Former Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf Presses Administration on ISIS Genocide

Source: The Investigative Project

Source: The Investigative Project

New English Review, by Jerry Gordon, Nov. 20, 2015:

Frank Wolf, former Northern Virginia Congressman in the US House of Representatives, and veteran human rights advocate, has been in the forefront of pressing the Administration to issue a rumored State Department ruling against ISIS for Genocide against Yazidis and hopefully threatened Christian and other non-Muslim Minorities in Syria and Iraq. We revealed the stalemate over including Syrian and Iraqi Christians in the proposed Genocide ruling in a post on a report by Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom, “State Department May Exclude Middle East Christians from ISIS Genocide Victim Ruling.”  Ann Patterson, Assistant Secretary of State who heads the Bureau of Near East Affairs, had allegedly excluded threatened Christian minorities from the proposed order. Patterson is the former US Ambassador to Egypt, who had supported the ousted Morsi regime backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. We are pleased that our Lisa Benson Show colleague, Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser, Vice Chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom supports inclusion of threatened Syriac and Assyrian Chaldean Christians in the proposed State department ISIS Genocide ruling.

Wolf’s campaign in support of the Genocide ruling against ISIS was reported in article by John Rossomando of Steve Emerson’s The Investigative Project, “Wolf Encouraged by Reported Administration Plans to Label ISIS Atrocities, Genocide:”  

“The administration from what we can gather is taking this very, very seriously,” Wolf said.

Wolf, a former Republican congressman from Northern Virginia, doesn’t agree with the Obama administration on many things, but the genocide issue may be one in which common ground is in sight.

“I commend them,” Wolf said. “I’m really pleased that they are moving ahead and doing this, but now that the administration is doing this, Congress ought to do something.”

A bipartisan resolution pending in the U.S. House describes crimes being perpetrated against Christians and other ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria as genocide under international law. It calls on the United Nations to “to assert leadership by calling the atrocities being committed in these places by their rightful names: ‘war crimes’, ‘crimes against humanity’, and ‘genocide’.”

In September, Wolf sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking that the genocide label be applied. He also asked that the U.S. prosecute ISIS’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Mohammed Emwazi, aka “Jihadi John,” for killing American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, and American aid worker Kala Mueller.

That was before a drone strike in Syria killed Emwazi last week.

Wolf’s investigation in Iraq reveals Genocide and threatened Yazidi and other religious minorities.

Wolf interviewed 75 Yazidi girls last winter during a trip to the region with the 21stCentury Wilberforce Initiative, where he is a distinguished fellow.

“When we got back, it was clear to me that what we saw was genocide, particularly against the Yazidis, but even the Christians,” Wolf said.

In addition to the Yazidis, Shiite Muslims and Turkomen also are genocide victims, Wolf said. Wolf’s quest received an added boost from the U.S. Holocaust Museum, which issued a report last week also calling on the administration to label the atrocities against the Yazidis as genocide.

The report stated:

“Our findings also suggest there is sufficient reason to assert that in addition to committing crimes against humanity and war crimes, IS perpetrated genocide against the Yezidi population living in Ninewa in August 2014. The determination of genocide against the Yezidi population is based on a preponderance of the evidence, and does not reflect the standard necessary for individual criminal responsibility. Any formal determination that genocide was perpetrated needs to be made by a court and based on careful consideration of the evidence.”

Why the Genocide ruling is important.

“It would help trigger the indictment of … Al-Baghdadi,” Wolf said. “Al-Baghdadi was directly responsible for the deaths of the four Americans, including the assault of the poor woman from Arizona.

“That would almost have to follow through because it would force the Justice Department … to indict Al-Baghdadi.”

A genocide declaration would open the way to prosecuting anyone who helps ISIS. It also could pressure the U.N. to similarly classify the atrocities as genocide, Wolf said. Such people could be brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes tribunals similar to those that followed the Holocaust or the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.

“Anyone who did anything at all would be guilty of genocide,” Wolf said. “They would be a participant in genocide, so that will kind of chill a lot of the support for ISIS.”

The curious role of Qatari and Saudi culpability in support of ISIS Genocide.

This could potentially ensnare the ISIS supporters in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and even Turkey, the latter of which failed to stem the tide of foreign fighters into Syria.

Numerous people warned Wolf during his trip of Qatari funding for ISIS. Wealthy Qataris who bankrolled ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaida in Iraq, have maintained their financial support for ISIS. U.S. authorities repeatedly have cited Qatar for its failure to crackdown on terrorism financing.

“Qatar’s overall level of [counter-terrorism] cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region,” a top level State Department official wrote in a secret Dec. 30, 2009 State Department cable.

Saudi citizens “have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups,” Washington Institute Fellow Lori Plotkin Boghart wrote in a June 2014 report.

Turkey’s Intelligence Facilitates ISIS Smuggled Oil Sales.

A declaration also could turn those involved in black market ISIS oil sales into accessories to genocide.

“Trucks are rolling out of ISIS-controlled territory up into Turkey,” Wolf said.

ISIS earns an estimated $50 million per month from selling oil, Iraqi and American officials told the Associated Press. Turkey’s shadowy intelligence agency, MIT, is alleged to be helping manage ISIS’s oil smuggling operation.

Wolf also condemned Turkey for failing to shut down the flow of foreign fighters into its territory.

“Anyone aiding and abetting [genocide] could be prosecuted,” Wolf said.

Jasser on the Problem of Excluding Christians from the ISIS Genocide Ruling.

“There is no doubt that that designation meets the parameters of the definition of genocide because of the declaration by ISIS that they wanted to wipe those (Christians) out,” said Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Form for Democracy. “Their policies really do not fit together.

“This designation becomes meaningless if it’s not applied in a consistent and rational way,” said Jasser, who also serves as vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. ”

Christians must be included in any final declaration, Wolf said, but added that he was unaware of any effort to omit them.

A State Department spokeswoman would not comment on which minority groups might be covered in a genocide declaration, saying the agency did not want to “comment on any internal discussions.”

“We certainly continue to be horrified by ISIL’s atrocities against the Yazidi people, as well as its continuing appalling atrocities against other minority communities including Christians, Shabak, Turkmen, Sabean-Mandean, Kakai and other minority populations through its horrific campaign of murder, kidnapping, sexual slavery and forcible transfer of populations,” State Department spokeswoman Julia Mason said in an e-mailed statement.

Wolf and Jasser’s comments and those of Ms. Mason of the State raise questions of what’s behind Ms.Patterson’s reluctance to include Syrian and Iraqi Christians in the Genocide ruling. Is it perhaps because, as Shea, Joseph Kassab of the Iraqi Christian Advocacy and Empowerment Institute contend that it would force the State Department Refugee Admissions Program (RAP) under Assistant Secretary Ann Richards to issue P2/P3 visas for Family Reunification to tens of thousands of accredited Christians?  This disputed State Department ISIS Genocide ruling comes amidst the roiling Congressional debate with the Obama White House over admission of an initial allotment of allegedly vetted Syrian Refugees.  Arkansas US Sen. Tom Cotton revealed that the RAP “inadvertently” discriminates against Christians. Of the 2000 Syrian Refugees that have been admitted under RAP during the last three years, less than 3 percent were Christians. That is due  UN High Commissioner for Refugees Program excludes virtually all Christians as they are “urban refugees” avoiding those detention camps because of threats on their lives from Muslim residents, some alleged ISIS sympathizers.

Hillary Clinton, Arms Dealer


The dirty deals that put illegal arms shipments into the hands of Libyan jihadists.

Frontpage, by Arnold Ahlert, Nov. 9, 2015:

In a scathing column Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano makes the convincing case that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to Libya in a direction violation of the U.N. arms embargo, and then lied about it under oath during her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Oct. 22.

“To pursue her goal of a ‘democratic’ government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government,” Napolitano explains. “So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming—unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.”

Memos recovered from the incinerated compound in Benghazi give great weight to the assertion. The documents were obtained by the Washington Times and they reveal the American diplomats stationed there were keeping track of numerous potential U.S.-sanctioned weapons shipments aimed at arming our allies, “one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government,” the paper reports.

A file marked “arms deal” reveals that one of those shipments was supposed to be sent by Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, CA, one of many arms sellers that work with U.S. intelligence. The file contained an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing, and Dolarian confirmed one of the licensing requests the State Department initially approved in 2011 was an authorization to send weapons to Libya via Kuwait. The certificate was inexplicably revoked before Dolarian could ship rocket and grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition originally manufactured by former Soviet-bloc nations in Eastern Europe.

“Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya,” one of the company’s attorneys said in a statement issued to the Times. “The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter. As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, federal court documents obtained by Fox News reveal arms sales to Libyan rebels that occurred during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State were ultimately transacted. “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council,” stated career CIA officer David Manners in a sworn declaration to the District Court of Arizona on May 5, 2015.

Manners’ testimony was part of a grand jury investigation into American defense contractor Marc Turi and his company Turi Defense Group, another entity licensed by State to sell and transport weapons worldwide. The investigation was focused on both the source and user of weapons defined in court documents as “end user” or “end use”  that were entering Libya in 2011 while Qaddafi’s regime was collapsing–but before any Libyan opposition groups were formally recognized by the United States.

Turi illuminated what occurred in the midst of that chaos, including the reality that poor oversight of the operation allowed America’s enemies to obtain weapons. “When this equipment landed in Libya, half went one way, and the half went the other way,”  Turi said. “The half that went the other way is the half that ended up in Syria.”

Turi admitted to Fox he had criminal past that included stealing a computer, his roommate’s car, and writing several bad checks including one for $100,000 dollars. They verified his arrest, conviction and a stint in an Arizona jail, all of which seemingly conflict with what Fox characterizes as the “painstaking compliance” required to get the “necessary approvals set by strict US government regulations” to become a licensed arms contractor.

Turi was one cog in a rather large machine of State Department-licensed contractors awarded a record number of contract during Clinton’s tenure. “More than 86-thousand licenses with a value of $44.3 billion dollars were granted in 2011… a surge of more than $10 billion dollars from the previous year,” the news site reports.

Turi, who provided documents to Fox revealing exchanges with officials inside and outside the government, including high level members of Congress, the military, and State Department employees, explains he was part of a “zero footprint” supply chain whereby one Arab nation would supply another. “If you want to  limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,” Turi explained. “The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do.” Turi claims he never sent weapons to Qatar and that such transactions are handled by the government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs headed by Clinton aide Andrew Shapiro, who oversaw State’s export control process.

Read more

State Dept Watch Logs Show Hillary, Obama MIA During Benghazi Attack


Townhall, by Jim Hanson, Nov. 9, 2015:

Hillary Clinton failed to provide proper security to the US Consular facility in Benghazi, Libya before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 and she failed to secure any rescue operations for the four Americans who eventually died there. Recentlyreleased watch logs from the State Department operations center show she made no official inquiries from 10:30 p.m. that night through 7:15 a.m. the following morning. That is a long time to be missing when a U.S. diplomatic facility is under attack.

Why was no rescue effort mounted? That is the question that has been driving good people crazy since this happened. Every American manning a post anywhere on this entire planet has a right to believe the cavalry will ride to their rescue, or at least be launched toward them. That didn’t happen in this case and the blame lies with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama directly. The horrifying thing is official government records show no involvement from either one after an initial consultation.

Hillary had an obligation to fight for all the support she could get for her people once she heard they were under attack. The State Department watch logs should be full of notations like, “Secretary connected w/ DoD ref lack of relief forces” and “Secretary connected w/ POTUS ref Benghazi rescue” but instead there is blank space. She could not order the military to act, but she could damn sure have been lighting them up for failing to do so. That is leadership and she couldn’t even be bothered to answer that 3 a.m. call.

President Obama, however, could order the military to act and if you listen to the apologists he did so through Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The officer responsible for Libya was AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and he confirmed that Secretary Panetta gave him orders.

“The Secretary of Defense gave me clear direction at the outset, you know, to deploy forces again in anticipation that the first mission was a potential hostage rescue of the U.S. Ambassador, recovering evacuation of the wounded, and other persons from Benghazi.”

But on February 7th, 2013, when Sec. Panetta testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee he had this exchange:

“Senator Lindsey Graham: My question is, did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in Benghazi, Libya, before the attack ended?

Secretary Leon Panetta: No, because the attack ended before they could get off the ground.”

This makes no sense since the attack lasted more than eight hours and the order to deploy forces was given not long after it began. Are we to believe that no US forces anywhere could have been sent toward the sound of gunfire? And it doesn’t matter if they could have gotten there in time, because no one knew how long this situation would last. The one thing you cannot recover is time, so the first thing to do is get people moving toward the fight. And yet, that is the one thing that did not happen.

Let’s try to reconcile that. There are a lot of things that have to happen for a military unit to respond to an emergency in a foreign land. The initial order from Panetta was to deploy forces in anticipation of a mission to rescue the folks in Benghazi. In his testimony Gen. Ham confirmed that Sec. Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave him operational control and authority to employ the units required. They were alerted and staged but never went wheels up en route to Libya.

We have heard there was no transport available or they weren’t ready until the battle was over, but if the closest units couldn’t launch, the next closest should have. The cavalry was called, but never sent out the gates to ride to the rescue. Why? If he really was told to do what was necessary to save our people, Gen. Ham would have had some unit from somewhere moving. So either he didn’t want to do that, or was not authorized to do more than alert and stage the units.

Does anyone really believe that President Obama would have left the decision to launch an armed attack into a foreign country to a lone General? He held six months worth of meetings before making the gutsy call to approve a raid on bin Laden.

Gen. Ham didn’t launch those units toward Libya because he needed approval from up the food chain to do so. That order never came.

It is the dog than didn’t bark. Hillary made no strident calls for someone, anyone to rescue her people and Obama fiddled while Benghazi burned. Then, while they both slept, our people in Benghazi died.

Bill launched to halt refugee resettlement

Somali community in Lewiston, Maine, one of many cities and towns where the U.S. State Department, working with the U.N., has sent large contingents of refugees.

Somali community in Lewiston, Maine, one of many cities and towns where the U.S. State Department, working with the U.N., has sent large contingents of refugees.

WND, By Leo Hohmann On 07/31/2015:

A Texas congressman has introduced legislation that would halt the resettlement of United Nations-certified refugees in the U.S. pending a full study on the program’s impact on the nation’s economy and national security.

Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, introduced the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, or HR 3314, which places an “immediate suspension on allowing immigrants into the United States under the refugee resettlement program, until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completes a thorough examination of its costs on federal, state and local governments.”

According to U.S. government data, nearly 500,000 new immigrants have come to the U.S. under the resettlement program since President Obama took office – with the state of Texas and its taxpayers taking in more than any other state.

Since 2002, a total of 69,490 refugees from more than a dozen countries have been resettled in Texas. That does not include “secondary migration,” which involves refugees moving into Texas after first being resettled elsewhere.

Texas, California lead the way

The Lone Star State absorbed 7,214 refugees in fiscal 2014, followed by California with 6,108 and New York with 4,082. Michigan received 4,006 refugees and Florida 3,519 to round out the top five. Minnesota, when secondary migration is included, also makes the top five with more than 4,000 refugees arriving every year.

The refugees pour in from Iraq, Somalia, Burma, Bhutan, Cuba, Afghanistan, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and even Syria, the world’s most active hotbed of jihadist activity.

And it’s not only major urban centers receiving refugees. Cities like Amarillo, Texas; Manchester, New Hampshire; Twin Falls, Idaho; Lewiston, Maine; Wichita, Kansas; and St. Cloud, Minnesota, have been slammed with thousands of refugees from the Third World over the past decade. Most arrive with no English or job skills, and the nine major resettlement agencies that get government cash to do the resettlement work typically only provide aid for three to five months. After that, the refugees are mainly the responsibility of state and local governments.

Almost all of America’s refugees are selected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres.

After they are assigned to the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are responsible for screening them for connections to foreign terrorist organizations. FBI Counter-terrorism Deputy Director Michael Steinbach testified before Congress in February that it is impossible to screen refugees from a “failed state” like Syria, where the U.S. has no boots on the ground and no access to reliable law enforcement data. Somalia has similarly devolved into chaos.

‘Economic and social costs’ wearing on communities

“It is extremely unsettling that the Obama administration would continue to expand the U.S. resettlement program at such an irresponsible pace in light of our economic and national security challenges,” said Babin in a statement on his website. “While this program may be warranted in certain situations, it is continuing at an unchecked pace. For the past decade, the U.S. has been admitting roughly 70,000 new refugees a year, with little understanding of the economic and social costs on our communities.”

The costs of the resettlement program have ballooned to $1 billion a year, according to the government, and that only covers the costs of grants used to administer the program. The $1 billion figure does not include the cost of social welfare programs that refugees immediately qualify for upon entry into the country.

“Our legislation institutes a common-sense pause in the program so that we can better understand the long-term and short-term costs that this program has on local governments, states and U.S. taxpayers,” Babin said. “It also gives us an opportunity to examine potential national security issues related to entry and resettlement, particularly as federal law enforcement officials are increasingly concerned about home-grown terrorists.”

Resistance growing in South Carolina, Idaho, Minnesota

A public backlash against the refugee resettlement program has sprung up in recent months in several communities, including Spartanburg, South Carolina; Twin Falls, Idaho; and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

The refugee resettlement industry, which includes legions of immigrant rights advocates, lawyers and community organizing groups funded by George Soros, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, among others, churned out a document in 2013 on how to deal with so-called “pockets of resistance.”

The document, authored by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the nine government contractors doing resettlement work, advised refugee advocates to research the backgrounds of local people who oppose resettlements and turn them over to the Southern Poverty Law Center for public shaming as “racists” and “anti-Muslim” bigots.

This strategy has already been employed to varying extents in Spartanburg, St. Cloud and Twin Falls as residents have become organized and started demanding answers about how many refugees will be arriving, from what countries, and what the social and economic impact will be on school systems, job markets, health care and housing.

Read more 

Judicial Watch: Newly Released Documents Confirm White House Officials Set Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Response

NATO Summit Lisbon 2010 - Day 1Judicial Watch, June 29, 2015:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council.  The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request on June 13, 2014, and subsequently a lawsuit on September 4, 2014, seeking:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

A September 11, 2012, email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack.  Referencing pending press statements by Barack Obama and Clinton, Nuland wrote: “We are holding for Rhodes clearance. BMM, pls advise asap.”

Meehan responded three minutes later, at 6:24 p.m.: “Ben is good with these and is on with Jake now too.”

Rhodes sent an email at 9:48 p.m. to senior White House and State officials on the issue: “We should let the State Department statement be our comment for the night.”

An email from Meehan, sent at 10:15 p.m. on September 11 to Rhodes, Nuland, Sullivan, Kennedy and Clinton aide Philippe Reines, further confirms the White House approval of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to an Internet video: “All, the Department of State just released the following statement. Per Ben [Rhodes’] email below, this should be the USG comment for the night.”

The “USG comment” turned out to be Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Rhodes emailed Meehan, Sullivan and Reines at 11:45 p.m. on September 11, writing, “Fyi – we are considering releasing this tonight.”  The next line is redacted.  The email also included a “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” the contents of which are also completely redacted.

On September 12, the day after the attack, Meehan sent an email to Obama administration officials announcing that “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15AM ET today.”

The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative. The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack.  The email has the subject line:  “Urgent: Anti-Islamic Film and Violence” and reads in part:

I am sure you are considering putting a statement on the film and the related violence.  In addition to the condemnation of the disgusting depictions, it will be important to emphasize the need to respond in a way that is consistent with Islamic principles, i.e. not engaging in violence and taking innocent life …

The resulting OIC statement, sent to Hussain by the OIC’s Uraz, linked the film, as requested by the Obama administration, to the Benghazi attack and suggested that the United States restrict free speech in response.  The official OIC statement called the film “incitement” and stated that the attack in Benghazi and a demonstration in Cairo “emanated from emotions aroused by a production of a film had hurt [sic] the religious sentiments of Muslims.  The two incidents demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression.”  The OIC’s statement referenced its own efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam. Hussain sent the OIC statement immediately to other Obama administration officials, including then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who thanks Hussain for the email.

The State Department withheld communications on September 12, 2012, between Hillary Clinton’s senior aide Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain about an article passed by him about how “American Muslim leaders” were tying the video to the Benghazi attack.  At the time of the Benghazi attack, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 “special government employee” compensation.

The State Department also disclosed a document, dated September 13, 2012, entitled “USG Outreach and Engagement Post Benghazi Attack.”  This record details how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack.  The document “captures USG efforts to engage outside voices to encourage public statements that denounce the attack make it clear that the anti-Muslim film does not reflect American [sic].”  The document highlights the use of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the terrorist attack to an Internet video.  The “outreach” document also highlights “Special Envoy’s engagement” with the OIC and the “Saudi Ambassador.”

The documents show that the Internet video was raised in a September 15 discussion between Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.  The “eyes only” “secret” document was partially declassified.  Davutoglu “called the controversial anti-Islam video a ‘clear provocation,’ but added that wise people should not be provoked by it.”  The next line is blacked out and the markings show that it will not be declassified until 2027, more than twelve years from now.

Another email, evidently from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sent to Meehan and other top White House and administration officials, shows that the administration took no action to deploy military assets almost five hours after the attack begun:

OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt].  Have responded “not to our knowledge.”

The State Department referred Judicial Watch to documents in the batch of 55,000 emails allegedly turned over by Hillary Clinton and searched in response to the court order in this lawsuit.  These emails were published on the State Department’s web site, but are also available here.  In addition, the State Department produced new documents containing Hillary Clinton emails.  In one such email (September 11, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.) from Clinton to Nuland, Sullivan and top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, with the subject line “Chris Smith,” Clinton writes: “Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?”

Nuland responds: “We need to ck family’s druthers. If they are OK, we should put something out from you tonight.” Mills then replies to Nuland, “Taking S [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] off.” (Sean Smith, not “Chris Smith” was one of four Americans killed at Benghazi.)

On September 13, 2012, Politico’s Mike Allen sent then-National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor an news article entitled “America was warned of embassy attack but did nothing.”  The story reported that “senior officials are increasingly convinced” the Benghazi attack was “not the result of spontaneous anger.” Vietor forwarded the story to other top White House and State Department officials, but Vietor’s accompanying comments and the comments of other top Obama appointees are completely redacted.  The administration also redacted several emails of top State officials discussing a statement by Romney campaign spokesman criticizing the “security situation in Libya.”

In April 2014, Judicial Watch first obtained smoking gun documents showing that it was the Obama White House’s public relations effort that falsely portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

The documents include an email by White House operative Ben Rhodes sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” This “prep” was for Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her appearances on Sunday news shows to discuss the Benghazi attack and deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to the video.

The email listed as one of the administration’s key talking points:

“Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.

“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech.  It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people.  All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie.”

State Department: Terror Attacks Increased 35% Between 2013 and 2014

French riot police officers run past a burning truck in Paris suburb, Aulnay-sous-Bois, early Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005. Britain's struggle to contain Muslim extremism points up a chilling trend across Europe: the rise of radical Islam, and with it, a willingness among a small but dangerous minority of young people to answer the call to jihad. From the squalid suburbs north of Paris to the gritty streets of Sarajevo, young disaffected Muslims are increasingly receptive to hard-liners looking to recruit foot soldiers for holy war, European counterterrorism officials and religious leaders warn. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

French riot police officers run past a burning truck in Paris suburb, Aulnay-sous-Bois, early Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005. Britain’s struggle to contain Muslim extremism points up a chilling trend across Europe: the rise of radical Islam, and with it, a willingness among a small but dangerous minority of young people to answer the call to jihad. From the squalid suburbs north of Paris to the gritty streets of Sarajevo, young disaffected Muslims are increasingly receptive to hard-liners looking to recruit foot soldiers for holy war, European counterterrorism officials and religious leaders warn. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

Washington Free Beacon, by Blake Seitz, June 19, 2015:

The Associated Press reported Friday that terror attacks have increased 35 percent between 2013 and 2014. Deaths due to terrorist attacks have spiked by 81 percent.

The news comes from the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which will be officially released later on Friday.

Terror attacks in 2014 were “exceptionally lethal,” with 20 attacks claiming more than 100 victims.

The AP reports that “increased terror activity has been observed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria,” with the highest number of attacks occurring in Iraq, where the Islamic State has capitalized on the power vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

CNN reports that the publication singles out Islamic State and Boko Haram as terrorist groups gaining momentum, stealing recruits from traditional terror groups like Al Qaeda.

The report claims that the four-year-old Syrian civil war, which has claimed over 200,000 lives and displaced 40 percent of the country’s population, was a catalyst for terror and unrest elsewhere in the Middle East.

According to the report, more than 16,000 foreign fighters entered Syria in 2014, most of whom went to fight for IS.

The report claims that this number “exceeded the rate of foreign fighters who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia at any point in the last 20 years.”

The Islamic State’s strength is a matter of much debate, but some analysts estimate the group has more than 50,000 fighters—enough to replace battlefield casualties it has sustained from intense fighting in Syria and Iraq.

While much of the increased terrorist activity has occurred in the disorderly Middle East, Americans traveling abroad were not safe from harm. Twenty-four Americans were killed by terror attacks in 2014.

Also see:

Egypt Summons U.S. Ambassador Over MB Visit



IPT, by John Rossomando  •  Jun 9, 2015:

Egypt asked the U.S. ambassador in Cairo to account for the Obama administration’s allowing Muslim Brotherhood officials to visit Washington for a private conference this week sponsored by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID).

Egypt sought the recent meeting with Ambassador Stephen Beecroft to show its displeasure with American policy toward the Brotherhood, which it labels a terrorist organization.

Delegation members include Amr Darrag, whose handling of drafting and ratifying Egypt’s December 2012 constitution led to fears the Brotherhood aimed to impose a theocracy; and Wael Haddara, a Canadian Brotherhood member who served as an adviser to deposed President Mohamed Morsi.

The administration has no plans to meet with the delegation, State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said Tuesday. U.S. policy allowed for engagement with people from across Egypt’s political spectrum, he said Monday.

Emails obtained by Middle East Briefing, a publication of the Dubai-based Orient Advisory Group, show that since 2010, Obama administration policy sought to support the Muslim Brotherhood under Presidential Study Directive 11.

State Department and White House officials met in January with a Muslim Brotherhood delegation whose trip had been partly funded by the Brotherhood-linked group Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFJ). EAFJ leader Mahmoud El Sharkawy is a member of the Brotherhood’s international organization and serves as liaison between his group and Brotherhood members exiled in Turkey, Egypt’s Al-Bawaba newspaper reported in April.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki downplayed the visit and denied it was a Brotherhood delegation, saying it was a delegation of former Egyptian parliamentarians which included members of the Freedom and Justice Party. Delegation member Waleed Sharaby said in a February interview with Egypt’s Mekameleen TV that the State Department agreed with their position that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi had not brought stability and that his removal would pave the way for a transition to democracy.

Recent Muslim Brotherhood calls for violence have been reflected in the Facebook accounts of EAFJ members. El Sharkawy’s Facebook page supports violence in Egypt in posts such as a Feb. 10 communiqué from the Popular Resistance Movement (PRM) which has launched attacks against Egyptian police and other targets. It features an image of a blood-red map of Egypt with a fist superimposed over it and claims responsibility on behalf of the PRM for targeting two police cars. It also stated the following motto in Arabic: “God, martyrs, Revolution.”

Other members of EAFJ such as board member Hani Elkadi, who identified himself as a Brotherhood member in a March 9 post, have posted similar images on Facebook.

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

Refugee_Hijra_Widget (1)CSP, June 2, 2015:

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

Remember that 2011 presidential finding authorizing covert arming of Libyan rebels?

obama-hillary-holding-hands-wh-photoMedia Missing The Benghazi Timeline When Reviewing and Reporting on Hillary Clinton Emails – Also Missing “Gang of Eight” When Discussing Mike Rogers

The Last Refuge, by Sundance, May 29, 2015:

Everyone is missing the late February 2011 Presidential Finding Memo, <– INSERT FLASHY “READ ME” SIGN HERE, signed by President Obama which authorized the covert CIA/State Department operation.

[…]  The Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.

Everyone is also missing as a result of that directive the Intelligence Gang of Eight, which included Mike Rogers, was informed of the CIA/State Dept. goal.

The White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

All of these people were fully aware of the (Feb 2011) Presidential Directive, and fully aware of the joint CIA/State Department mission which stemmed from it.

clinton emailsFox News, one of the few organizations digging into the substance of the Benghazi/Clinton emails, via Catherine Herridge runs this article yesterday:    “Emails show Clinton’s interest in arming Libyan rebels despite prohibitions“.

Recently released emails detail then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors before the fall of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 – though at the time, the opposition was not formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations, which prohibited arming without following strict guidelines and oversight.

The issue remains so sensitive that the emails recently released by the State Department redacted a key line on the matter. But the unredacted version of the same email, released to the congressional Benghazi Select Committee and first posted by The New York Times last Thursday, showed Clinton appearing to endorse the idea of using private contractors to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan.

“FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Clinton wrote to Sullivan on April 8, 2011, attaching an intelligence report from Hillary’s adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The opposition was known as the Transitional National Council, or TNC.

Another email released by the State Department shows that five days earlier, on April 3, 2011, Bill Clinton said he would not rule out arming the Libyan opposition. The story was circulated by Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s principal personal adviser at the State Department, to “H.” While it’s not clear who “H” is, based on the message traffic it is likely Hillary Clinton or possibly adviser Huma Abedin.

Later that same year, a Sept. 10, 2011 email with a subject line “Rogers” said, “Apparently wants to see you to talk Libya/weapons.”

At the time, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was Mike Rogers, who abruptly announced he would not seek re-election in the spring of 2014. Rogers did not immediately respond to questions seeking comment. Fox News also filed its own Freedom of Information Act request for the documents in October 2012.

Obviously Secretary Hillary Clinton has emails in April 2011 outlining using contractors to facilitate the Presidential Directive, and deliver weapons to the “Libyan Rebels”.  The directive was authorized in February 2011, by President Obama – IT WAS REPORTED IN REUTERS A MONTH LATER !

Why doesn’t Catherine Herridge know this?

We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.

We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.

We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and the subsequent potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.

We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.

listen_up_words_horizontal__clear_bkrd__4-14-08_mayv_kyjxIf we could make a singular request it would be that THE BENGHAZI BRIEF be referenced for source citations by anyone reviewing Hillary Clinton emails around the time of the Libya decision making.

We are not looking for credit and don’t care how the information is presented. The Brief itself can be thought of as merely a reference tool to deliver over 500 internal historical MSM citations needed for both context and verification of Libyan issues.

Like This One <- March 2011


Also see:

U.S. aided arms flow from Benghazi to Syria

A Syrian Kurdish fighter in Kobani, Syria, in January Associated Press

A Syrian Kurdish fighter in Kobani, Syria, in January Associated Press, By J.C. DERRICK, May 18, 2015:

WASHINGTON—Documents released today confirm the Obama administration knew weapons were flowing out of Benghazi, Libya, to Syrian rebels in 2012 even though the rebels had well-publicized ties to al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Previous reports, including one by WORLD in 2013, have linked U.S. involvement in Libya to arms flowing into Syria, but the new documents provide the first verification that contradicts administration officials and congressional Democrats who maintained there was no evidence to support it. The documents provide further confirmation that the CIA and the State Department—under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—received immediate intelligence that the attack was committed by al-Qaeda- and Muslim Brotherhood-linked brigades, even as Clinton and other officials claimed it was the result of rioting against a Muslim-bashing video.

“Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,” says an October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document released with heavy redactions. It notes the activity took place weeks before terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, killing four Americans in September: “The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were [500] sniper rifles, [100] RPGs, and [400] 125 mm and 155 mm howitzers missiles.”

Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C., watchdog group, obtained the cache of more than 100 documents after filing a lawsuit in federal court. The judge who ordered the release, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a 2013 appointee of President Barack Obama.

“These documents are jaw-dropping,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said. “No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.”

Administration officials—including the CIA’s former acting director in sworn congressional testimony last year—have argued that initial intelligence showed no evidence of a pre-planned attack at Benghazi. But new documents undercut that assertion. A DIA memo dated September 12, 2012, says the attack was planned at least 10 days in advance to “kill as many Americans as possible” in revenge for a U.S. air strike that killed a militant leader in Pakistan and to commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

That document, also heavily redacted, was circulated to top administration officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, four days before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on several national television shows claiming the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest.

Clare Lopez, a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi—a group of former intelligence officers, military personnel, and national security experts—told me it comes as no surprise that Benghazi was a retaliatory attack since al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in a video had called on the “sons of Libya” to avenge his deputy’s death. Lopez said the Judicial Watch release is “very significant,” because it “begins to peel back a little more of the layers of the onion about what was going on in Benghazi, and why that mission [facility] was there.”

Lopez, a former CIA officer who is now a vice president at the Center for Security Policy, said the commission has confirmed it was not the CIA but the State Department that managed the gun-running operation. According to Lopez, the department put up between $125,000 to $175,000 for each surface-to-air missile it funneled out of Libya to the Syrian battlefield.

The new revelations raise the stakes in the ongoing Benghazi investigation, which threatens to extend deep into the 2016 presidential campaign season. Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, created a year ago following another Judicial Watch release, say the administration is stalling in its production of documents. Democrats have accused Republicans of moving at a “glacial pace” to unnecessarily drag out the probe.

Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 race, has agreed to testify before the panel, but the Republicans who control the committee say they won’t call her until they receive all relevant documents.

Monday’s disclosure includes startling detail showing that U.S. intelligence agencies know about militant activities down to the measurements of a room where al-Qaeda collects documents in Libya. The militants responsible for the Benghazi attacks controlled large caches of weapons “disguised by feeding troughs for livestock” and trained “almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

A DIA report from August 2012 detailed the “dire consequences” of unfolding events in the Middle East, and predicted the rise of ISIS and a possible caliphate 17 months before Obama called the group a “JV team.
“This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters,” the document reads. “ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

J.C. is a reporter in WORLD’s Washington Bureau. He spent 10 years covering sports, higher education, and politics for the Longview News-Journal and other newspapers in Texas before joining WORLD in 2012. Follow J.C. on Twitter @jcderrick1.

Also see:

Trojan Horse Billion $ US State Dept. Program Brings Refugee Jihadis to America


NER, by Jerry Gordon, May 12, 3015:

Mike Bates and I interviewed Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  blog on 1330amWEBY’s “Your Turn’ program, Tuesday, May 12, 2015. Corcoran is the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America .“ We noted  early in the interview the importance of Hijra (immigration in Arabic) as a doctrinal imperative for Muslims in one of the Hadith (saying of Mohammed) according to a reliable commentator, Bukhari:

There can be no Hijra (migration) after the conquest  but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle then spread out.

For more see: Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  By Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi.

The focus of our discussion was on  rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement  under the billion dollar secretive US Refugee Admission Program that has operated under the virtual radar screen for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President  Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Based on the interview, Corcoran believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting thousands of  potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Watch  Corcoran’s  Center for Security Policy You Tube video which has gone viral since its posting on April 20, 2015 with  236,748 hits at last count.

Here are some takeaways from the 1330amWEBY interview with Corcoran:

  • The UN High Commissioner for Refugees  “calls the shots”  on the annual allotment of 70,000 refugees that the State Department sends a Presidential Directive  to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC to be ‘rubber stamped’ by Senate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and Border Security.
  • The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions program through hearings and recommendations leading to changes in countries of origin under UN allotments.
  • The Refugee Admissions Program has been used punitively against  political critics. One example is the assignment  of  large  numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota
  • Nearly 400,000 refugees admitted to the US under this State Department program funded by taxpayers came from “countries that hate us”: Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and soon, Syria;
  • Hundreds of terrorists have entered the US as refugees, many fraudulently, whose backgrounds are impossible  to run background checks as their countries of origin are virtual failed states;
  • Among examples of refugee Jihads caught are:

Dozens of Somaliémigré youths arrested and charged with material support for terrorism by attempting or leaving to join Al Shabaab in war torn Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria;

Iraqi Al Qaeda operatives admitted because of fraudulent representations who were convicted of trying to attempting to ship weapons and funds to Al Qaeda and only caught when fingerprints were found on shards of an IED that killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in Iraq;

The Brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three and one MIT police officer, injuring over 263, some maimed for life.

  • Rampant fraud was detected  from DNA samples among Somali applicants under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program  resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years.  20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued to eject them.
  • Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department  Refugee program let in to the US  thousands of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.
  • Endangered Middle East Christians are effectively discriminated against for refugee status, because  they do not reside in UNHCR camps, dominated by Sunni Muslims. Of  the initial group of  Syrian refugees brought into the US, 92 percent were Muslims, with the balance Christian.
  • There are upwards of  17,000 Syrians refugees  in the UNHCR pipeline awaiting processing for admission to the US.
  • The State Department contracts with 9 religious and special interest NGOs who place refugees through a network of 350 contractors and compete for significant processing fees and grants for obtaining citizenship.
  • Refugees are legal immigrants and thus have access to a smorgasbord of cash assistance, Medicaid, educational support that run into billions of costs all funded by US taxpayers.
  • The  Federal  Office of Refugee Resettlement  has a contract with a Soros-backed immigration advocacy group, “Welcoming America,” to go into ‘pockets of resistance’ in local communities targeted for refugee allotments.
  • Local communities have virtually no say or review of refugee placements to assess local burden on schools, medical facilities or assisted housing. That has led Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to write Secretary Kerry to put a hold on refugees slated for his district until resettlement questions are answered.

For more, listen to the 1330amWEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.  An article based on this interview will appear in the June edition of the NER.

Rising Concerns over Muslim Refugee Resettlement in US: 1330amWEBY Interview with Ann Corcoran

Refugee_Hijra_WidgetNER, by Jerry Gordon, May 11, 2015:

Ann Corcoran’s brief video on Muslim Refugee Resettlement in the US has gone viral since being put up on YouTube on April 20, 2015 by the Center for Security Policy.  It has had over 200,735 hits to date climbing every day.  Clearly, Corcoran’s message has resonated among concerned Americans.   Watch it on YouTube:

The CSP YouTube video is a complement to her recently published book on the problems confronting America over the threat of mass Muslim migration that has transformed Europe and now troubles grass roots America,Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America” .

Corcoran and her team chronicle news and developments about this issue on the blog where she is editor,Refugee Resettlement Watch.     You may have read our interview with Erick Stakelbeck, ISIS Threat to America  in the current edition of the NER where he drew attention to the Somali refugee communities in the American heartland sending jihadi terrorists in Somali and Syria.  He spoke of young Somali émigré men who have joined up with, first Al Shabaab in Somalia, and now increasingly, join the Islamic State to fight for the self-declared Caliphate in Syria and Iraq.   We have drawn attention to the problems of Somali refugee resettlement in NER articles and Iconoclast posts over the past eight years.  They have  covered  severe cultural and integration problems in the American heartland  in places like Shelbyville, Tennessee, Emporia, Kansas, Greeley , ColoradoMinneapolis, Minnesota,  Columbus, Ohio, and Lewiston, Maine.

The Somali émigré jihadis aren’t the only terrorists among admitted refugees. Think of the brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013. See our NER article, “Refugee Jihad Terror in Boston.”   An ABC investigation reported  that dozens of terrorists have been admitted fraudulently under the US Refugee Admission Program.

One example was two Iraqi refugees, al Qaeda operatives,   arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2011 convicted in 2013. They were charged with sending weapons and cash to Al Qaeda.  They lied on their Federal Refugee Admission forms about their prior terrorist involvements in Iraq. One had constructed IEDs, involved in killing four members of a Pennsylvania National guard unit in 2006 in Iraq.  A check of fingerprints on the shards of the IED caught the perpetrator.  Watch this 2013 ABC Report.   Recently, one of those convicted, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi , filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction because his counsel said he wouldn’t get life.  That episode briefly raised the criticism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

In excess of 250,000 Somali and Iraqis have been admitted to the US as refugees.  An estimated one million have immigrated to the US from Muslim lands. Through births and admittance of relatives under the problematic P-3 Family Reunification Visa program the impact could mean millions of additional Muslim émigrés in the US.  Virtually all of the Somali and Iraqi refugees were Muslim.  Endangered Christians and other minority religion accounted for less than 8 percent of Syrian Refugees admitted under the State Department administered   US Refugee Admissions Program .   Eleven Christian, Jewish and special interest NGOs or voluntary agencies (VOLAGS) are paid by the billion dollar State Department refugee program to process and place refugees in American communities.  VOLAGS like Catholic Charities, Lutheran World Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the International Rescue Committee.  The total annual federal and state program costs of refugee resettlement are estimated to range in excess of $12 to $20 billion annually.

The UNHigh Commissioner for Refugees  establishes priorities for US Admissions under the Refugee Act of 1980. An Act co-sponsored by the late Edward Kennedy and then Senator, now Vice President in the Obama Administration, Joe Biden. The US may be poised to accept another wave of over 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.   Doubtless they and growing number of  Muslim refugees from  elsewhere in the Middle East,  Africa and South Asia  will be “seeded”  in American cities  under the Fostering  Community Engagement  and Welcoming  Communities Project  of  the Office of Refugee  Resettlement with the Soros-backed  NGO , “Welcoming America “.

But now there is pushback by American cities, as witnessed by concerns expressed in letters to Secretary of State Kerry by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Judiciary Sub Committee on Immigration and Border Security.  Both The House Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) hold annual hearings over refugee allotments.  Gowdy’s   letter of April 13, 2015 was prompted by constituent complaints in Spartanburg, South Carolina of the establishment of a VOLAG office to processing Muslim refugees.  He wrote Secretary Kerry seeking answers as to why the office was being established and had not been reviewed with state and local agencies.  He ended his letter:

I request that any plans to resettle refugees in the Spartanburg, South Carolina, area be placed on hold until my constituents and I receive your substantive responses to the questions and information requested in this letter. Additionally, before moving forward, both the Spartanburg community and I should have time to substantively review the information and be comfortable with the information provided.

As previously stated, I am troubled by the lack of notice and coordination with my office and the Spartanburg community, particularly local officials, regarding the plans to resettle refugees in the area. In that vein, I request at least one month’s notice prior to the arrival of the first refugee[s] in the Spartanburg area.

To find out more about what could become an important issue for evaluation of 2016 Presidential candidates, be sure to listen to an interview with Ann Corcoran of RRW by Jerry Gordon and Mike Bates on 1330amWEBY “Your Turn.” The program will air at 5:30PM CDT (6:30PM EDT), Tuesday, May 12th.  You may Listen Live here. The recorded program will be archived and posted following the broadcast.  A transcript of the interview may appear in the June edition of the NER.

Also see:

Why is the Iran Framework Deal Classified Secret and Locked Up in the Senate Security Office?

classifiedCSP, by Fred Fleitz, April 21, 2015:

A Senate staff member told me yesterday there is a classified version of the nuclear framework with Iran that members of the Senate are having difficulty assessing because it has been classified secret and is locked up in the Senate security office.  I was told that few Senate staffers are being allowed to read this classified version of the framework.

This revelation raises several serious questions about President Obama’s desperate effort to get a nuclear deal with Iran.

First, this classified version of the framework agreement must be different from the fact sheet on the framework released by the State Department on April 2.  We already know, based on a revelation by the French, that the Obama administration withheld from the fact sheet a controversial provision of the framework on advanced centrifuges.  Were other controversial provisions withheld?  Did Obama officials selectively release parts of the framework to block congressional action against a nuclear deal?

Second, since Iranian officials have denounced the fact sheet as a lie, does the classified version show what was actually agreed to?  Does it show major differences in areas where Obama officials are claiming the United States and Iran are in agreement?

Third, the U.S. government classifies information to prevent disclosure to our adversaries.  Who is the adversary here?  Not Iran, since the classified framework document reflects discussions and agreements with Iranian diplomats.  It is pretty clear that the framework documents have been classified to keep them from the American people, not hostile foreign governments, and to make it as difficult as possible for members of Congress and their staffs to access them.

With Iran rejecting U.S. claims that a final nuclear deal will have strong provisions on verification and lifting sanctions, and a new report that President Obama has offered Iran a $50 billion “signing bonus” for agreeing to a nuclear deal, opposition to the president’s dangerous nuclear diplomacy with Iran is growing on Capitol Hill.  Every member of Congress must review the classified documents on the framework with their staffs to determine the full extent of the Obama administration’s concessions to Iran in the nuclear talks and how to respond if important U.S. concessions have been kept from the American people.

Also see:

State Department Orders Crash Course on Negotiating Week After Iran Deal

John Kerry / AP

John Kerry / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Elizabeth Harrington, April 8, 2015:

Less than a week following the framework of a nuclear deal with Iran that allows the Islamic Republic to continue operating core aspects of its program, the State Department is looking for a new training course on how to negotiate.

The agency released a solicitation for “Negotiations” on Wednesday, revealing that the State Department is seeking a class for U.S. diplomats on “making and receiving concessions wisely.”

“The overall course teaches the essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes for U.S. diplomats to succeed in any of 275 overseas posts performing the full spectrum of political and economic work,” the solicitation said. “This module will focus on the complex art of negotiating across diverse cultures to find common ground for advancing mutual interests.”

The training is meant to increase “understanding and effectiveness” of negotiations between foreign powers.

The State Department said upon completion of the course diplomats will be better able to describe “basic, universal negotiating concepts and vocabulary,” and identify “objectives and underlying interests of negotiating parties.”

“Preparing relevant strategies for diplomatic persuasion,” and “analyzing ‘Lessons Learned’ through debriefing to improve future outcomes,” are other goals of the course.

The three-week course also seeks for State Department diplomats to understand “cultural considerations” and “building trust” between their foreign counterparts.

“Applying appropriate negotiation techniques to a given scenario, including but not limited to: clarifying assumptions, generating and evaluating alternatives, making and receiving concessions wisely, understanding cultural considerations and behavioral preferences, building trust, representing one’s own and others’ interests, and being aware of assumptions,” the solicitation said.

America’s top diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, extended his stay last week in Lausanne, Switzerland, past the March 31 deadline to reach a nuclear agreement with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

The framework for the agreement, agreed to by the United States, the European Union, and the “P5+1” nations, allows Iran to continue to run major portions of its nuclear program and will terminate economic sanctions against the country.

“We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development,” Zarif said following the agreement.

Zarif accused Kerry and the Obama administration of lying hours after the framework was released, saying that the United States had promised sanctions would be immediately terminated, not lifted gradually.

Also see:

Tweet of Defeat

by Mark Steyn  •  Mar 12, 2015

I’ve written many times about the Islamic State’s ingenious use of social media – or, as they’ve brilliantly transformed it, anti-social media. These guys really are on – what’s the phrase? – the cutting edge. By contrast, the 12-year-old zeitgeist-surfers running communications at the Obama Administration are clumsy, cack-handed, and worse than useless. Even though it’s a mere droplet in the bottomless sinkhole that is the US federal budget, I deeply resent having to pay for the halfwit embarrassments of “Think Again Turn Away” – the State Department’s social-media outreach strategy for countering “violent extremism”.

Here’s a recent Tweet from the geniuses at State:

In open societies, all faiths enjoy freedom of speech; under #ISIS rule, no such thing as freedom of expression.

And beneath it was the photograph at right – “a group of burqa-clad women promoting Sharia law“, under the approving slogan:

Muslims coming out inviting society to #Islam

1207That’s one way of putting it. In fact, the body-bagged crones are asserting the superiority of Islam over your society – that’s to say the superiority of Sharia over what they call “man-made law”.

The women are promoting Sharia not in, say, Turkey or Indonesia, but on what appears to be a street in Britain.

Why is the State Department promoting Sharia for the United Kingdom?

And, given that that the “man-made law” in question is English Common Law, which is the basis of American law, why by implication is the State Department promoting Sharia for the United States? Aren’t they supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Sharia is incompatible with that constitution, as it is with the entire legal inheritance of western civilization.

You might make the case that the US Government is simply demonstrating how absolute is its commitment to free speech – although given that President Obama and Secretary Clinton got that video-maker tossed in jail and did a cringe-making ad for Pakistani TV apologizing for him, I would doubt that.

But, even so, our enemies are not interested in our “fairness”; they’re interested in winning – which is one reason why they attract tens of thousands of the west’s nominal citizens. And, when the best you can do to counter that is tell them, “Hey, why go all the way to Syria and Iraq when you can stay home and hollow us out from within?”, they rightly conclude we’re a bunch of losers.

After all, what’s the underlying message of the State Department Tweet? We’ve no problem with your end, we’re just a little bit squeamish about your means.

That’s not enough for me. I don’t want to live under Sharia. And, if you’re in favor of Sharia, by definition you are incapable of being a citizen of a free society. So, when the global superpower can muster no better argument than “the great thing about western civilization is that we’re open to letting you destroy it”, it’s a wee bit demoralizing. The State Department’s Tweet tells our enemies we’re losers, and we’re happy to lose, as long as you let us lose incrementally.

As I say, I wish all those Obama hipster pajama boys were as good at social media as they tell themselves.