They Reject your Motivations, and Substitute Their Own

CSP, by Kyle Shideler:

Congress continues to struggle with Obama Administration officials, from all branches, in an effort to force them in matters of oversight, to merely assert facts that are already well known to everyone.  A good example of this was the recent success of Rep. John Cornyn who was able to get recently appointed FBI Director James Comey to admit that Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan was in fact motivated by Al Qaeda.

This should not have been news at all, since Hassan, a self-declared “Soldier of Allah”, was in direct correspondence with Al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a fact known to the U.S. counterterrorism officials prior to his attack. Yet the administration has continued to insist the matter was one of “work place violence”, not Islamic terrorism.

Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

Yet even going on six years of an administration which introduced the world to the phrase “man-caused disasters,” we’ve not seen as tasteless a display of reality rejection as the one put on by Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

Asked by Rep. Jeff Duncan whether Boko Haram discriminates against Christians, Sewall uttered the jaw-dropping reply:

I wish there was such discrimination in Boko Haram attacks. Boko Haram attacks everyone who is Nigerian. Boko Haram is an equal-opportunity threat for all Nigerian citizens.” (Emphasis added)

This statement, which combines a basic falsehood with disturbing callousness, earned rightful derision by the subcommittee, who pressed forward with additional inquiries, citing facts, including the 25:1 ratio in attacks against churches as opposed to mosques. Sewall began to backpedal:

The question that I was asked was whether there was an official State Department position on the motivations of Boko Haram, which I simply don’t have with me.

It seemed Assistant Secretary Sewall had misplaced her copy of the current truth as issued by the State Department, thus explaining her flailing answer.

While less grating than the tone-deaf reply, it is perhaps more appalling from a policy standpoint that Ms. Sewall thinks it appropriate that the State Department even have an “official position on the motivations of Boko Haram.” The only “position on the motivations of Boko Haram” that matters is Boko Haram’s, based on what they say and do. And they have not been shy on making their feelings known.

Boko Haram leader AbuBakr Shekhau has said, “Nobody can stop us and live in peace, except if you accept Islam and live by sharia law.” A simple statement that is pregnant with meaning. Instead, the State Department’s position is that economic deprivation, corruption, and bad governance by the Nigerian government motivate Boko Haram.

Sadly no. That’s what motivates the State Department’s interactions with the Nigerian government. State  has used every new outrage by Boko Haram to rhetorically flog the Nigerian government for their failings on these issues. And they may be issues on which the Nigerian goverment deserves criticism, but they are irrelevant to the current conflict with Boko Haram, which is a jihadist terrorist organization motivated to impose shariah law.

This administration continues to insist on protecting us from the threats they they wished we faced, and solving problems they wish we had, instead of addressing the threats and problems this nation actually faces.

Unfortunately such distortions of reality will always come crashing down, violently, and at great cost.

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Blocked Terrorist Designation for Boko Haram

clinton_050614By Andrew C. McCarthy:

“We must stand up to terrorism,” bleated Hillary Clinton a few days ago in a tweet expressing outrage against Boko Haram, the jihadist organization that has abducted hundreds of young girls in Nigeria. Yet, when she was actually in a position to stand up to Boko Haram’s terrorism as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton instead protected the group.

At the Daily Beast, Josh Rogin reports:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

While Mrs. Clinton now issues indignant tweets, Mr. Rogin elaborates on her failure to mention

that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a “safe haven” for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

As Mr. Rogin further details, placing an organization on the terrorist list enables the government to use various investigative tools for law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the conduct of business with it.

After numerous Boko Haram atrocities, Republicans attempted to force Secretary Clinton to designate the group or explain why she refused to do so. The State Department heavily lobbied against the legislation. Only after John Kerry replaced Clinton, and after a series of jihadist bombings against churches and other targets, did the State Department finally relent and add Boko Haram to the terrorist list last November.

The excuses now being offered in explanation of Clinton’s dereliction are specious. As Rogin explains, Clinton’s State Department claimed that Boko Haram was merely a local group with parochial grievances that was not a threat to the United States. Have a look, though, at the State Department’s list, here. Several of the listed groups are waging local terrorist campaigns that do not threaten our country—the Basque ETA, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Real Irish Republican Army, etc. A significant reason for having the list is to promote international cooperation against terrorism and discourage its use against anyone anywhere. The fact that a terrorist organization may have only local grievances and may not directly imperil the U.S. has never been thought a reason to exclude it from the list.

Fox News has further reported another rationale of Clinton apologists: Hillary did not want to raise Boko Haram’s profile and assist its recruiting which, they reason, would be the effect of designation by the Great Satan. That is ridiculous. The main point of having the list, and the sanctions that accompany a terrorist designation, is to weaken the organization by depriving it of assets and material support. The logic of what Clinton supporters are claiming is that U.S. counterterrorism law — much of which was put in place by the administration of President Bill Clinton — does more harm than good. Does anyone think they really believe that?

What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic-supremacist organization. Mrs. Clinton, like the Obama administration more broadly, believes that appeasing Islamists — avoiding actions that might give them offense, slamming Americans who provoke them — promotes peace and stability. (See Egypt for a good example of how well this approach is working.) Furthermore, if you are claiming to have “decimated” al-Qaeda, as the Obama administration was claiming to have done in the run-up to the 2012 election, the last thing you want to do is add jihadists to the terror list (or beef up security at diplomatic posts in jihadist hot spots, or acknowledge that jihadist rioting in Cairo or jihadist attacks in Benghazi are something other than “protests” inspired by “an Internet video” . . .)

Read more at National Review

Also see:

State Dept.’s Terror Report Focus on Al Qaeda Misses Point

Palestinian boys in Gaza rally

By focusing on Al-Qaeda, the report is only looking at a manifestation of the ideological problem — not on the problem itself.

By Ryan Mauro:

The State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism states that the number of fatalities from terrorist attacks increased 60% from 2012 to 2013 and the overall number of attacks increased 40%. The uptick is attributable to a rise in terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and the Philippines.

There were 9,707 terrorist attacks last year, killing almost 18,000 people and injuring over 32,000. Approximately 3,000 people were seized as hostages or kidnapped by terrorists. The number of attacks doubled in Iraq and Pakistan also saw an increase of about 37%.

Three of the four designated state sponsors of terrorism are Islamic (Iran, Syria and Sudan). So are seven of the top 10 deadliest terrorist organizations: The Taliban, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (also known as ISIS), Boko Haram, the Pakistani Taliban, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement in the Philippines.

The State Department says that Al-Qaeda affiliates are increasingly relying upon crime to raise money, such as credit card fraud, extortion and holding innocents for ransom. Donors in the Gulf are also sustaining Al-Qaeda.

The report also notes that Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s influence over the affiliates is decreasing. For example, his orders to avoid collateral damage have been “routinely disobeyed.” Al-Qaeda’ mass murdering of Muslims and overall persecution is the single greatest factor contributing to Al-Qaeda’s fall in popularity.

Al-Qaeda is also splintering due to power struggles and differences over tactics. Al-Qaeda had two affiliates operating in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIS). A rivalry began last summer, when ISIS announced that it had taken Jabhat al-Nusra into its ranks. Zawahiri intervened on the side of Jabhat al-Nusra.

Read more at Clarion Project

Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group

Beth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Photo Courtesy: U.S. State Dept.

Beth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Photo Courtesy: U.S. State Dept.

By Sharyl Attkisson, May 1, 2014

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House
press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks.
They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous
demonstration that escalated into violence.

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary
of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at
9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime
elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar
Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or
a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under
special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
sought and received permission to release it Thursday.

“If the video was a cause, why did Beth Jones of the State Department tell the
Libyan Ambassador that Ansar Al Sharia was responsible for the attack?” said Chaffetz.

From left: Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications; Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Nov. 2012. By Pete Souza (White House Flickr account –P112012PS-0453)

From left: Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications; Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Nov. 2012.
By Pete Souza (White House Flickr account –P112012PS-0453)

Among those copied on the emails: Deputy Secretary William Burns; Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff (now promoted to national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden); Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; Cheryl Mills, then-Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff (now on the board of directors of the global investment firm BlackRock); and Victoria Nuland, then-State Dept. spokesperson (now promoted to Asst. Secretary of State).

Two days after the email, documents show that Nuland raised concerns about an early draft of talking points in which the C.I.A. disclosed that it had warned of possible impending attacks. Nuland wrote that the C.I.A.’s disclosure to the public “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to [C.I.A.] warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.”

The language about prior warnings was subsequently removed by then-Deputy C.I.A. Director Mike Morell over the objection of his then-boss, C.I.A. Director David Petraeus. That’s according to testimony last month from Morell, who has since been hired by Beacon Global Strategies, a PR communications firm dominated by former Clinton and Obama officials, and also works as an analyst for CBS News (where I was employed until March). Petraeus retired just after President Obama’s re-election amid allegations of a sex scandal.

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.” Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.

The following month, the State Department designated Ansar al Sharia as “an alias” for the terrorist group “Al-Qaeda” in the Arabian Peninsula. In Jan. of 2014, the State Department designated the Benghazi chapter of Ansar Al Sharia as a foreign terrorist organization.

Two days after the State Department told Libyan officials that Ansar al Sharia was at fault, Secretary of State Clinton instead evoked the YouTube video at the ceremonial return of the victims’ bodies.

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,” said Clinton.

Obama administration officials have not fully explained who was responsible for deciding to advance the incorrect video narrative eight weeks before the Presidential election. They have said that they were acting on “the best intelligence available at the time” and that they clarified the story as they got more information. However, the vast majority of government witnesses and documents released over the past year and a half indicate there was widespread belief from the start that the attacks were the work of terrorists, not protesters.

Read more 

Jihad Migrating to Red States — With Obama’s Blessing

JIHAD1-381x350 (1)

To the savvy analyst of Muslim culture, Obama’s immigration policy is clearly supporting the Islamic jihad agenda and helping to transplant jihadists’ activities in a new unsuspecting land.

By Nonie Darwish:

President Obama has unilaterally changed the immigration law to allow asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists, to immigrate to the US. This is happening at a time when force is being used in Egypt — and elsewhere in the Middle East — against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, terrorists and their sympathizers. This is a time when Islamists have few places to go to in the wide-open desert atmosphere of the Middle East, except perhaps to join the mess in Syria and Iraq, or otherwise reform and become ordinary citizens.

Obama could not have picked a worse time to ease immigration requirements for those linked to terror, and who have nowhere else to go and have suddenly found themselves, after the counter-revolution in Egypt, as targets for imprisonment, contempt, or even shooting.

Islamists are now undoubtedly celebrating Obama’s decision to ease the pressure on immigration of terror-linked individuals. Indeed, where else can they go to practice their fanaticism and find newly found respectability and hospitality? To America.

By weakening immigration laws that protect Americans from Islamic terror, Obama is now sending the wrong message both to his own citizens and to the Muslim world. He is basically saying that he does not mind taking in fleeing terrorists and their sympathizers. And he does not seem to care at all about appearances or if he this casts more suspicion on his reputation, despite the constant rumors we all know about, that he is a secret Muslim and that his brother Malik has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is also strange is the US State Department is not welcoming fleeing Christians in the Middle East as they should. Most of the visa applications submitted by the desperate and oppressed Egyptian Christians are denied. It was reported that only about 800 to 900 applications were approved by the US for Christian Egyptian immigrants out of 20,000 applications.

This also comes amidst accusations and rumors in Egypt that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are aiding terrorists and conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. One would think that the US would be happy that the Egyptian government and others are clamping down on radical Muslim groups who are ruining the lives of the ordinary citizens in the Middle East. But instead, the Obama administration  changes immigration laws for their “eyes only” to welcome escaping Muslim troublemakers whose activities are now unwelcome in Egypt.

Obama is doing this not only amidst claims that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but he also appears to the Muslim world as responding positively to the radical Sunni Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently called on the US government to wage jihad for Allah, to help support the “freedom fighters,” meaning terrorists, in Syria, and adding that “Allah willing, your [US] aid will increase.” This is the first time in history that a radical Muslim leader publicly asks America to join in the jihad for the sake of Allah.

Read more at Front Page

******************

CJR: 

This is just another step in the ongoing efforts to legitimize what US policy has traditionally defined as terrorism. Remember the FBI Touchstone Document on Guiding principles for counter terrorism training?

mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s)

As Diana West and Clare Lopez have said, Uncle Sam has joined the jihad!

They are going after our most effective tools for fighting terrorism by changing the defintitions of terrorism and material support for terrorism. We’ve all seen Obama “defining down” al Qaeda and declaring the war on terror to be over. There are ongoing efforts to delegitimize the findings of the Holy Land Foundation trial and don’t be surprised when you see them take Hamas and Hezbollah off the designated terror list.

Please read Clare Lopez’ article from last June to understand the peril we are in:

Listen to Stephen Coughlin discuss this with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Aiding Terrorists May Not Disqualify Future Immigration Candidates

Committee Majority Staff Issues Report on Lack of State Department Accountability for Benghazi Attacks

!cid_image006_jpg@01CF23FBWashington, D.C. – Today, the House Foreign Affairs Committee majority staff issued a report detailing the lack of accountability within the State Department following the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks at the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.  The report, entitled, “Benghazi:  Where is the State Department Accountability,” follows the majority investigative staff’s extensive 16-month oversight, during which staff examined the State Department’s conduct before, during, and after the terrorist attacks.

The report is available HERE.

The report contains the following key findings:

  • Before September 11, 2012, U.S. intelligence agencies provided extensive warning of the deteriorating security environment in eastern Libya, including al-Qaeda’s expanding operations and the mounting risk to U.S. personnel and facilities.
  • These threats were well-understood by even the most senior officials in Washington; then-Secretary Clinton “was certainly aware” of this reporting, as well as the fact that extremists claiming to be affiliated with al-Qaeda were active in the area.
  • Despite this increasingly dangerous environment, State Department officials in Washington denied requests for additional security from Department personnel on the ground in Libya, and insisted on an aggressive timeline for drawing down support.  By contrast, the CIA increased security at its facilities in Benghazi.
  • The Accountability Review Board (ARB) convened in response to the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam recommended that the Secretary of State “take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad.”
  • The ARB convened by Secretary Clinton after the Benghazi attack was seriously deficient in several respects, most notably in its failure to review or comment on the actions of the Department’s most senior officials, including Secretary Clinton herself.
  • Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry have failed to hold anyone accountable for the flawed decisions about security in Benghazi.  Instead, the four employees cited by the ARB were temporarily suspended with pay and ultimately reassigned to new positions within the Department.  Two of these officials subsequently retired voluntarily, and not as the result of disciplinary action.
  • The “talking points” controversy further revealed a Department leadership more interested in its reputation than establishing the facts and accountability.
  • Tellingly, during the entirety of Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department went for a historically long period without a permanent Inspector General, a position central to ensuring a culture of accountability within the Department.
  • State Department personnel serve the nation with distinction, operating in the most dangerous areas of the world.  Their security cannot be guaranteed, nor do they expect it to be guaranteed.  What they do expect and deserve is a Department in which everyone is held accountable for his or her performance.
  • While the Committee will continue to press for accountability, it is incumbent upon President Obama and Secretary Kerry to recognize the failures of senior officials and hold them accountable.  Otherwise, another Benghazi scenario, in which U.S. personnel are left vulnerable by irresponsible decision making in Washington, is inevitable.

The report comes two days after the House Republican Leadership published a new website, GOP.gov/Benghazi, devoted to the Benghazi investigations.

 

 

 

Also see:

American Betrayal 2.0

2947115834By Frank Gaffney at CSP:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have described November 16, 1933 as a day that will live in infamy.  As syndicated columnist Diana West notes in her splendid new book,American Betrayal, that date marked the beginning of a sustained and odious practice of our government lying to us about the Russians.  It appears that the Obama administration is determined to perpetrate a reprise of this practice.  Call it American Betrayal 2.0.

According to Ms. West, the betrayal syndrome began when FDR normalized relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of a written promise from the Kremlin not to subvert the United States.  Of course, the Soviets lied.  But, for years thereafter, so did our own government – with horrific effects – by insisting the Soviets were reliable friends, and even wartime allies.

Sound familiar?  Today, Team Obama is engaging in its own, serial and disastrous betrayals – from promising you can keep your health care to a deal that will allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program.  But two others regarding the Russians warrant special attention.

First, the New York Times reported on the eightieth anniversary of the infamous normalization deal (without, of course, noting the irony) that the U.S. Department of State was beavering away at a new arrangement that would allow half-a-dozen Russian facilities to be installed across the United States.  Ostensibly, these sites would be used to help the Kremlin build-out and operate its so-called Glonass satellite system, a counterpart to and competitor with America’s Global Positioning System (GPS).

There are several things wrong with this picture.  First, it is not clear why we would want to help the Russians compete with the GPS.  Second, the practical effect of the Red Army having its own global positioning system is that it may make ours a more certain target in the event of any future hostilities between us, or perhaps even between the United States and Russian clients.

Then, there is the problem that Glonass signals may interfere with those controlling our GPS satellites, especially if the Russian ground stations might be in proximity to the American ones.  Another serious concern has to be precisely what electronic equipment the Russians will put into these facilities.  Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently wrote three agency heads out of concern that, among other things, some of such gear might not actually be needed for Glonass – but be useful for espionage, electronic warfare or other activities inimical to our security.

According to the Times report: “For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

It is a travesty, but in keeping with past betrayals of America, that our State Department – presumably, with White House approval – believes that we need to make further concessions in response to bad behavior by the Kremlin.  The outrageousness of such an idea is compounded by the fact that the folks in Foggy Bottom neglected to secure its approval from either the Defense Department or the intelligence community.  Both are reportedly up in arms about it – as indeed they should be.  But will they prevail?

At the same time, the Obama administration has another betrayal in the works.  This one involves not only the nation as a whole, but several of its Democratic allies in the United States Senate.

It seems that Team Obama is intent on dismantling at least one squadron of fifty Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles as its preferred approach to meeting the reductions in nuclear forces required by the seriously defective New START Treaty with Russia.  A timeline provided to Congress indicates that, in order for that to happen by the “treaty compliance date” of February 5, 2018, the Air Force needs to begin the lengthy decommissioning process by launching an environmental impact assessment next month.

This should be a shock to Senators Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.  They were assured by President Obama that the ICBM forces like those located in Montana and commanded by the Global Strike Command in Louisiana would not be affected by New START.  It was on the basis of such assurances that all three Senators voted for that accord.

These legislators and their colleagues from the other ICBM basing states – Republican John Hoeven and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Republicans Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming – should take the lead in amending the National Defense Authorization Act scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week to ensure that, as the President promised, the land-based leg of our nuclear Triad is not further weakened.  That is especially advisable at a time when the Russians are aggressively beefing up their nuclear threat to this country and its allies.

America needs a reset, alright.  It should feature not further concessions to the Russians, however, but an end to the betrayals of our people to the benefit of the Kremlin that have been perpetrated now for eighty years.  No more.

State Department Site Features Radical Mosque

images (52)by IPT News  •  Jun 22, 2009 

Sean Hannity interviews authors of Benghazi: The Definitive Report

coverupThe Right Scoop:

Yesterday Sean Hannity interviewed on his radio show Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb for their new book Benghazi: The Definitive Report. I’ve clipped a portion of their interview below which describes something very different than what we’ve ever heard about what led to the attack on the ‘consulate’ and the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.

In short there were two operations going on in Benghazi, neither of which Stevens nor the CIA [Petraeus] were made aware, that made the situation on the ground in Benghazi far more dangerous than they even knew. We already know that Stevens was concerned about security, but he didn’t even know the full story.

One of the operations was direct raids against Al-Qaeda conducted by John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor, that instigated blowback in the form of the attack on our ‘consulate’ in Benghazi where Stevens visited that night. But because Stevens wasn’t made aware of these unilateral raids going on in his backyard, there was no way he could have even prepared himself for blowback. Stevens likely didn’t even know why he was being attacked the night he was killed.

Read more at The Right Scoop (with audio of the interview)

From Western Journalism:

Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate

By Eric Trager

Nobody should have been surprised when Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi issued a “constitutional declaration” on Thursday asserting total political power. This was, after all, the former Muslim Brotherhood leader’s second power grab since he took office in June, complementing his earlier seizure of legislative and constitution-writing authorities by now insulating himself from judicial oversight. Yet Washington was caught entirely off-guard: Morsi’s power play was at odds with the administration’s view that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “democratic party,” and his impressive handling of last week’s Gaza ceasefire created a modicum of trust between him and President Obama. So the State Department released a predictably confused statement, urging “all Egyptians to resolve their differences … peacefully and through democratic dialogue.”

Washington ought to have known by now that “democratic dialogue” is virtually impossible with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now mobilizing throughout Egypt to defend Morsi’s edict. The reason is that it is not a “democratic party” at all. Rather, it is a cultish organization that was never likely to moderate once it had grasped power.

That’s because the very process through which one becomes a Muslim Brother is designed to weed out moderates. It begins when specially designated Brotherhood recruiters, who work at mosques and universities across Egypt, identify pious young men and begin engaging them in social activities to assess their suitability for the organization. The Brotherhood’s ideological brainwashing begins a few months later, as new recruits are incorporated into Brotherhood cells (known as “families”) and introduced to the organization’s curriculum, which emphasizes Qur’anic memorization and the writings of founder Hassan al-Banna, among others. Then, over a five-to-eight-year period, a team of three senior Muslim Brothers monitors each recruit as he advances through five different ranks of Brotherhood membership—muhib, muayyad, muntasib, muntazim, and finally ach amal, or “active brother.”

Throughout this process, rising Muslim Brothers are continually vetted for their embrace of the Brotherhood’s ideology, commitment to its cause, and—most importantly—willingness to follow orders from the Brotherhood’s senior leadership. As a result, Muslim Brothers come to see themselves as foot soldiers in service of the organization’s theocratic credo: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” Meanwhile, those dissenting with the organization’s aims or tactics are eliminated at various stages during the five-to-eight-year vetting period.

Read more at TNR

Has the US Administration Decided to Get Rid of Jordan’s King Abdullah?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Unless the US clarifies its position regarding King Abdullah and reiterates its full backing for his regime, the Muslim fundamentalists are likely to step up there efforts to create anarchy and lawlessness in the kingdom. Washington needs to reassure King Abdullah and his followers that it will not allow the creation of an Islamic terror republic in Jordan.

Has the US Administration decided to get rid of Jordan’s King Abdullah?

This is the question that many Jordanians have been asking in the past few days following a remark made by a spokesman for the US State Department.

Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner managed to create panic [and anger] in the Royal Palace in Amman when he stated that there was “thirst for change” in Jordan and that the Jordanian people had “economic, political concerns,” as well as “aspirations.”

The spokesman’s remark has prompted some Jordanian government officials to talk about a US-led “conspiracy” to topple King Abdullah’s regime.

The talk about a “thirst for change” in Jordan is seen by the regime in Amman as a green light from the US to King Abdullah’s enemies to increase their efforts to overthrow the monarchy.

The US spokesman’s remark came as thousands of Jordanians took to the streets to protest against their government’s tough economic measures, which include cancelling subsidies for fuel and gas prices.

The widespread protests, which have been dubbed “The November Intifada,” have resulted in attacks on numerous government offices and security installations throughout the kingdom. Dozens of security officers have been injured, while more than 80 demonstrators have been arrested.

And for the first time, protesters in the Jordanian capital have been calling for overthrowing King Abdullah. In an unprecedented move, demonstrators last week tried to march on the monarch’s palace in Amman in scenes reminiscent of anti-regime protests in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Egypt.

The Jordanian authorities claim that non-Jordanian nationals who infiltrated the border have been involved in the violence, the worst to hit the kingdom in decades. The authorities say that Saudi and Syrian Muslim fundamentalists are responsible for attacks on government offices and other institutions, including banks.

Some Jordanian officials have pointed a blaming finger at Saudi Arabia and Qatar for encouraging the anti-regime protests and facilitating the infiltration of Muslim fundamentalists into the kingdom.

The officials believe that Jordan is paying the price of refusing to play a larger and stronger role in Saudi-Qatari efforts to topple Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Real Why of Benghazi, part 2

By :

Follow-up to: WEAPONS HUNTING: The Reason for the 9-11 Murders in Libya,” by Denise Simon, covering the topics of MANPAD missile recovery and the operative relationship between the Obama administration and Gitmo-released al Qaeda leader in Libya, Bin Qumu.

Get out the PAM cooking spray so nothing sticks to anyone involved in the murders and failed diplomatic operations in Benghazi. Yet, there is no one more responsible than the handful at the White House and the State Department. Remember that oath, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. The date sadly was 9-11 but in this case it was 9-11, #11, an anniversary that historically brought out elevated states of alert and a position of readiness was always invoked, globally.

Such was not the case at not only Benghazi, but at all U.S. foreign government locations worldwide. This anniversary witnessed a vastly elevated number of major demonstrations at embassy locations on all continents against the United States and NATO partners however the White House and the State Department were in party mode.

Prior to the 11th anniversary, there was a long trail of detailed threats published for Libya just weeks earlier. In August 2012, intelligence reports spelled out in clear terms, the names and locations of jihadist activities. These came from the counter-terrorism professionals and Intelligence Community (IC) professionals as they provided to critical personnel and decision makers within the Obama administration. What is worse, not one person in this administration asked a pro-active single question framed as, “Is there enough security personnel in any of the diplomatic posts in Libya and should we review the safety of our people there?” This administration has proven a higher concern for a ‘green energy’ agenda, ensuring Chevy Volts were celebrated for the vehicle pool, and yet the U.S. embassy in Barbados even had an SST Marine division on security duty.

In Benghazi, the United States was the “last flag standing” after many months of assassination attempts, bombings, attacks, and protests since the fall of Qaddafi. All other nations had vacated the area earlier. Perhaps it is prudent for our purposes here to count all the attacks on U.S. embassies or those of our allies in the last several years. We should then question the need to have diplomatic posts in areas of such volatile and proven possibilities. If the need is great as determined by foreign policy stances, then shouldn’t we also question the level of security? When posts in safer places have such large Marine contingents and dangerous places do not, does this not place that foreign policy stance into question?

Marines currently serve at 148 US embassies and consulates; however Libya wasn’t one of them. The MSGs’ primary mission is to provide internal security services at designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified information and equipment that is vital to national security of the United States of America. The secondary mission of the MSG is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises/facilities during exigent circumstances that require immediate aid or action. It is important to mention here however, that President Obama has said publicly and mandated throughout this administration that he and all within government will stand on the side of the Muslims.

As a result the clear conclusion is President Obama as well as the Secretaries of State and Defense would rather eliminate all visible deterrents of protection and security that offend Muslim sensibilities and have in fact done so, sadly, even with the approval of the Joint Chief, General Martin Dempsey.

In the case of Benghazi, it is an established hotbed of jihad activity even while Qaddafi ruled the nation and even more so after he was captured and killed. Today, Libya is completely unstable and has no real government in place, certainly not one that can be embraced by any Western culture or leadership, except that of the Obama administration. Since the fall of Qaddafi, the United States had several clandestine objectives underway as posted by SUA here on September 20th. As a follow up to that article, the work by covert contractors and the CIA in Libya, is now wasted and remains not only unfinished but, all of the weapons and terror factions now go unchecked while unknown quantities of Qaddafi’s weapons are making their way to even Syria today.

Yes, all of Libya is dangerous, but it begs the question on how CNN was able to keep journalists safe even in Benghazi as the US FBI was having trouble gaining access. So the examination remains, why the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, an information officer, the two former SEALs, the RSO’s and the FBI were so unprotected and felt unsafe and called many times for more armed security. Could it be that the administration placed its faith in a set of Islamist networks to protect and defend our national security and sovereignty in Libya or other countries where there are continued attacks and killings against the West?

With these questions in mind, let’s look at some of the people in and around Libya that our State Department approved for interaction, security, and partners in country.

This is good…you’re going to want to read it all at Gulag Bound

Denise Simon is Senior Research Analyst on Domestic and Foreign Policy for Stand Up America; also 3rd Officer for Watchmen of America, Public Affairs Officer, and an Intel Officer for Watchmen of Florida. Denise is a member of the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals and is a First Observer, in addition to an executive career in national and international telecommunications, and non-profit organization.

Criticism Mounts Over State Envoy

BY: October 5, 2012 1:48 pm

Jewish leaders expressed outrage Friday over the State Department’s praise for, and defense of, a controversial Muslim leader who has defended terrorist groups and suggested that Israel may have been responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).

Al-Marayati’s well-known anti-Israel bona fides prompted Jewish leaders and others to express outrage over the Obama administration’s selection.

“It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views—even with a lackluster apology—is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to the Free Beacon.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”

“With terrorism continuing to roil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is ‘highly credible’?”

Read more

See previous post: Anti-Israel Advocate Reps U.S. at Rights Conference

U.S. State Department Witnessed 1974 Birth of Eurabia

“Thus, nearly four decades ago, our own State Department was fully aware of the Eurabian project Bat Ye’or has subsequently elucidated in painstaking detail. Such independently confirmatory U.S. evidence underscores the intellectual and moral cretinism of those who spray charges of “conspiracism” at Bat Ye’or, and worse still, viciously attack Geert Wilders, the most courageous European political leader resisting the abhorrent, dystopian endgame of Eurabia’s fanatical promulgators.”

May 4th, 2012 by Andrew Bostom

Serendipitously, perhaps, in the midst of Geert Wilders’ visit to the U.S., warning of the consequences of Europe’s ongoing Islamization, today I came across a State Department memo from the U.S. embassy in Madrid, dated September 19, 1974 (1974 Madrid 05880), declassified June 30, 2005. This document reveals that the U.S. was fully aware of the advent of “Eurabia,” precisely as self-characterized in an official European socio-political journal bearing the title Eurabia.

Eurabia was the title of a journal published in the mid-1970s  by the European Committee for the Coordination of Friendship Associations with the Arab World.  Eurabia”s editor was Lucien Bitterlin, president of the Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity; the journal was published jointly by Euro-Arab associations in London, Paris, and Geneva.  Eurabia served as a Euro-Arab Dialogue mouthpiece.

The formal Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) created an alphabet soup of European Community- and, later, European Union-funded organizations charged with planning joint political, cultural, social, industrial, commercial, and technical-scientific projects.  It also rapidly spawned a European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation whose members represented a broad spectrum of European Community political groups.  Biannual Euro-Arab Parliamentary meetings convened alternately in Europe and the Arab nations.  Roughly 100 European and Arab members of their respective parliaments attended, along with observers from the European Community/European Union Commission, the Arab League, and other international organizations.  During an initial meeting in Damascus, September 14-17, 1974, the Arab delegates established their political preconditions for economic agreements with Western Europe, specifically demanding:

1. Israel’s unconditional withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines

2. Arab sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem

3. Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) participation (lead by Yasser Arafat), in any negotiations

4. European Community pressure on the United States to detach it from Israel and bring its policies closer to those of the Arab states

The September 19, 1974 State Department memo (1974 Madrid 05880) refers to a parallel meeting that took place in Cordoba September 12-16, 1974, as it notes, “one-time capital of [the] caliphate of Cordoba,  and one of [the] most historic centers of [the] Moorish legacy in Spain.” Emphasizing the unique nature of this Cordoban conference, the memo provides these summary details regarding the attendees:

THIS CONFERENCE, REPORTEDLY FIRST EVER HELD OF ITS KIND, WAS ATTENDED BY NUMEROUS MEMBERS OF THE SPANISH CLERGY AND PRESIDED OVER BY BISHOP CIRARDA OF CORDOBA, AND WAS ALSO ATTENDED BY CERTAIN FOREIGN CATHOLIC CLERGY RESIDENT IN ARAB COUNTRIES, NOTABLY CARDINAL DUVAL OF ALGIERS AND THE BISHOP OF ORAN. GOS WAS REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORS GENERAL FROM MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs?] AND MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND TOURISM, AND PROVINCE AND CITY OF CORDOBA WERE REPRESENTED BY SOME OF THEIR PRINCIPAL LOCAL OFFICIALS. ARAB COUNTRIES REPRESENTED AT CONFERENCE INCLUDED EGYPT, ALGERIA, LEBANNON [sic], IRAQ, SAUDI ARABIA, AND JORDAN. THERE REPORTEDLY ALSO WAS A PALESTINIAN DELEGATION PRESENT. MOST HIGH RANKING DELEGATE TO ATTEND THE CONFERENCE WAS DR. ABDEL AZIZ KAMEL, WHO IS BOTH VICE PRES AND MINISTER OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS IN EGYPT. THE IMPORTANT EGYPTIAN DELEGATION ALSO INCLUDED AN EGYPTIAN CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN, ALBERT BARSOUM, WHO ALSO REPORTEDLY HAS MINISTERIAL RANK IN EGYPTIAN GOVT. MANY ARAB DELEGATIONS WERE HEADED BY THEIR COUNTRIES’ AMBASSADORS IN MADRID.

And what is described as the “emotional and symbolic highlight of the conference” occurred on September 13, 1974:

WHEN MOSLEM CONFEREES WERE ALLOWED TO HOLD MOSLEM PRAYER SERVICE IN CORDOBA’S FAMED MOSQUE-CATHEDRAL. THIS WAS REPORTEDLY FIRST TIME IN SEVEN CENTURIES, I.E., SINCE 1236 [the] WHEN HUGE CORDOBA MOSQUE WAS CONVERTED INTO CHRISTIAN CATHEDRAL IN WAKE OF CASTILLIAN RECONQUEST OF CITY, THAT A MOSLEM PRAYER SERVICE HAS BEEN HELD IN CORDOBA’S MOSQUE TURNED CATHEDRAL.

Unfortunately, the State Department analyst omits the fact that the “mosque turned cathedral” had simply been restored to a cathedral as a result of the 13th century Castillian reconquest.

Read the rest