National Security ‘Not Top 10′ of 2014

By Patrick Poole, December 31, 2014

With the world descending into chaos driven in no small measure by the incoherent, contradictory and frequently non-existent foreign policy of the Obama administration, it was difficult this year to narrow the field for this year’s biggest national security blunders. The task seemed so formidable, I nearly abandoned the endeavor.

But undaunted, I present to you the National Security “Not Top 10” of 2014, in no particular order.

(For past editions of my “Not Top 10”, see: 2012, 2011, 2010)

1) Befriending “moderate Al-Qaeda” in Syria:

There are some ideas so at war with reason and reality they can only exist in the fetid Potomac fever swamps of DC think tanks and foreign policy community. Such was the case in January when three of the best and brightest from those ranks published an article in Foreign Affairs (the same publication that in 2007 brought us the “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood”) contending that the US needed to “befriend” the Syrian jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham as some kind of counter to more extreme jihadist groups, like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. The precedent they cited was the US failure to designate the Taliban (!!!) after 9/11.

Mind you, at the time they wrote this, one of Ahrar al-Sham’s top leaders was a lieutenant for Al-Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri who openly declared himself a member of Al-Qaeda. After most of their leadership was wiped out in a bombing in September, they have gravitated closer to the jihadist groups they were supposed to counter and their positions have been bombed by the US – much to the consternation of other “vetted moderate” rebel groups. So ridiculous was their proposition that the original subtitle of their article “An Al-Qaeda Affiliate Worth Befriending” was changed online to “An Al-Qaeda-Linked Group Worth Befriending” in the hopes of minimizing the absurdity of their case.

2) Obama Administration deploys three hashtag divisions in response to Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As Ukrainians made their bid to free themselves from Russia’s interference, Putin responded by deploying tanks and troops into Ukraine in violation of the1994 Budapest Memorandum. Obama’s rejoinder was to give a speech and to deploy three divisions of State Department employees all armed with a #UnitedForUkraine hashtag. Hilarity ensued as the Russian Foreign Ministry counterattacked by hijacking the hashtag, prompting State Department spox Jen Psakito decry, “Let’s hope the Kremlin will live by the promise of hashtag,” leaving many asking: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

3) Obama: ISIS is the “JV team”.

In January President Obama sat down for an interview with the New Yorker, and when asked about ISIS gains in Iraq, he likened them to the JV team, saying ““The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Those words came back to haunt him as ISIS surged in both Syria and Iraq, particular when Obama authorized missile strikes against ISIS in August. Even then Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken defended the president’s “JV team” remark, saying they didn’t pose the threat to America as much as Al-Qaeda. A few week later, the Washington Post noted the attempts to spin the president’s statement. By September, Obama laughably claimed in an interview on Meet the Press that he wasn’t talking about ISIS in his New Yorker interview. But even the notoriously biased Politifact rated his walk-back as “false” and two weeks ago the Washington Post’s fact checker Glenn Kessler branded Obama’s “JV team” spin as “the lie of the year”.

4) State Dept Official denies Boko Haram targeting Christians.

Just weeks after the Nigerian terrorist group abducted nearly 300 Christian school girls in Chibok and committed them to sexual slavery, State Department undersecretary Sarah Sewalldenied in a congressional hearing that Christians were being targeted. As I noted in an article here at PJ Media earlier this month on disturbing trends in Nigeria, the burning of churches and the abduction and murder of Christians continues to intensify, with more than 1,000 churches burned in just a few weeks earlier this year.

Readers might recall that this is the same State Department that in April 2012 was telling Congress that Boko Haram was not driven by religious ideology the day after the group bombed a church during an Easter service that killed 39 worshippers. Not only did the State Departmentvehemently defend not designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization, this year we discovered that they intentionally lied to Congress about the threat posed by the group. Having only designated them barely a year ago, 2014 has been Boko Haram’s deadliest year yet, with 9,000 killed, 1.5 million people displaced, and 800 schools destroyed. Nigerian authorities still complain that the Obama administration is reluctant to provide the country what it needs to fight the Boko Haram terror insurgency.

5) Homeland Security adviser’s pro-caliphate tweet used by ISIS recruiters.

Twitter proved to be the downfall of Homeland Security Advisor Council Senior Fellow Mohamed Elibiary, when he was unceremoniously let go by DHS in September following a long string of extremist social media statements. Critics, including myself, had noted Elibiary long history of promoting radical Islamic groups and publicly defending terrorist supporters. Things began to unravel when earlier this year he tweeted that America was “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution,” but the wheels definitely came off when he tweeted about the inevitability of the return of an Islamic caliphate – a statement that was later used by ISIS in their recruiting efforts. After his dismissal, which even international media took note of, I talked with Michelle Fields here at PJTV about Elibiary’s highly controversial tenure at DHS.

6) Obama, State Dept give shout-outs to Islamic cleric who OK’d fatwa authorizing killing of Americans in Iraq.

The Obama administration repeatedly promoted their BFF Mauritanian Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, whose organization issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and has spoken out in support of the terrorist group Hamas. But as I reported here at PJ Media in 2013, that didn’t prevent Bin Bayyah from receiving a warm welcome in the White House by members of Obama’s national security staff and being feted on Capitol Hill by two of Obama’s top Muslim advisers. When critics noted the cleric’s extremist views, the White House doubled down their support.

That continued when in May of this year, the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau tweeted out their support of Bin Bayyah, including a link to his website. Facing a backlash from critics and inquiries from the media, the State Department apologized and deleted the tweet. That didn’t stop President Obama from giving Bin Bayyah a shout-out in his address to the United Nations in September, remarkably praising the extremist cleric as a moderate scholar.

7) Obama administration gives heavy weapons to “vetted moderate” Syrian rebel groups that promptly turn up in hands of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Earlier this year, the DC foreign policy establishment was hailing two US-backed “vetted moderate” Syrian groups as the saviors to the Obama administration’s disastrous Syrian policy. The Syrian Revolutionaries Front was billed by Foreign Policy as “the West’s best fighting chance against Syria’s Islamist armies,” and the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Harakat al-Hazm was deemed by DC think tankers as “rebels worth supporting.” In fact, both groups were among the first to receive shipments of US TOW missiles. But as I’ve reported here at PJ Media, both groups were openly allying with jihadist groups, and in response to US airstrikes targeting ISIS, Harakat al-Hazm began denouncing the strikes as an “attack on the revolution.” Within the past two months,both groups have collapsed and many of their fighters have defected to ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra.

Even more importantly, they surrendered their weapons to these jihadist groups. Earlier this month I reported that Jabhat al-Nusra was using US TOW missiles – a report confirmed over the weekend by the New York Times. This week brings news that ISIS is now using US TOW missiles in attacks near Damascus. The Iraqi Army has gotten into the act as well, having surrendered to ISIS 1,500 US-provided armored Humvees, 52 M198 howitzers with 20 mile range, and 4,000 PKC belt-fed machine guns.

8) White House defends Muslim Brotherhood’s “commitment to non-violence”.

Earlier this month the White House curtly responded to a “We the People” petition on its website calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, saying that “we have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence.” Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates declared the Brotherhood a terrorist group earlier this year.  As I noted as far back as 2007, the popular DC myth that the Muslim Brotherhood had renounced terrorism has no basis in reality. This was summarized ably by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in an oped earlier this year that not only had the US government itself rejected the notion of a non-violent Muslim Brotherhood, but it has also designated as terrorists branches, leaders and charities of the international Muslim Brotherhood.

Those official US government statements testifying to the Muslim Brotherhood’s long history of violence and terrorism, as well as its violent doctrines, were included as findings in H.R. 5194, sponsored by Bachmann and 19 other House members calling for the Brotherhood’s designation. Events of this year have testified to Brotherhood’s ongoing support for terrorism, such as the raid last January by Egyptian authorities of a Molotov cocktail factory inside a Brotherhood office in Alexandria, the brutal murder in April of a Christian woman who was dragged from her car during a Muslim Brotherhood protest, and thearrest of Brotherhood officials earlier this month in Jordan who were smuggling weapons into the West Bank for terror attacks on Israelis. If to highlight the point, when UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that his government would be investigating the Muslim Brotherhood, the group’s London office threatened attacks in response.

9) Obama administration defends US Islamic groups branded as terrorist organizations by UAE.

The White House reportedly spent its Christmas appealing to the UAE to remove two US Islamic groups – the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society – from the UAE’s terrorist blacklist. What makes this defense, particularly of CAIR, so remarkable is that the US government itself has noted the terror connections in federal court. In 2007, federal prosecutors named CAIR as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, and during the trial one FBI agent testified that CAIR was a front for Hamas and prosecutors contended in court filings (p. 13) that it was part of an international Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to provide “media, money and men” to the terror group. The federal judge in the case agreed, stating in a ruling that there was “ample evidence” CAIR and other Islamic groups identified as conspirators acted in support of Hamas. The Justice Department has also said in federal court that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” Notwithstanding a FBI ban on official contact with CAIR, White House officials have admitted to hundreds of meetings with the terror front.

10) Having banned discussions of ideology driving Islamic terrorism, Pentagon says it can’t understand ideology of ISIS.

The New York Times reported over the weekend about the unsuccessful efforts of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to counter the ideology of ISIS. “We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea,” said SOCOM’s Major Gen. Michael Nagata, while “other officials acknowledge they have barely made a dent in the larger, longer-term campaign to kill the ideology that animates the terrorist movement,” the article noted. This is no surprise as the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally banned any discussion of the Islamic ideology driving terrorist groups in its counter-terrorism training and in its war colleges in an October 2011 Joint Action Staff Directive that was sourced solely on the questionable and highly partisan reporting of far Left blogger Spencer Ackerman.

As I have detailed elsewhere, the Joint Chiefs’ actions were part of a larger Obama administration effort to purge counter-terrorism training across all national security and law enforcement agencies. The architect of the Obama administration’s failing counter-terrorism strategy, Quintan Wiktorowicz, defended these polices earlier this year, telling Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon that the US government is prohibited by the First Amendment from discussing the religious ideology of terror groups threatening the US, and that such efforts would have to be outsourced to “partners in the Muslim world.” That didn’t stop Wiktorowicz from saying that more money was needed for efforts to counter the very ideology that he said no one in the US government can talk about.

Needless to say, this list is hardly exhaustive. And the coming year looks to have plenty of candidates for 2015’s “Not Top 10.”

Also see this key report written by Patrick Poole on JUNE 4, 2013:

Coburn report: Department of Homeland Security is failing in all of its missions

3199eaa8ae279fa65d4effd32956b135By Julia Davis

On January 3, 2015, Senator Tom Coburn released the report that outlines his findings pertaining to the efficacy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in executing its primary missions. Senator Coburn has been a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since 2005. The report finds that the DHS is failing miserably in every one of its stated missions. Since criticizing the DHS is an unspoken taboo for most of the mainstream media, this report was released on Saturday and received very little press coverage. Traditional reporting typically defends the DHS by telling the viewing audiences that the agency is comprised of “our best,” all of whom are risking their lives to protect the nation. In reality, neither of those statements holds water.

Official missions of the DHS are as follows:

Mission 1—Preventing Terrorism and Improving Security

Mission 2— Securing and Managing Our Borders

Mission 3— Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws

Mission 4—Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace

Mission 5—Strengthening National Preparedness and Resilience

The report finds that the Department of Homeland Security is failing in every one of its missions. It states that the DHS “primary counterterrorism programs are yielding little value for the nation’s counterterrorism efforts … The nation’s borders remain unsecure … The Department of Homeland Security is not effectively administering or enforcing the nation’s immigration laws … The Department of Homeland Security is struggling to execute its responsibilities for cybersecurity, and its strategy and programs are unlikely to protect us from the adversaries that pose the greatest cybersecurity threat … The Department of Homeland Security is federalizing the response to manmade and natural disasters by subsidizing state, local, and private sector activity.”

One of the ways that DHS intended to support the nation’s counterterrorism mission was by supporting state and local fusion centers, which are meant to serve as hubs of intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local officials. The Department spent between $289 million and $1.4 billion supporting the approximately 70 fusion centers across the nation. In 2012, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation (PSI) completed a two-year bipartisan investigation of DHS’s support for the state and local fusion center program, which found that DHS’s work with the fusion centers had not produced useful intelligence to support federal counterterrorism efforts. The PSI investigation revealed that fusion centers “often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever.”

The DHS has spent more than a half a billion dollars to regulate the security of chemical facilities at risk of potential terrorist attacks. However, 99 percent of all the chemical facilities that were supposed to be overseen by the program are yet to be inspected. As of 2014, 700 hundred miles of the Southern border are not secure, since the DHS and its component, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), failed to deploy assets to control these areas. The chance of an illegal immigrant being removed by the DHS is slightly over 3 percent. The report found that until recently, the DHS “did not have a comprehensive strategy for securing the border … The Department also faces a potentially significant problem of corruption in its workforce assigned to secure the border … DHS spending on programs to secure port facilities, infrastructure, and cargo have not accomplished their objectives.”

Since the DHS can’t enforce existing immigration laws, nor is able to effectively manage tracking and monitoring of the people who have entered the U.S. legally, the report questions whether the agency is able “to effectively manage any large program to provide new immigration benefits to people currently living in the United States illegally, as was ordered by President Obama on November 20, 2014.” The report points out: “The Department’s lax approach to immigration law enforcement, and broad applications of prosecutorial discretion with regard to enforcing immigration laws also exacerbates DHS’s challenge securing the border. Rather than deterring illegal immigration, lax immigration enforcement creates an expectation that people entering the nation illegally or violating the terms of their visa will be allowed to stay, facing no consequences.”

Approximately 36 convicted terrorists came to the country using various forms of student visas, but the DHS is failing to effectively manage the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is currently used by more than one million people to gain entry into the United States. The report also notes that in February 2013, ICE released more than 2,000 illegal immigrant detainees, including more than 600 aliens with criminal records; creating a risk to public safety and further undermining the agency’s credibility.

While failing in its official missions, the DHS is encroaching upon the rights and liberties of American citizens, without any benefit to the nation’s national security. Senator Coburn’s report states: “We are willing to endure the inconvenience of arriving at the airport earlier and having our luggage screened, but we are wary of increased government policing and surveillance. We are concerned that despite spending billions of dollars on border security, tens of thousands continue to enter our country illegally and, in 2014, 700 miles of our Southern border were unsecure. The same is true of cyber security. We have spent billions to protect against cyber attacks, yet even White House computers have been susceptible to hacking.”

The Department of Homeland Security is a multi-billion dollar behemoth that employs more than 240,000 people and spends approximately $61 billion annually. The agency disposed of $544 billion of taxpayers’ money since 2003, with little to show for it. The DHS allowed a convicted terrorist to become a US citizen, spent $30,000 on Starbucks, provided Zombie Apocalypse training for the DHS personnel, purchased 13 sno-cone machines, spent $45 million on a failed video surveillance network and even bought a hog catcher. Cities were essentially allowed to spend the money on almost anything they want, under the guise of “terror prevention.” As Senator Coburn’s previous report found, “DHS and Congress have often let politics interfere, diluting any results. Instead of sending funds where they can have the biggest impact, money is spread around to parochial political interests. This ensures fewer complaints and broad political support, but does not necessarily mean we are safer.”

Read more at The Examiner

The National Security “Not Top 10″ of 2014

obamalibya (1)By Patrick Poole:

With the world descending into chaos driven in no small measure by the incoherent, contradictory and frequently non-existent foreign policy of the Obama administration, it was difficult this year to narrow the field for this year’s biggest national security blunders. The task seemed so formidable, I nearly abandoned the endeavor.

But undaunted, I present to you the National Security “Not Top 10” of 2014, in no particular order.

(For past editions of my “Not Top 10”, see: 2012, 2011, 2010)

1) Befriending “moderate Al-Qaeda” in Syria:

There are some ideas so at war with reason and reality they can only exist in the fetid Potomac fever swamps of DC think tanks and foreign policy community. Such was the case in January when three of the best and brightest from those ranks published an article in Foreign Affairs (the same publication that in 2007 brought us the “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood”) contending that the US needed to “befriend” the Syrian jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham as some kind of counter to more extreme jihadist groups, like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. The precedent they cited was the US failure to designate the Taliban (!!!) after 9/11.

Mind you, at the time they wrote this, one of Ahrar al-Sham’s top leaders was a lieutenant for Al-Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri who openly declared himself a member of Al-Qaeda. After most of their leadership was wiped out in a bombing in September, they have gravitated closer to the jihadist groups they were supposed to counter and their positions have been bombed by the US – much to the consternation of other “vetted moderate” rebel groups. So ridiculous was their proposition that the original subtitle of their article “An Al-Qaeda Affiliate Worth Befriending” was changed online to “An Al-Qaeda-Linked Group Worth Befriending” in the hopes of minimizing the absurdity of their case.

2) Obama Administration deploys three hashtag divisions in response to Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As Ukrainians made their bid to free themselves from Russia’s interference, Putin responded by deploying tanks and troops into Ukraine in violation of the1994 Budapest Memorandum. Obama’s rejoinder was to give a speech and to deploy three divisions of State Department employees all armed with a #UnitedForUkraine hashtag. Hilarity ensued as the Russian Foreign Ministry counterattacked by hijacking the hashtag, prompting State Department spox Jen Psaki to decry, “Let’s hope the Kremlin will live by the promise of hashtag,” leaving many asking: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

3) Obama: ISIS is the “JV team”.

In January President Obama sat down for an interview with the New Yorker, and when asked about ISIS gains in Iraq, he likened them to the JV team, saying ““The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Those words came back to haunt him as ISIS surged in both Syria and Iraq, particular when Obama authorized missile strikes against ISIS in August. Even then Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken defended the president’s “JV team” remark, saying they didn’t pose the threat to America as much as Al-Qaeda. A few week later, the Washington Post noted the attempts to spin the president’s statement. By September, Obama laughably claimed in an interview on Meet the Press that he wasn’t talking about ISIS in his New Yorker interview. But even the notoriously biased Politifact rated his walk-back as “false” and two weeks ago the Washington Post’s fact checker Glenn Kessler branded Obama’s “JV team” spin as “the lie of the year”.

4) State Dept Official denies Boko Haram targeting Christians.

Just weeks after the Nigerian terrorist group abducted nearly 300 Christian school girls in Chibok and committed them to sexual slavery, State Department undersecretary Sarah Sewall denied in a congressional hearing that Christians were being targeted. As I noted in an article here at PJ Media earlier this month on disturbing trends in Nigeria, the burning of churches and the abduction and murder of Christians continues to intensify, with more than 1,000 churches burned in just a few weeks earlier this year.

Readers might recall that this is the same State Department that in April 2012 was telling Congress that Boko Haram was not driven by religious ideology the day after the group bombed a church during an Easter service that killed 39 worshippers. Not only did the State Department vehemently defend not designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization, this year we discovered that they intentionally lied to Congress about the threat posed by the group. Having only designated them barely a year ago, 2014 has been Boko Haram’s deadliest year yet, with 9,000 killed, 1.5 million people displaced, and 800 schools destroyed. Nigerian authorities still complain that the Obama administration is reluctant to provide the country what it needs to fight the Boko Haram terror insurgency.

5) Homeland Security adviser’s pro-caliphate tweet used by ISIS recruiters.

Twitter proved to be the downfall of Homeland Security Advisor Council Senior Fellow Mohamed Elibiary, when he was unceremoniously let go by DHS in September following a long string of extremist social media statements. Critics, including myself, had noted Elibiary long history of promoting radical Islamic groups and publicly defending terrorist supporters. Things began to unravel when earlier this year he tweeted that America was “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution,” but the wheels definitely came off when he tweeted about the inevitability of the return of an Islamic caliphate – a statement that was later used by ISIS in their recruiting efforts. After his dismissal, which even international media took note of, I talked with Michelle Fields here at PJTV about Elibiary’s highly controversial tenure at DHS.

Read more at PJ Media

Need For Increased Vigilance as IS Inspired Attacks Continue to Target Westerners in the Middle East

terror-threatCSP, By Matt Bauer, December 4, 2014:

As the U.S. and coalition forces continue to conduct airstrikes against the Islamic State, an alarming trend of increasing violence towards westerners is occurring in the Middle East. In recent weeks, there have been multiple attacks on abroad citizens of western coalition nations in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. IS ideology and influence has been seen in dozens of countries around the world, more notably countries in Europe and North America taking part of the anti-IS coalition force.

The United States, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, Austria, Australia, and many others have all been dealing with the security threats posed by Islamic radicals inspired by IS to conduct domestic attacks. There is also the threat of experienced foreign IS fighters returning to their home countries to conduct operations on behalf of IS. While these threats remain pertinent, the threat to abroad citizens of coalition countries is increasing in light of recent events.

In the UAE, an unidentified woman wearing a full niqab stabbed an American school teacher to death in a public restroom at an Abu Dhabi mall. The unidentified woman also planted a makeshift explosive device at the residence of an Egyptian-American doctor. The device was discovered and disarmed by police before it was able to cause any damage. Though the woman’s connections are still unknown, it is clear that these attacks were meant to specifically target Americans. The presence of a makeshift explosive device may indicate that the detained suspect was not acting alone. This incident is particularly alarming since it is very rare for terrorist attacks of this nature to occur in the oil-rich emirates.

In Saudi Arabia, two separate incidents occurred where a Danish and Canadian citizen were targeted. Last month, a gunman pulled up alongside the vehicle of a Danish man and opened fire. The Danish citizen was only treated for minor injuries. The perpetrators of the attack remained unknown until a recent video was released by Saudi supporters of IS claiming responsibility. The video seems to show a gunman pulling up next to a vehicle and firing multiple shots directed at the driver. The video has not yet been authenticated by authorities but seems to be consistent with attack. The video also included audio clips of IS leaders calling for attacks within Saudi Arabia.

Another incident occurred at a shopping mall in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province where a Canadian man was stabbed. The assailant was arrested but the motive behind the attack is still unknown. Given the current trend and timing of the attack, it seems likely that the man was targeted because of his nationality. In Egypt, a Sinai-based terrorist group originally called Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM) but have recently changed their name to the Islamic State in Sinai, have claimed responsibility for the death of a 58-year old Texas native William Henderson. Henderson is reported to have been working for his oil company at one of their locations in Egypt and died on August 6th of this year.

The investigation into the specifics of his death is ongoing but it appears that he has been murdered solely for being an American citizen. The Islamic State of Sinai or ABM is an interesting group since they have deep ties with the Muslim Brotherhood along with their recent pledge of allegiance to IS. Egyptian authorities allege that ABM has long been funded by the Muslim Brotherhood but it is unclear under whose direction they are currently operating under.

The similarities between these separate incidents demonstrate that as the coalition fight against IS continues, western citizens visiting or living in the Middle East will continue to be targeted. It is becoming increasingly necessary for potential targeted citizens living abroad to be vigilant and aware of this very real threat. Companies and corporations who have employees at potentially dangerous foreign locations should also be aware and take the necessary steps to increase security measures to protect their facilities.

Obama ‘Solves’ Immigration Crisis by Ordering ‘Shields Down’

 

By Michael Cutler:

That we live in a perilous era is hardly a headline — this is a well established fact.  America and Americans face an existential threat posed by terrorist organizations.  Additionally, huge quantities of heroin and cocaine have flooded across our borders, smuggled by pernicious drug trafficking organizations that have set up shop in communities across the United States.  There is a strong nexus between narcotics trafficking and narcotics use and crime, especially violent crime.

The tens of billions of dollars, the annual proceeds from the drug trade, flow into the coffers of transnational drug trafficking organizations and international terrorist organizations.

Finally, our nation’s economy continues to falter and struggle as do tens of millions of American workers and their families find that their incomes shrink as their expenses rise as more foreign workers enter the United States each month than the number of new jobs that are being created.

All of the above-noted issues have a clear nexus to failures of our nation to secure its borders and enforce the immigration laws effectively.  In point of fact our immigration laws were enacted with two primary goals, protect American lives and the jobs of American workers.

In point of fact, our borders and our immigration laws are supposed to shield America and Americans.  Given all of the threats and challenges confronting America and Americans those shields should never be more important.  However, you would never know it to listen to the President and, frankly, to all too many of our nation’s politicians from both sides of the political aisle in Washington and on the state and local levels.

On November 20, 2014 President Obama went before the cameras at the White House and laid out his plans to unilaterally “fix” the broken immigration system.  That there are millions of illegal aliens present in the United States indicates that our immigration system is failing.  That terrorists have been able to enter the United States and embed themselves in the United States provides further evidence of failures of the immigration system.  Consider, if you will, that the Tsarnaev brothers were able to gain lawful entry into the United States and apparently game the political asylum program. This provides a graphic example of a failure of that component of the immigration system.

“The Social Contract” published my article in its Summer 2013 edition, on how fraud in the political asylum program currently enables our enemies to see in America’s compassion, weakness. The title of my article was “Political Asylum: Where Compassion and National Security Intersect.”

What has never been explained, by President Obama or others who claim that the immigration system is broken, is how their proposals will greatly reduce the number of illegal aliens present in the United States.  What has never been explained is how the proposed “fixes” will create integrity to the processes by which aliens are granted visas or immigration benefits such as gaining lawful immigrant status or United States citizenship.  These are critical issues that were identified by the 9/11 Commission.

Traditionally when laws are violated our leaders call for enhanced enforcement efforts to combat and deter the crimes.  Because of concerns about those who have trespassed on New York City landmarks, Senator Chuck Schumer has proposed that a law be enacted that would subject those trespassers to a period of imprisonment of five years rather than the maximum of one year currently on the books.  He stated in part:

“While individuals like this (trespassers) may have meant no harm, their acts put commuters and first responders at risk,” Schumer said. “They also inspire copycats who may have much more evil plans in mind.”

Critical infrastructure is defined by the Patriot Act as systems and assets so vital to the U.S., that the incapacity or destruction to them would have a debilitating effect.

“That would be a bridge, a power plant, the air vents to one of our tunnels,” Miller said.

Miller and Schumer said the new legislation will help serve as a deterrent.

“When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”

Schumer said this legislation is based on another federal law protecting railroads.

His statements were reported upon in an October 14, 2014 CBS News report, “Mayor De Blasio Heads To D.C. For Meetings On NYC Security And Counter-Terrorism.”

However, Senator Chuck Schumer has been the staunchest advocate for providing a pathway to United States citizenship to illegal aliens who have trespassed on America by running our nation’s borders and evading the crucial screening process conducted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at ports of entry.  This serves to encourage, not deter, aliens to run our nation’s borders.

Where our broken immigration system is concerned, the obvious questions not being asked or answered is, “Where is the deterrent?”  “How is the lack of integrity in the immigration adjudications program being addressed?”

President Obama’s tone has been defiant, claiming that if members of Congress wanted to stop him from taking his actions that they should pass an immigration bill that he agreed with.  It was a stunning statement especially considering that Obama was a constitutional law instructor.  On numerous previous public appearances he made it clear that he did not have the authority to act alone to take the actions that he is now taking to deal with immigration.  Yet, for reasons never articulated, he has now made it clear that he will now do what he had previous claimed he lacked the legal authority to do.

He has also never explained how his actions would curtail future illegal immigration or address the recommendations and findings of the 9/11 Commission.  But then, these are critical questions that virtually no journalists have ever asked or members of the Republican Party have ever addressed, either.

Obama is attempting to extort immigration legislation by using the sort of “strong arm” technique of Tony Soprano rather than the conciliatory and constitutionally mandated technique befitting the President of the United States, who leads the most powerful democratic republic on the planet.

While the media has fixated on the procedural issues of whether or not what Obama is promising (threatening?) to do is within the bounds of his legal authority as the President of the United States, what has never been discussed to any great degree is the other procedural question — how would USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) implement this massive amnesty program involving millions of illegal aliens with even a sliver of integrity?

On November 30, 2013 Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) posted my commentary, “Political Asylum Fraud: Where America’s Compassion Becomes Vulnerability”that was predicated on a hard-hitting report posted by ABC News on November 20, 2013, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”

The number one priority of the government of the United States is national security and, with it, public safety.  How on earth could the administration successfully administer that program in a manner that would not undermine national security and public safety?  Let us remember that America’s borders and immigration laws are its shields, its first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals and other foreign nationals whose presence in the United States would undermine national security, public safety, public health or otherwise compromise the well-being of America and Americans.

On September 10, 2014 the New York Post published a disturbing report, “Homeland Security: We can’t stop ISIS from coming into US.”

Read more at Frontpage

Secret Meeting: National Security Experts Devise Strategies to Combat Global Jihadist Movement

22 Nov 2014:

The Global Jihadist Movement (GJM) can no longer be ignored. Its ruthless ideology connects the most theocratic Islamist dictatorships with the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The GJM creates the link between the Islamic State’s barbarous acts and those of the Oklahoma City beheader and the New York City ax jihadi.

This week, a concerned group of national security experts–from the upper echelons of government to high-ranking intelligence community officials to Wall Street executives–have identified the Global Jihadist Movement as one of the chief threats to America, one that the Obama administration has incomprehensibly ignored.

Breitbart News was present at the closed-door meeting of national security professionals.

These experts met in Washington, D.C., and covered topics related to the GJM threat environment. They warned about the information war that jihadist groups are waging against America, while the United States remains largely without a strategy to fire back and defeat their ideology, akin to what was accomplished in toppling Communism and the USSR. They also discussed how economic warfare is being waged by terrorist groups and state-sponsors, who are focusing on undermining the American financial system and exploiting the devaluation of the dollar.

The discussion participants strategized on how to raise awareness and keep GJM-related issues alive in the conscience of lawmakers and the American public. They talked about the importance of educating members of Congress and the public about the perils of the Global Jihadist Movement.

Many in the group expressed doubts that the Republican establishment, which for now retains an iron-fisted grasp over Congress and dominates its leadership positions, would allow for the necessary changes to promote a more robust and effective foreign policy. Some also noted, however, that the newly enshrined members of Congress present an opportunity for new policies to enhance America’s standing in the world.

They discussed an assortment of strategies, such as creating more private and public entities to combat domestic and international enemies’ propaganda and information operations. Frustrated with waiting for the Washington bureaucracy to produce results, attendants of the secret meeting devised action plans to combat the threats to America through various means.

Edwin Mora contributed to this report.

6 Failed Policies Obama and the State Department Won’t Stop Pushing

0 (3)

By Robert Spencer:

Presidents come and presidents go, but the State Department’s foreign policy establishment is forever. And no matter how many times its remedies fail to heal problems (and usually cause worse ones), it keeps on applying them, without an ounce of self-reflection. And in Barack Obama, the lifers at State have a president after their own heart – one whose vision of the world coincides exactly with theirs, and who takes their recommendations without question and fronts for them eagerly, no matter how often and how abysmally they have failed.

Here are six policies that have failed miserably again and again, and yet are still front and center in the Obama administration’s foreign policy planning:

6. Supporting the Afghan regime

The corrupt and treacherous [2] kleptocrat Hamid Karzai is gone, but his legacy lives on. The new president, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, is almost certainly still receiving those bags of cash from the CIA [3], and the new regime shows no more interest in accountability than Karzai did. It was revealed Thursday [4]that

nearly $420 million in weapons and other “sensitive items” have gone missing from U.S. Army bases in Afghanistan and are not likely to be recovered due to mismanagement and improper accounting, according to an internal report by the Pentagon’s inspector general obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

These include “some 15,600 pieces of equipment—including ‘weapons, weapons systems, and sensitive items,’” which “went missing in the past year from Army facilities in Bagram and Kandahar, accounting for around $419.5 million in losses, according to the report, which was issued in late October and marked ‘for official use only.’”

Will this slow down the flow of money and materiel to the Afghan regime? Don’t be silly. Despite the regime’s corruption, unwillingness to do anything to curb green-on-blue attacks, and inability to stop the Taliban, this won’t even be a speed bump.

Yet Obama and the State Department have never explained exactly what benefits to the United States will accrue from the massive expenditure and loss of American life in Afghanistan – they know the mainstream media and the Stupid Party will not call them on it, so why bother?

5. Fighting terrorism with money

Late in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry and Turkish then-Foreign Minister and current Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu launched what they called the “Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience,” which CNSNews.com said was intended to “support local communities and organizations to counter extremist ideology and promote tolerance.” It would do this essentially by giving potential jihad terrorists money and jobs – an initiative that proceeds from the false and oft-disproven assumption that poverty causes terrorism.

Kerry demonstrated his faith in this false assumption when he spoke about the importance of “providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment” into jihad groups. The GCTF is devoting $200 million to this project, which it calls “countering violent extremism” (CVE).

Kerry explained:

Getting this right isn’t just about taking terrorists off the street. It’s about providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment. In country after country, you look at the demographics – Egypt, the West Bank – 60 percent of the young people either under the age of 30 or under the age of 25, 50 percent under the age of 21, 40 percent under the age of 18, all of them wanting jobs, opportunity, education, and a future.

This will be $200 million down the drain, for a lack of “economic opportunities for marginalized youth” doesn’t fuel Islamic jihad terrorism in the first place. In reality, study after study have shown that jihadists are not poor and bereft of economic opportunities, but generally wealthier and better educated than their peers. CNS noted that “according to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, ‘Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.’”

But none of this has sunk in among the political elites.

4. Working to topple Assad

Barack Obama has long had Bashar Assad in his sights, but has been stymied by the fact that the only significant opposition to the Assad regime are Islamic jihad groups. Now, however, he thinks he has found a way to square the circle: remove Assad, and the jihadis’ raison d’etre will be gone.

CNN [7] reported Thursday that Obama “has asked his national security team for another review of the U.S. policy toward Syria after realizing that ISIS may not be defeated without a political transition in Syria and the removal of President Bashar al-Assad.”

Alistair Baskey, spokesman for the National Security Council, explained: “Assad has been the biggest magnet for extremism in Syria, and the President has made clear that Assad has lost all legitimacy to govern.”

The fact that this is even being considered shows that Obama doesn’t take seriously the Islamic State’s proclamations that it is a new caliphate that is going to keep on trying to expand. He thinks they’re just fighting to get Assad removed, and so if he obliges them, they will melt away.

But who does he think will replace Assad? Does he seriously think he can find someone who can immediately marshal enough support to be able to withstand the Islamic State? If he picks an Alawite, the ruler will have the same problems Assad does. If he picks a Sunni, the Islamic State leaders will say he is an apostate puppet of the Westerners, and fight on. Meanwhile, the disruption in Syria will give an opportunity to the Islamic State, which will be the force best situated to take advantage of a power vacuum in Syria.

So what Obama is saying is that to defeat the Islamic State, we have to let the Islamic State win. And you can see his point — at least then it will be out of the headlines and he won’t have to be constantly hearing about it. Or so he thinks.

 

3. Arming the “moderates”

Alistair Baskey also said Thursday that “alongside our efforts to isolate and sanction the Assad regime, we are working with our allies to strengthen the moderate opposition.” Who are the moderates in Syria? In September 2014, Obama said [8]: “We have a Free Syrian Army and a moderate opposition that we have steadily been working with that we have vetted.”

That was over a year after Free Syrian Army fighters entered the Christian village of Oum Sharshouh [9] in July 2013 and began burning down houses and terrorizing the population, forcing 250 Christian families to flee the area. Worthy News reported [10] that just two days later, Free Syrian Army rebels “targeted the residents of al-Duwayr/Douar, a Christian village close to the city of Homs and near Syria’s border with Lebanon….Around 350 armed militants forcefully entered the homes of Christian families who were all rounded-up in the main square of the village and then summarily executed.” And in September 2013, a day after Secretary of State John Kerry praised the Free Syrian Army as “a real moderate opposition,” the FSA took to the Internet [11]to post videos of its attack on the ancient Syrian Christian city of Maaloula, one of the few places where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken.

Even after all that, Obama was calling them “moderates.”

Read more at PJ Media with videos

JERRY BOYKIN: GENERALS SHOULD RESIGN TO PROTEST OBAMA’S MISUSE OF MILITARY

Obama-AWOL-BenghaziBreitbart, by LT. GEN. (RET.) JERRY BOYKIN, Nov. 13, 2014:

A new survey finds only 26 percent of those in the military community approve of the performance of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.  But the blame for this low approval rating extends higher up the chain of command.

Retired Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the latest former Obama loyalist to write a tell-all exposé, knows this all too well. In his memoir, Panetta describes how he warned the President (to no avail) that allowing Iraq to slide into violence would create “a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S.”

This revelation should come as no surprise, but regrettably, it does. That’s because many Americans have been ignoring what’s really taking place in our troubled world. The books now being published only confirm what many people already knew — or at least suspected — regarding the character of Barack Obama. In reality, what is newly-exposed in these books is the lack of courage of the authors. One must contemplate the question of why these former Obama administration officials did not resign in protest when they realized the man they worked for was leading the nation in a dangerous direction and was making decisions that put the nation at risk.

So what should these less-than-courageous bureaucrats have done? Simply stated: resign in protest.

The notion that they stayed because they thought their influence would be greater on the inside is nothing more than a cop-out. In fact, this line of reasoning is simply another indication of a lack of courage on the part of these tell-all authors, including Panetta. Attempting to persuade the public that you would have resigned if you had thought it would have made a difference is unconvincing. No, the answer is that they should have tendered their resignations in protest when they saw decisions and policies emerging that were dangerous, misguided, and not in the best interest of the country. This is a matter of principle.

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance did exactly that when he disagreed with President Jimmy Carter on the best way to get fifty-two American hostages out of the US Embassy in Tehran in April of 1980. He resigned to protest the rescue attempt that President Carter had ordered. That attempt failed when two aircraft collided in a remote desert airstrip inside Iran. While I do not agree with the wisdom of the late Mr. Vance on the prudence of military action, his resignation demonstrated personal moral courage.

Major General Jack Singlaub took similar action in 1977 when he publically criticized President Carter’s decision to withdraw US military forces from Korea. Carter relieved him for publically opposing a presidential policy. In going public about his disagreement with his Commander-in-Chief, Singlaub voluntarily laid his stars on the table, knowing that his career was over. But his honor was intact as a result of taking a stand on something that he felt strongly about. The same applies to Cyrus Vance.

So what about the current military leadership? Should some of them put their stars on the table and resign in protest of the ongoing deterioration of our military? Or how about the abuse of our men and women in uniform? Sending up to 4,000 service members to Liberia to fight Ebola is abuse. Consider that America has been at war for 13 years and our military has an all-time high suicide rate, out of control PTSD, and family disintegration at unprecedented levels. Now America will send these young men and women — who are not adequately trained to fight Ebola — on something that is NOT a military mission in the first place. In addition, the Obama administration has not announced a serious and coherent strategy to destroy ISIS. It is time for stars on the table, without delay.

What military professional wants to preside over the demise of America’s Armed Forces? One would assume that the answer to that would be none. Yet that is exactly what is happening. The passiveness of the current Joint Chiefs of Staff is giving support to the destruction of America’s war fighting capabilities. Programmed cuts in the military budget as well as cuts resulting from sequestration are reducing America’s readiness to a dangerously low level. And placing women in Infantry and Special Operations units is an irresponsible and reckless policy that will result in needless deaths and injuries in combat situations.

Possibly the most egregious issue is the attack on religious liberty, as the First Amendment rights of service members’ faith are being infringed on constantly. By embracing the foolish and destructive decisions of the Obama administration, the military leadership is contributing to and overseeing the downfall of our most important national security asset, the US Armed Forces.

It is past time for some resignations to protest the Obama administration’s damaging policies. The oath that each military member takes is to “Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This is a serious and sacred oath and when you know that a policy is just plain wrong, then you are obligated by that oath to do something; that something is for military leaders to say to the President of the United States, “I can no longer support your ill-advised and reckless policies that I regard as threats to national security and the welfare of our men and women in uniform.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin is executive vice president at the Family Research Council.  He previously served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and was an original member of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force.

POTUS OBAMA SENT SECRET LETTER TO IRAN’S LEADERSHIP; SEEKING TEHRAN’S HELP AGAINST THE ISLAMIC STATE; PLEDGED NOT TO TAKE OUT ASSAD

ayattollah, November 7, 2014 · by R.C. Porter:

Disastrous and ill-conceived. From the very beginning of POTUS Obama’s first term in office, he and his ‘team’ have sought to offend our friends and appease our adversaries. One of POTUS Obama’s first foreign policy affronts against a long-time ally, was to send the bust of Winston Churchill back to England. Great start on how not to win friends and influence people. POTUS Obama’s view of the world and his perceived belief that America was in large part to blame for many of the world’s ills was naïve and perplexing. From his — can’t we all just get along speech in Cairo, to his failure to support the Iran uprising after a corrupt Presidential vote, his re-set with Russia, withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq too quickly and without a tether, failure to check China’s aggressive posture in the western Pacific, backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and now appeasing the Mullahs of Iran and the butcher of Syria — Obama’s foreign policy is breathtaking in its fecklessness and vacuity. The best way to defeat the Islamic State — is also take out Assad. The U.S. should have taken out Syrian military airfields — the minute we began bombing ISIS positions in northern Syria. And, we surely do not want to encourage the Mullahs in Tehran/Qum that they can still produce a nuclear weapon, or achieve a near-constant breakout capability with a deal more to their liking — because of a U.S. President’s desperation for a deal — at almost any price. Very, very disturbing. No wonder this letter was sent in secret, and without Congressional input, or knowledge. RCP.

 

Obama Wrote Secret Letter to Iran’s Khamenei About Fighting Islamic State

Presidential Correspondence With Ayatollah Stresses Shared U.S.-Iranian Interests in Combating Insurgents, Urges Progress on Nuclear Talks

By JAY SOLOMON And CAROL E. LEE, Nov. 6, 2014

WASHINGTON-President Barack Obama secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to people briefed on the correspondence.

The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.

Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say.

The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government.

The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important-whether in a potentially constructive or negative role-to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months.

Mr. Obama’s letter also sought to assuage Iran’s concerns about the future of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, according to another person briefed on the letter. It states that the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.

Mr. Obama and senior administration officials in recent days have placed the chances for a deal with Iran at only 50-50. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is set to begin intensive direct negotiations on the nuclear issue with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, on Sunday in the Persian Gulf country of Oman.

“There’s a sizable portion of the political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Americanism,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference on Wednesday about Iran’s leadership, without commenting on his personal overture. “Whether they can manage to say ‘Yes’…is an open question.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, foreground left, met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, background right, in Vienna in July. ENLARGE
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, foreground left, met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, background right, in Vienna in July. JIM BOURG

For the first time this week, a senior administration official said negotiations could be extended beyond the Nov. 24 deadline, adding that the White House will know after Mr. Kerry’s trip to Oman whether a deal with Iran is possible by late November.

“We’ll know a lot more after that meeting as to whether or not we have a shot at an agreement by the deadline,” the senior official said. “If there’s an extension, there’re questions like: What are the terms?”

Mr. Obama’s push for a deal faces renewed resistance after Tuesday’s elections gave Republicans control of the Senate and added power to thwart an agreement and to impose new sanctions on Iran. Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) have introduced legislation to intensify sanctions.

‘There’s a sizable portion of the [Iranian] political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Americanism. Whether they can manage to say ‘Yes’…is an open question.’

-Barack Obama

“The best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to quickly pass the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk legislation-not to give the Iranians more time to build a bomb,” Mr. Kirk said Wednesday.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) expressed concern when asked about the letter sent by Mr. Obama.

“I don’t trust the Iranians, I don’t think we need to bring them into this,” Mr. Boehner said. Referring to the continuing nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Mr. Boehner said he “would hope that the negotiations that are under way are serious negotiations, but I have my doubts.”

In a sign of the sensitivity of the Iran diplomacy, the White House didn’t tell its Middle East allies-including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates-about Mr. Obama’s October letter to Mr. Khamenei, according to people briefed on the correspondence and representatives of allied countries.

Leaders from these countries have voiced growing concern in recent weeks that the U.S. is preparing to significantly soften its demands in the nuclear talks with Tehran. They said they worry the deal could allow Iran to gain the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in the future.

Arab leaders also fear Washington’s emerging rapprochement with Tehran could come at the expense of their security and economic interests across the Middle East. These leaders have accused the U.S. of keeping them in the dark about its diplomatic engagements with Tehran.

The Obama administration launched secret talks with Iran in the Omani capital of Muscat in mid-2012, but didn’t notify Washington’s Mideast allies of the covert diplomatic channel until late 2013.

Senior U.S. officials declined to discuss Mr. Obama’s letter to Mr. Khamenei after questions from The Wall Street Journal.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday declined to comment on what he called “private correspondence” between the president and world leaders, but acknowledged U.S. officials in the past have discussed the Islamic State campaign with Iranian officials on the sidelines of international nuclear talks. He added the negotiations remain centered on Iran’s nuclear program and reiterated that the U.S. isn’t cooperating militarily with Iran on the Islamic State fight.

Administration officials didn’t deny the letter’s existence when questioned by foreign diplomats in recent days.

Mr. Khamenei has proved a fickle diplomatic interlocutor for Mr. Obama in the past six years.

Mr. Obama sent two letters to Iran’s 75-year-old supreme leader during the first half of 2009, calling for improvements in U.S.-Iran ties, which had been frozen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran.

Mr. Khamenei never directly responded to the overtures, according to U.S. officials. And Iran’s security forces cracked down hard that year on nationwide protests that challenged the re-election of then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .

Mr. Khamenei is believed to be the decision maker on the nuclear program. ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.S.-Iran relations have thawed considerably since the election of President Hasan Rouhani in June 2013. He and Mr. Obama shared a 15-minute phone call in September 2013, and Messrs. Kerry and Zarif have regularly held direct talks on the nuclear diplomacy and regional issues.

Still, Mr. Khamenei has often cast doubt on the prospects for better relations with Washington. He has criticized the U.S. military campaign against Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL, claiming it is another attempt by Washington and the West to weaken the Islamic world.

“America, Zionism, and especially the veteran expert of spreading divisions-the wicked government of Britain-have sharply increased their efforts of creating divisions between the Sunnis and Shiites,” Mr. Khamenei said in a speech last month, according to a copy of it on his website. “They created al Qaeda and [Islamic State] in order to create divisions and to fight against the Islamic Republic, but today, they have turned on them.”

Current and former U.S. officials have said Mr. Obama has focused on communicating with Mr. Khamenei specifically because they believe the cleric will make all the final decisions on Iran’s nuclear program and the fight against Islamic State.

Mr. Rouhani is seen as navigating a difficult balance of gaining Mr. Khamenei’s approval for his foreign policy decisions while trying to satisfy Iranian voters who elected him in the hope of seeing Iran re-engage with the Western world.

A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency checks the enrichment process inside the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in January. ENLARGE
A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency checks the enrichment process inside the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in January. EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY

The emergence of Islamic State has drastically changed both Washington’s and Tehran’s policies in the Middle East.

Mr. Obama was elected on the pledge of ending Washington’s war in Iraq. But over the past three months, he has resumed a U.S. air war in the Arab country, focused on weakening Islamic State’s hold of territory in western and northern Iraq.

Iran has had to mobilize its own military resources to fight against Islamic State, according to senior Iranian and U.S. officials.

Tehran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has sent military advisers into Iraq to help the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a close Iranian ally. The IRGC has also worked with Syrian President Assad’s government, and Shiite militias from across the Mideast, to conduct military operations inside Syria.

U.S. officials have stressed that they are not coordinating with Tehran on the fight against Islamic State.

But the State Department has confirmed that senior U.S. officials have discussed Iraq with Mr. Zarif on the sidelines of nuclear negotiations in Vienna. U.S. diplomats have also passed on messages to Tehran via Mr. Abadi’s government in Baghdad and through the offices of Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, among the most powerful religious leaders in the Shiite world.

Among the messages conveyed to Tehran, according to U.S. officials, is that U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria aren’t aimed at weakening Tehran or its allies.

“We’ve passed on messages to the Iranians through the Iraqi government and Sistani saying our objective is against ISIL,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on these communications. “We’re not using this as a platform to reoccupy Iraq or to undermine Iran.”

-Michael R. Crittenden contributed to this article.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com and Carol E. Lee atcarol.lee@wsj.com