Security Is Job No. 1

NYPD counterterrorism personnel patrol Times Square, December 29, 2016. (Reuters photo: Andrew Kelly)

NYPD counterterrorism personnel patrol Times Square, December 29, 2016. (Reuters photo: Andrew Kelly)

President Trump, when it comes to radical Islam, don’t ‘build that wall!

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, January 21, 2017:

Say this much for Washington: The Swamp knows how to do pageantry. Beginning on Thursday afternoon at Arlington National Cemetery, the solemn and joyful rituals of a presidential inauguration overwhelmed the clown show — on Capitol Hill, where brickbats aimed at Trump’s cabinet nominees left marks mainly on the Democrats who hurled them, and on the streets, where the radical Left’s tantrums couldn’t even sour the mood, much less spark the revolution.

As Donald J. Trump became the 45th president of the United States, American pride in peaceful transfers of power, so historically remarkable, seemed to melt away the rancor. Self-absorbed House Democrats who skipped the proceedings — confounding a celebration of America with an endorsement of a president they reject ex ante — rendered themselves invisible beyond their intentions.

None of us should be naïve. For Americans, the inauguration of a new president is a “we hit life’s lottery” moment. We could, after all, have been born in Bentiu or Helmand or Aleppo. But it is just a moment. We can hope we draw strength from it, and patriotic resolve to remember what unites us. Then we go back to the bitter divisions of our day-to-day.

In the two and a half months since President Trump’s stunning victory on November 8, speculation over how he would manage those divisions — or pour more gasoline on them — has dominated the public debate. That is to be expected. It has been an anxious interregnum: one presidency winding down, unconstrained by political concerns and unabashed about its inner radicalism; a new presidency in waiting, making a splash here and there but powerless to direct policy.

Much of the speculation is idle. Yes, there are matters of enormous consequence before us, the collapse of Obamacare perhaps the most immediate. But presidencies are never judged by what is on the president’s desk when he first enters the Oval Office. Donald Trump’s presidency will be judged by things that haven’t happened yet, by how he reacts to events, especially the unexpected — the Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the 9/11.

Neither success nor failure is guaranteed. In the here and now, what matters is whether the new president is setting himself up for success — and, more important, setting the country on a path to security whatever may come.

So, let’s talk security.

In his ambitious inaugural address, President Trump vowed that the United States would “eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.” That is ambitious, to say the least. What we call “radical Islam” is not so radical on much of the earth. What makes it “radical” here in the West is the subject of dispute. According to Washington, it is the practice of violent jihadism. For those with eyes willing to see, though, it is the ideology that animates the jihad: the belief in a divine mission to implement sharia — Allah’s law and blueprint for how life is to be lived, as classically understood for more than a millennium.

A bedrock of that ancient law is “oneness.” From a theological standpoint, the oneness and indivisibility of God. From a philosophical standpoint, the oneness of and indivisibility of life — the rejection of the Western principle of separate political and spiritual spheres. And from a strategic standpoint, the oneness and indivisibility of the mission: jihadists, jurisprudents, imams, and activists all working toward the single aim of governance by sharia norms.

The mission does not accept such Westphalian impediments as national boundaries. It seeks a global caliphate. It grasps that tactics must vary from place to place — in Islamic societies, an iron fist works best; in the West, stealth attacks and exploitation of civil liberties to advance sharia’s anti-liberty agenda, each reinforcing the other. But the objective never changes.

It is crucial to understand this because a unitary enemy is not effectively fought, let alone eradicated, by a compartmentalized response. Yet that’s what we’ve tried: A counterterrorism that walls the jihad off from its sharia-supremacist inspiration. A counterterrorism that for too long walled intelligence agents off from criminal investigators, ensuring that neither side saw the full scope of the threat. A counterterrorism that must be dragged kicking and screaming to the term “radical Islam,” and to this day cannot agree on what it means or to whom it applies.

Rest assured, the enemy labors under no such self-imposed confusions.

President Trump takes the helm with the high confidence of a man unafraid to speak hard truths, unbound by tried-and-failed approaches. That is reason for hope. Yet there is also reason for worry.

If media reports are to be believed, there is already some dissension in the national-security ranks. Competing power centers in our multi-layered counterterrorism agencies are a fact of life in every administration. But indications are that the Trump administration is resolving them by contriving divisions of authority that may make org-chart sense but could undermine security. Instead of one national-security adviser responsible for a comprehensive assessment of the threat, responsibility is to be divided between one adviser for foreign counterterrorism and one for protecting the homeland.

Here’s hoping the new administration rethinks that arrangement. It is a poor fit for what we are up against. The enemy uses its foreign jihadist operations to inspire domestic attacks. It exploits the atmosphere of intimidation generated by both to demand concessions in foreign negotiations, international tribunals, and the councils of our government. It is a unitary, global threat. It has to be seen as such and confronted as such.

Today is a day of hope. In due course will come the events by which our new president is judged. Our sharia-supremacist enemies will test him, and he will need to respond, fully aware of who they are and what they are trying to achieve. He campaigned promising to “Build That Wall.” No doubt, some walls are required for America’s protection. When it comes to radical Islam, though, President Trump will find that walls are often the problem, not the solution.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Terror experts hail Trump promise to wipe out ‘radical’ Islam

trump_inaugural_speech2Bachmann: ‘After 8 long, painful years Islamists finally on defense’

WND, by Leo Hohmann, January 20, 2017:

President Donald Trump let the world know up front that he will not shy away from naming the enemy of the United States and the free world.

He didn’t name Russia, China, or any other country.

He named a radical ideology that draws upon religious texts to wage war against Western values.

“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones, and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth,” he declared in his inaugural speech.

He said people are tired of empty words by whiny politicians. “Now is the hour for action.”

As the Times of Israel astutely pointed out, Trump’s promise to form new alliances hinted at the cultivation of common interests with another Christian nation and super power, Russia, in eliminating the global Islamic threat.

“Trump’s predecessors George W. Bush – who invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban regime – and Barack Obama – who ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden – also fought extremism. But Trump has gone further than both in his use of language, suggesting that he sees the fight as a civilizational battle between America and a threat springing from the Islamic faith itself.

“And, in an inaugural address otherwise thin on policy specifics, his vow to form new alliances against terror suggests that he intends to work with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

WND contacted a roster of experts on the Islamic threat to get their reaction to Trump’s first words about foreign policy since becoming president.

Michele Bachmann, former Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, said Trump sent the right message on day one of his presidency:

“Today, President Trump made the important first move in defeating radical Islam by naming it as a malignant force requiring defeat.

“I cannot underscore enough the importance of President Trump’s Inaugural statement which named radical Islam. His statement was not lost on the Arab world and now the Islamic supremacists, after eight long, painful years are finally on defense.

“By contrast, President Obama’s infamous Cairo speech delivered in June of 2009 lit the match that inspired Islamists to jihad across the globe.

“In Obama’s failed leadership Islamic supremacists did not see the U.S. as a barrier to achieving their goals. That was all they needed to advance jihad.

“The purpose of Obama’s failed Countering Violent Extremism program was to protect Islam from blame as a motivator for Islamic violence.

How long it will take to defeat radical Islam, no one knows, Bachmann said.

“But today, Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, took the first step toward victory.”

Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog for the David Horowitz Freedom Center and of several bestselling books on Islam, said Trump may have been speaking in hyperbole when he talked about wiping Islamic terrorists off the face of the earth.

“Strictly speaking, it isn’t possible within four years, or eight, or as long as there are people who believe the Quran is the perfect and eternal word of Allah,” Spencer said. “However, Trump’s declaration, while hyperbolic, was a welcome indication of Trump’s apparent determination to speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and to combat it and roll it back.”

Clare Lopez, vice president of research and analysis for the Center for Security Policy in D.C., said Trump’s heart is in the right place but he will find out soon enough that his task is more complex than just “radical” Islam.

“I think about this challenge a bit differently: We are not fighting ‘radical Islam,’ nor are we fighting ‘extremism,’ or ‘terrorism.’ We fight the forces of the global jihad movement to live free from the forcible or stealthy imposition of Islamic law. We Americans fight to defend our right to live as free citizens under the man-made laws of our Constitution.

“That fight will not be won in four years, but it is heartening to hear our new president speak so forthrightly about the enemy we face, which unfortunately is not ‘radical’ at all, but rather all too normative for those who are faithful followers of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Shariah.

“I think we begin as President Trump has demonstrated: by confronting the enemy and that enemy’s threat doctrine with honesty, courage and conviction in who we are as Americans.”

Phil Haney, a recently retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing,” said he was “pretty encouraged” by Trump’s comments.

“Overall I don’t think we’ve had such a constitutional/biblical worldview event in quite a long time. It was refreshing,” he said.

“As far as the semantics of how he put it, I think we need to address the threat that is right in front of us, first, before we go wiping it off the face of the earth,” Haney added. “As he so forcefully indicated, it’s America first. He’s exactly right. Let’s recognize the threat that’s right in front of us, address that first.”

More than a physical wall is needed

Haney said Trump needs to think of his overall immigration policy as a series of “walls” that will protect America in these perilous times. And not just a physical wall at the border.

“I’m talking about shoring up our immigration policy, that’s the strongest wall, shoring up the defenses that are already in our constitutional system, using proper vetting and when people apply for visas we go back to requiring them to really prove who they are, and using a whole common-sense approach to immigration that was really abandoned by the last administration.”

Even refugees stayed at Ellis Island for weeks at a time in previous eras of U.S. history, Haney said. They stayed there and were screened, and that was before the day of Islamic terrorism. So how much more so should they be screened today, with real, authentic documents on who they are and where they’ve been, not just a personal testimony.

Finally, says Haney, Trump must re-instate a common-sense approach to counter terrorism.

“This means providing training for our law enforcement that is based on our ability to determine the radical Islamic threat and study the doctrines that are evident in the Islamic texts, and use the Constitution as the strongest wall of all, because Shariah openly and plainly says it is superior to all other forms of law,” he said.

“Article 6 of our Constitution is our strongest wall,” he added. “There are different kinds of walls. There are not just walls of stone or iron there are walls of protection provided by the constitution, and the protection provided by immigration law and also the protection provided by our counter-terrorism policies.”

‘Pass Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act’

Finally, Haney says President Trump should jump-start the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act that is sitting in the U.S. Congress.

“That sends a message both domestically, and around the world,” he said.

“Tactically, in any kind of military conflict you always have to do that. If you have forces 100 yards from your camp you have to address that before you talk about a large tactical operation miles away. You’ve got to make sure your own camp is secure first. That may be the first realization that President Trump needs to come to, that it’s not just ‘over there.’ It’s a difficult tactical approach, it’s cryptic, it’s a chameleon, but it’s there, right in our own back yard.”

***

Donald Trump’s inauguration speech:

TRANSCRIPT

Bill Warner Moment: The Self-Taught Revolution Against Sharia

sharia

The Glazov Gang, January 2015:

This special edition of the Glazov Gang presents the Bill Warner Moment with Dr. Bill Warner, the president of politicalislam.com.

Dr. Warner discusses The Self-Taught Revolution against Sharia, unveiling how intellectual guerilla fighters are breaking through the elite’s Party Line on Islam — and making the truth available for the common man.

***

Evidently someone in DC thinks Bill Warner is qualified to give briefings to security and intelligence officials there 🙂 He made this announcement at a talk with ACT Cleveland in early December. ( see video at about 55 min. mark)

On a more disappointing note, John Guandolo gave this news alert on facebook last Saturday:

UTT FLASH ALERT:
Trump Administration’s National Security candidates are being vetted by our enemy.

It has come to the attention of UTT that Bill Hagerty – whom UTT warned the administration about because he is a jihadi sympathizer and supporter- and John Gallagher, a leader inside the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas support organization the Institute for Global Engagement, are the two men vetting candidates for national security positions for the incoming administration.

This explains while all of the candidates which actually understand the threat have been rejected.

Standby for eight more years of the federal government supporting the jihadis.

The strategic incoherence continues.

Republicans Propose Bills Designating Iranian Guard And Muslim Brotherhood As Terror Groups

irgc-e1484171929343

Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, January 12, 2017:

Two bills reintroduced in the Congress late Wednesday designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz re-proposed the two bills in the upper chamber while Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul and Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart dropped companion bills in the House.

The bills, according to a press release, will direct the State Department to hold accountable both the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood “two foreign entities that espouse a violent Islamist ideology with a mission of destroying the West. Both bills require a report on whether these organizations meet the criteria to be designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and if so, will enable the U.S. to take action that could stifle the funding they receive to promote their terrorist activities.”

McCaul introduced the IRGC Terrorist Designation Act in the House, which asks the State Department to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization and Diaz-Balart filed legislation for the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, which urges State to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

The passage and adoption of such legislation would be very different from the Obama administration’s relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly in Egypt, where the administration supported the previous Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government headed up by Mohamed Morsi.

“I am proud to reintroduce these bills that would codify needed reforms in America’s war against radical Islamic terrorism,” Sen. Cruz said of the legislation. “This potent threat to our civilization has intensified under the Obama administration due to the willful blindness of politically-correct policies that hamper our safety and security.

Rep. Diaz-Balart agreed saying a statement, “I am proud to once again work with Senator Cruz to introduce this legislation in the 115th Congress. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to support terrorist organizations that are responsible for acts of violence around the world.” He added, “This bill would impose tough sanctions on a hateful group that has spread violence and spawned extremist movements throughout the Middle East. This designation is long overdue, and I look forward to working with the incoming administration and the appropriate committees to ensure that this bill becomes law. We have an incoming president who appreciates the threat of terrorism and has vowed to defeat it. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is an important step in defeating violent extremists.”

The IRGC terrorist designation bill comes on the heels of reports that the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran announced delivery of 116 metric tons of natural uranium to the Iranian regime on Monday.

Rep. McCaul said of the IRGC legislation that “If a foreign organization looks like a terror group, operates like a terror group, and supports terrorism, then it should be called for what it is – a foreign terrorist organization.” He added, “As obvious as that seems, for years the IRGC has been allowed to operate clandestinely using front companies and illicit networks to evade formal designation. The Obama Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to these activities for the sake of a flawed nuclear agreement which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stated publicly would not alter Iran’s behavior.”

John Kelly Proves He Has the Vision, Skills to Improve Department of Homeland Security

As commander of U.S. Southern Command, Marine Gen. John F. Kelly told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015, "In my opinion, the relative ease with which human smugglers moved tens of thousands of people to our nation's doorstep also serves as another warning sign: These smuggling routes are a potential vulnerability to our homeland." (Associated Press)

As commander of U.S. Southern Command, Marine Gen. John F. Kelly told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015, “In my opinion, the relative ease with which human smugglers moved tens of thousands of people to our nation’s doorstep also serves as another warning sign: These smuggling routes are a potential vulnerability to our homeland.” (Associated Press)

Opportunity Lives, by Tom Rogin, January 12, 2017:

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday held hearings on whether to confirm President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for the next secretary of Homeland Security.

Former Marine Corps General John Kelly did a fine job.

He impressed the assembled senators with direct answers. And where he didn’t know a particular regulation or law in sufficient detail, Kelly had the humility to admit it. Yet Kelly also promised to reform the Department of Homeland Security.

All Americans should thank him for it. Defined by a top-heavy bureaucracy, inefficiency and overlapping responsibilities, DHS needs reform.

While much of his testimony was focused on counterterrorism, Kelly offered specific proposals for reform in other areas.

To improve the department’s organizational efficiency, Kelly pledged to reduce its top-heavy structure. He noted the high number of undersecretaries at DHS, low-morale with junior personnel, and a sense that too many programs are working too poorly. To address these challenges, Kelly said he would appoint deputy-secretaries (his direct subordinates) who have proven leadership records.

As important, he said his deputies would be expected to listen to subordinates and ask for their honest advice. That might seem simple, but it’s a big deal. Today in too many government agencies, respectfully disagreeing with a leader harms a career. But to get the best ideas into action, we need agencies that work to pool their best potential together. We need leaders who can take alternate points of view.

Kelly also argued that DHS is weak on cyber-security and needs dramatic improvement. His solution would be to work with tech firms in Silicon Valley and beyond to leverage their talent and ideas for public benefit. Beyond platitudes, such outreach has been sorely lacking in recent years. Part of the problem is the government’s security clearance requirements have thrown up bureaucratic obstacles to private-sector cooperation. But if Kelly makes a serious push here (perhaps by declassifying some material and offering interim security clearances), we might see some progress. It would help. Leading innovation often comes from the private sector.

Kelly also addressed the nation’s epidemic of opioid-drug abuse, calling for an integrated effort across government to reduce demand. Specifically, Kelly complained that the U.S. government has never had a coordinated strategy to educate, deter and treat drug use. He pointed to the successful efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. What was also appealing here was Kelly’s tone. Rather than escalate a war on drugs, he implied that the key to reducing drug-related crime and suffering is to win individuals from the reach of drug addiction.

Another Kelly priority is strengthened DHS alliances abroad — most crucially, with Central and South American nations. The DHS Secretary-in-waiting knows that this agenda isn’t important solely for reasons of deterring drug smuggling. While commanding U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in 2015, Kelly explained how terrorist organizations and Latin American drug organizations are increasingly collaborating. In order to reduce illegal immigration and criminality, the United States should help Latin American nations improve their law enforcement capabilities. Greater security would also help reduce poverty in these nations.

Ultimately, Kelly has a big challenge ahead of him. Still, his military career gives cause for optimism. Serving the nation, he said, requires speaking truth to power. And we should take him at his word. One of his sons, Lieutenant Robert Kelly (USMC), was killed in action in Southern Afghanistan in 2010. This is not a leader predisposed to playing the Washington game. Kelly’s career proves as much. During his hearing, he noted that while commanding SOUTHCOM, he faced Latin American militaries that wanted to buy expensive jets to gather intelligence on drug gangs and terrorists. Kelly, however, convinced them that outcomes are more important than snazzy tools, and persuaded them to invest in cheaper unmanned arrival vehicles.

It was about doing more with each dollar and individual.

As Kelly carries that ethos to DHS, let us hope that his boss and Congress support him.

Tom Rogan is a senior contributor for Opportunity Lives, a former panelist on The McLaughlin Group and a senior fellow at the Steamboat Institute. Follow him on Twitter @TomRtweets.

Islamic terror cells shift from Mideast to U.S.-Mexican border

SIS militants  like these in Syria are filing into Mexico. (Credit Image: © Medyan Dairieh/ZUMA Wire/ZUMAPRESS.com)

ISIS militants like these in Syria are filing into Mexico. (Credit Image: © Medyan Dairieh/ZUMA Wire/ZUMAPRESS.com)

‘They are only waiting for the order’ to attack American cities

WND, by Leo Hohmann, January 5, 2017:

A new report by a government watchdog agency says jihadists are partnering with Mexican drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexican border, preparing to carry out precision attacks in American cities.

Judicial Watch cites confidential U.S. and Mexican law enforcement sources for the disturbing report, which builds on earlier JW reports shining light on the jihadists’ exploitation of the porous border policies of President Barack Obama.

As part of the plan, Islamists have arrived recently at the Monterrey International Airport situated in Apodaca, a city in the Mexican state of Nuevo León, about 130 miles south of the Texas border, JW reports.

“An internal Mexican law enforcement report obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that Islamic terrorists have ‘people along the border, principally in Tijuana, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.’”

U.S. intelligence sources have also warned that the defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria will lead to many of those jihadists escaping and relocating into Western Europe and the United States.

But JW reported as early as April 2015 that ISIS had established a training camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in an area known as “Anapra” just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.

Just ‘waiting for the order’

According to the JW report, cartel informants have told law enforcement that “they are only waiting for the order and the times to carry out a simultaneous attack in the different ports of entry or cities of the United States of America.”

Drug cartels have a working “agreement” with Islamic terrorists, according to a high-ranking Mexican police administrator, who told JW that men from the Middle East arrive regularly into the country to train jihadists.

Judicial Watch sources include veteran law enforcement officials in the U.S. and Mexico as well as longtime undercover informants who have worked for intelligence agencies in both countries. They can’t be identified out of fear for their safety.

One seasoned Mexican law enforcement official told Judicial Watch that a key cartel informant verified picking up various Middle Eastern men from “evil groups” at the Monterrey Airport in the last few days alone. JW described the informant as “extremely credible” having also worked for several U.S. government agencies.

U.S. about to reap what it has sown

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist who now heads up the private consulting business Understanding the Threat, said the U.S. is about to reap the bitter fruit it has been sowing under the last several administrations – the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas — all of whom invited the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House as an inside policy player.

As a result, all references to Islam deemed offensive to Muslims has been scrubbed from FBI training manuals and Muslim Brotherhood entities like CAIR have been providing advice on how to deal with terrorism.

Now, terror cells are here and ready to strike, as documented by Judicial Watch.

“This is a symptom of the much bigger ongoing problem – the catastrophic failure of U.S. officials to identify the threat and deal with it,” Guandolo told WND.

Not only have they not identified the threat, Obama and his predecessors have invited the threat into the government.

“Because we will not associate ‘terrorism’ with Islam as a part of our national security directives and overall strategy, Islamic organizations, mosques, enclaves, and communities continue to serve as support networks, training sites and safe havens for jihadis across the United States,” Guandolo said.

He said Muslim leaders control the false narrative that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and they put themselves in the driver’s seat to be the gateway for all information getting to government leaders having to do with Islam.

Law enforcement neutered under Obama

“Islamic leaders get the federal government — the White House and DOJ especially — to bear down on local/state governments and law enforcement to let the FBI handle all counter-terrorism investigations, then strip the FBI of all factual understanding of the real threat and tie their hands so they cannot be aggressive in any case,” Guandolo said.

Philip Haney, a retired Homeland Security officer who co-authored the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing,” said the global Islamic movement led by the extremist Muslim Brotherhood is anticipating that they will encounter a far less friendly regime in Washington and they are filing some of their most militant assets into place.

“They’re laying the groundwork on the response to the new administration. And what is that response going to be? Attacks,” Haney told WND. “Like we’re seeing around the world, generated from the same sort of activity we’re seeing here. This is a turning point in terms of the Muslim community in North America because they are now being upgraded in their understanding and their expectation of what’s expected of them as devout, observant Muslims.”

Guandolo said the U.S. Department of Justice has been the most ardent supporter of the Islamic movement in America. It has aggressively gone on the offensive, suing any jurisdiction that takes any proactive measures to pursue the Islamic threat at the local level. This has weakened law enforcement’s ability to do its job. The DOJ has pushed Muslim Brotherhood organizations into local jurisdictions to do training for state and local law enforcement agencies, sponsored by U.S. attorneys’ offices.

Exploiting gaps on the way to ‘zero hour’

In this environment, Guandolo said terrorists use “Grand Canyon-size gaps in our security apparatus” to develop routes, methods and locations to move people, money and equipment in preparation for what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “zero hour.”

Evidence of this strategy was entered into the court record during the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas, in 2007-08.

“These routes, methods, and locations will be used by many nefarious entities be they cartels, terrorists, or gangs. In the end, though, they will lead to devastating results in American towns,” Guandolo said.

“It is nothing less than concerted and incremental efforts by heads of the key agencies of the United States — DHS, FBI, CIA, the White House counter-terrorism adviser — and the president himself to make America tragically vulnerable to our enemies,” he adds. “This is treason and sedition, and we will pay for allowing it for so long.”

Former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said Obama’s national security team has either known or should have known about the existence of Islamic terror cells on U.S. soil and along the border, “yet willingly allowed them to use the U.S. as a safe haven.”

“To think President Obama would fail to destroy every vestige of a U.S.-based Islamic terror cell is both jaw dropping and unthinkable, especially in light of the numerous U.S.-based Islamic terror attacks that have already occurred in the U.S. on his watch,” Bachmann told WND.

“Unfortunately, Obama’s failures are now President Trump’s responsibilities,” she added. “Mr. Trump will have to extinguish this evil from American soil — there is no other choice because Islamic supremacism has one goal — to conquer our land. We have to destroy this evil before they can destroy our liberty.”

House Homeland Security Chair Backs Brotherhood Ban

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Turkey (Photo: © ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Turkey (Photo: © ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, January 3, 2017:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and two other congressmen have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. A total of 90 members of Congress have cosponsored or voted for the bill’s advancement, including two Democrats.

The other two new cosponsors are Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Glenn Grothman (R-WI).

The act passed the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year but was stalled when Republican leadership in the House did not schedule a vote. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), did not even schedule hearings. It was originally introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Click here to ask your representatives to support the legislation.

The legislation states that Congress’ assessment is that the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. It gives the secretary of state 60 days to provide a detailed response as to whether the Brotherhood fits the criteria or not.

The legislation outlines the evidence linking the Brotherhood and Hamas to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) reiterated his comment to passing the legislation on November 15 and linked to a blog post based on the Clarion Project’s article.

Renewed momentum for the legislation would likely result in the Trump Administration’s State Department designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Trump has chosen several supporters of designating the Brotherhood for his Cabinet, including Rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director; Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general; General Michael Flynn as national security adviser and Steve Bannon as chief political strategist. Incoming Defense Secretary General James Mattis is also likely to be supportive.

Trump also chose Monica Crowley as the national security council’s director of strategic communications and Katharine Gorka as part of the “landing team” overseeing the transitions at the Department of Homeland Security. Both support designating the Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

We recently reported how a Muslim activist, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, wrote an op-ed asking President-elect Trump to designate the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. Four organizations representing persecuted Christians are also pushing for the bill. A prominent Kurdish Muslim activist is also supporting the bill.

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act must be careful not to squander an important opportunity.

While it is true that the new secretary of state may very well designate the Brotherhood, thus rendering the legislation irrelevant, that is not the best first step, as welcomed as it would be.

By having a vote on the legislation first, the American public gets a rare “red line” moment to find out where their representatives stand and compel them to become educated on the issue. All members of Congress sound tough when it comes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda, but only a minority speak with proficiency about the broader Islamist networks and ideology.

A quick move by the secretary of state would end this period of education for elected officials and for the American public. It would embolden wobbly politicians to say they privately disagreed with the designation when the Islamists raise the temperature. The American people deserve to know their representatives stood at this moment in time when their hands were forced.

Below is a list of those who have cosponsored the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act (HR3892 and S2230) or voted in favor of its advancement. Please review the list and click here to ask your representatives to take a stand if they are not on the list.

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

James Inhofe (R-OK)

David Perdue (R-GA)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

 

Mike Bishop (R-MI) Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL) Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA) Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX) Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA) Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH) David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA) Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA) John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS) Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX) Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL) John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX) Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI) Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX) Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH) Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN) Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA) Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Gene Green (D-TX) Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA) Doug Lamborn (R-C)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) Austin Scott (R-GA)
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Robert J. Dold (R-IL) Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Tom Marino (R-PA) Tim Walberg (R-MI)
John Moolenaar (R-MI) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Mo Brooks (R-AL) Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY) John Fleming (R-LA)
Lou Barletta (R-PA) Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Brad R. Wenstrup (R-OH)

Glenn Grothman (R-WI)

Also see:

Secret ISIS list IDs U.S. churches for attack during holidays

St. Peter & Paul Chapel in Cairo Bombed by Muslims in November 2016 killing 25 Christians

St. Peter & Paul Chapel in Cairo Bombed by Muslims in November 2016 killing 25 Christians

WND, by Leo Hohmann, December 23, 2016:

The Islamic State has allegedly published a secret list in Arabic of thousands of churches in all 50 states and called on its followers to attack them during the holidays.

ISIS, according to a report by Vocativ.com, posted the list late Wednesday night in the group’s “Secrets of Jihadis” social media group using the encrypted app Telegram.

WND asked several Arab speakers to search for the list and after an exhaustive search online they came up empty, leading some question whether such a list even exists. If it does, it is well hidden within the encrypted app. [emphasis added]

A user going by the name of “Abu Marya al-Iraqi” posted an Arabic-language message calling “for bloody celebrations in the Christian New Year” and announced the group’s plans to utilize its network of lone wolf attackers to “turn the Christian New Year into a bloody horror movie,” Vocative reported.

The names and addresses, distributed in a number of posts, were all previously available online and include a public directory of churches across all 50 states.

‘Sons of Islam’ exhorted to attack large gatherings

In another group post, a member summoned “the sons of Islam” to target “churches, well-known hotels, crowded coffee shops, streets, markets and public places,” and shared a list of addresses in the United States, as well as in Canada, France and the Netherlands.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise. Last month, the St. Peter and St. Paul chapel of the Coptic Christian Church in Cairo, Egypt, was bombed by Muslims, killing 25 Copts and injuring several more.

In July, an elderly Catholic priest had his throat slit on the altar while he was saying mass in Normandy, France. ISIS claimed responsibility for that attack by two of its “soldiers.”

Then on Monday, a Christmas market was targeted by a Muslim jihadist from Tunisia who stole a truck and rammed it into the crowded market. Christmas, as a Christian holiday, is a symbol of Europe’s and America’s Christian identity, regardless of whether many Christians in these countries still take their faith seriously, terrorism experts say.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the Christmas market attack in Berlin that killed 12 and injured 48, while the suspected jihadist, a Muslim migrant who entered Europe from Tunisia, is still on the loose.

Surveillance of churches reported

Former FBI counter-terrorism agent John Guandolo’s Understanding the Threat blog has received reports in the last several weeks from law enforcement, pastors and citizens that Muslims are conducting pre-operation surveillance inside U.S. churches during services.

The information received by UTT from multiple states indicates the manner of the surveillance is similar in each case.

Guandolo says two Muslim males will enter during the service and sit together in the back of the church. They will often take pictures and record video. When approached by concerned ushers, they will either tell their questioners they are “interested” in becoming Christians or they will run.

“This information has been passed to the appropriate law enforcement officials, and UTT is aware of a joint investigation between local police and the FBI in at least one of the cases,” according to Guandolo.

One planned attack already foiled

In February, the FBI interrupted a plot to pull off a mass shooting at one of Detroit’s largest Catholic churches in a case reported by WND involving a Muslim convert, Sebastian Gregerson, who had amassed an arsenal of military-grade weapons including AK-47s, a howitzer and tactical knives similar to those used by ISIS. Gregerson, who changed his name to Abu-Rayyan, reportedly received money to acquire the weapons from an imam in Maryland. Court documents showed the FBI was concerned that imams could be financing similar plots around the country.

Dr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim imam from Egypt and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, said churches need to take precautions.

Big churches will be seen as the most prime targets, he said, as ISIS will be looking for the highest number of casualties they can inflict.

“To be honest, in every place where there are public gatherings, there are metal detectors at the front, and I hate to say it but I feel it is time for movie theaters and churches too, they need to have that, to detect guns and knives and explosives … I think it’s time to do it,” said Dr. Christian, who changed his name from Muhammad Abdullah and converted to Christianity in 2005.

“It’s going to be very expensive for a smaller church, so you have to have volunteers in those churches,” he said, adding that these volunteers should be proficient in defensive actions up to and including handgun usage.

“Metal detectors are not expensive for larger congregations, and they are a must at this time, along with trained volunteers” he said. “You are talking about a couple of grand for a metal detector, but they will save lives.

“We live in a time where, even if you are going Christmas shopping, you need to pack heat when you go. This is not the way you should have to live,” he added. “But we have awakened the giant. We give them the space to run and to expand, so I hate to say it but this is the beginning of this kind of threat.”

The invasion of Iraq and Obama promoting radical Sunni religious regimes in Syria, Egypt and Libya have helped to awaken the sleeping giant, but Christian says that’s not the only problem. After all, America was attacked on 9/11 even before the invasion of Iraq.

The biggest problem is the Islamic texts and Muslims who are taught to emulate their seventh-century prophet, Muhammad, a warlord who is seen as the “perfect man.” He advocated taking slaves, raping women, torturing and slaughtering men and taught that Islam was to reign supreme over all other religions whenever the numbers in a society were in favor of Islam. Christians and Jews, if they were allowed to live at all, were to be subjugated as second-class “dhimmis.”

Until imams stop teaching doctrines modeled after the seventh-century warlord’s example, violent jihad will always be a problem, he said.

“So there has to be a multi-level approach to fix this problem. You can use extreme vetting and require a strict assimilation, cleansing the educational and religious institutions of Islam of radical elements,” he said. “You can’t do one and not the other, or it will just get worse.”

Too many foreign imams entering U.S.?

“If you do extreme vetting and let the imams preach hatred in the mosques, they are going to create more feelings of victimhood, and you will have more attacks,” Christian said. “You have to block those not worthy of coming here, and then you have to set some rules and regulations on the institution of Islam itself. I would recommend educational programs for imams to understand our Constitution and what America stands for. Then you have to monitor the religious leaders who come here from other countries to preach.”

Christian said nearly 70 percent of the clergy in American mosques are supplied from countries in the Middle East. Most come from Egypt’s Al Azhar University, but some also come from Saudi Arabia, Syria and other nations.

“This is the way imams want to make some money and come to America. The Coptic Church does the same thing, but we don’t have a problem with the Coptic Church,” he said. “For an imam to be an imam, he has to study Islamic law from a university. … Harvard and a few other places have these Islamic studies programs, but the majority come from Egypt and some from Saudi Arabia.”

***

***

 

 

Suspect Sought for Deadly Berlin Terror Attack, Anis Amri, Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’

anis-amri-berlin-attack-sized-770x415xc

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, December 21, 2016:

A manhunt is underway in Germany for 23-year old Tunisian Anis Amri, sought for his possible connection to this week’s horrific terror attack on a Berlin Christmas market that killed 12 people and injured dozens more.

Amri was already known to German police for involvement in an ISIS cell, and had been under police surveillance.

If Amri’s involvement is confirmed, this would make the Berlin attack the most recent case of what I have termed “Known Wolf” terrorism, and would mark the eighth such incident this year:

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Authorities on Wednesday were seeking a 23-year-old Tunisian man who had been on the radar of intelligence services since last year as a suspect in the deadly truck attack at Berlin’s Christmas market, a German security official said.

The man, identified as Anis A., had entered Germany in July 2015 and applied for asylum, the official said. He got temporary approval to stay in Germany even though his asylum application was rejected, the official said.

German authorities had classified him as a potentially violent follower of the fundamentalist Salafi strain of Islam, and suspected ties to Islamic State, the official said.

Another security official confirmed police were seeking the man. Investigators pinpointed him as their suspect after finding his residency permit in the cab of the truck used in the attack, they said. But the document was only found on Tuesday, during a more thorough search of the truck than the one that took place in the aftermath of the attack the previous night, according to one of the officials.

The Tunisian man had used a number of different identities while in Germany, also claiming on some occasions that he was Egyptian or Lebanese, officials said.

Media reports indicate that Amri was already considered dangerous, and had asked a police informant to illegally acquire weapons:

The Ministry of Internal Affairs for Northrhine Westphalia made a statement earlier today about what was previously known about Amri:

As regular PJ Media readers would note, I first identified and termed the ongoing trend of “Known Wolf” terrorism — individuals committing terrorist acts who were already known to law enforcement and national security authorities — back in October 2014.

This year alone, I’ve reported on the following “Known Wolf” incidents: Columbus, OhioOrlando, Florida; Normandy, France; Ontario, Canada; Strasbourg, France; Roanoke, Virginia; and New York/New Jersey.

Note that four of the above seven cases in 2016 occurred here in the United States.

Additionally, in September I documented a dozen cases of “Known Wolf” terrorism in the U.S. under the Obama administration:

Here are links to my previous reporting on the “Known Wolf” terror problem:

Oct. 24, 2014: ‘Lone Wolf’ or ‘Known Wolf’: The Ongoing Counter-Terrorism Failure

Dec. 15, 2014: Sydney Hostage Taker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Jan. 7, 2015: Paris Terror Attack Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 3, 2015: French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 15, 2015: Copenhagen Killer Was yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Feb. 26, 2015: Islamic State Beheader ‘Jihadi John’ Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Apr. 22, 2015: Botched Attack on Paris Churches Another Case of “Known Wolf” Terrorism

May 4, 2015: Texas Attack Is Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

June 26, 2015: France’s Beheading Terrorist Was Well-Known By Authorities

July 16, 2015: Report: Chattanooga Jihadist Was Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist, Anonymous Feds Dispute

Aug. 22, 2015: European Train Attacker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Oct 14, 2015: Yet Again: Turkey, Israel Terror Attacks Committed by “Known Wolves”

Nov 14, 2015: One Paris Attacker Was Previously Known to Authorities, Marks Fifth ‘Known Wolf” Attack in France This Year

Feb 16, 2016: Machete Attack in Ohio Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

May 16, 2016: News Reports Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ U.S. Terrorists

June 12, 2016: Orlando Night Club Attack by “Known Wolf” Terrorist Previously Investigated by FBI

July 14, 2016: Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate “Known Wolf” Terrorism Problem

July 26, 2016: ISIS Suspect in Normandy Priest’s Killing Already Known to French Authorities

August 10, 2016: Canadian ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist Planned Suicide Bombing of Major City, Killed in Overnight Police Operation

August 19, 2016: Man Who Stabbed Rabbi Thursday in Strasbourg, France Involved in Prior Attack

Sept. 20, 2016: NY-NJ Bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami Already Known to Law Enforcement Authorities

Sept. 28, 2016: “Known Wolf” SCANDAL: In at Least 12 of the 14 Terror Attacks Under Obama, FBI Already Knew Attackers

Combating Political Islam

political-islam-captureClaremont Institute, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, December 9, 2016:

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump voiced beliefs about national security that many Americans have shared since, at least, the early days of the Obama administration. The inability to speak honestly and coherently about the enemy and its ideology, Trump argued, has repeatedly led to failure: terror attacks at home that were not stopped; wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria that were not won.

Millions of Americans agree with Trump’s assessment, believing the Obama White House had, for reasons of political correctness, mischaracterized the terrorist threat, treating Islam as a secondary feature instead of the defining one. Any such assessment, however, necessarily implies this corollary: an accurate representation of the enemy based on its ideology would indicate a far larger threat to U.S. interests, encompassing more of the Islamic world than previously admitted by either of the past two presidential administrations.

On national security, Trump has a mandate from the American people to expand the focus of the Obama years—which fixates on the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, all of whom seek to forcibly impose an Islamic state—to a more comprehensive understanding of the enemy and the threat it poses. “We can beat them,” Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), told Fox News in September, “but we have to decide that this is an enemy first.” This more expansive understanding, then, centers on an ideology that promotes implementing an Islamic political order as the sole legitimate method of religious and political expression.

As articulated by prominent Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary preoccupation of Islamist movements is “Islamic Awakening,” a revivalist strategy activating Muslims throughout the world to impose totalitarian Islamic law—first within a given territory, a Caliphate, then across the world. The imposition of Islamic law means restricting free speech and persecuting minority and non-Muslim communities. These goals being antithetical to liberal democracy, the success of Islamist political movements are inherently destructive of America’s vital interests.

Ideological Threat Focus: Islamism, Not Just ISIS

Among those who have supported a wider national security threat focus, opinions differ as to whether practitioners of this ideology—call it political Islam or Islamism—represent an aberration of Islam generally; a strain among many strains of Islamic thought; or whether it is, as Islamists themselves claim, the only faithful representation of Islam’s historical and legal practices. But few dispute the entity most responsible for advancing the notion of political Islam is the global, secretive organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, the new administration’s counterterrorism efforts are likely to focus on it. Trump campaign advisor Walid Phares recently indicated to an Arab-language newspaper that the incoming administration will designate this Islamist group a foreign terrorist organization, the goal of a year-long legislative effort led by Senator Ted Cruz. While the House version of the bill, authored by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, easily passed the House Judiciary Committee, Republican congressional leadership has stymied its passage. Reports from staffers indicate that establishment Republicans have expressed concerns about how such a designation would impact U.S. policy, both at home and abroad.

One difficulty in making the case for the Muslim Brotherhood’s designation has been a fundamental lack of knowledge about its role in waging terrorism. Since 1928, when it was founded by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian, the Brotherhood has kept terrorist violence—or the threat of such violence—within its doctrinal toolkit, maintaining close ties to other sympathetic terror groups. As the 9/11 Commission reported, the Brotherhood’s comfortable association with violent jihadist terror stretches from establishing clandestine “Special Apparatus” terror cells in the 1930s—which are still active—to the deep influence of Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb upon al-Qaeda.

The Brotherhood also constitutes the ideological wellspring for nearly every current jihadist organization. As al-Qaradawi notes in Islamic Education and Hassan al-Banna, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that invigorated and promoted a view of Jihad that had lain dormant” “The movement of Ikhwanul Muslimoon (The Muslim Brothers) breathed new life into jihad: giving it a place of honor and prominence in writings; stressing its importance in lectures, meetings, and songs; and asserting its sovereignty over individual and collective life.” Where al-Banna provided inspiration and organization, Sayyid Qutb provided the roadmap. His 1964 book Milestones operationalized a plan for the reestablishment of totalitarian Islamic law through a skillful mixture of indoctrination and physical violence, all pegged to long-established concepts in Islamic law.

Any move in Washington against the Muslim Brotherhood faces, even more than a lack of knowledge, intense ideological resistance. For decades, a bipartisan American foreign policy consensus has endorsed engagement with and promotion of Islamists in an attempt to use them as a counterweight, to either other Islamic terror groups or larger geopolitical adversaries.

Seeking to engage Muslim Brotherhood officials or franchises has a long historical pedigree within our foreign policy establishment. As Ian Johnson documented in his outstanding history, A Mosque in Munich, America first turned to Islamists in the early days of the Cold War in order to nurture alternatives to the Soviets. During that time, however, many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment seemed to recognize that, ultimately, the long-term objectives of the Islamists were both anti-democratic and harmful to American national interests. An internal analysis from the period noted that leading Muslim Brotherhood figure Said Ramadan—then a guest in the Eisenhower White House who was backed by the CIA—was “a fascist” and obsessed with seizing power.

Unfortunately, such a blunt assessment of the U.S. government’s Islamist interlocutors seems as quaint today as a 1950s TV commercial. By 2009 skepticism of Islamists’ long-term goals had been thoroughly abandoned, as President Obama formally announced the full-throated promotion of political Islam as the legitimate expression of democratic will throughout the Middle East.

For the Obama administration, the Islamists’ goals, motives, and doctrines were immaterial. It followed that spasms of violent Islamic terrorism are merely the product of authoritarian societies in the Middle East and the citizens’ attendant lack of freedom to pursue their political aspirations peacefully. The most productive response, the foreign-policy class reasoned, was to encourage authoritarian rule by these countries’ leading opposition. Of course, then as now, almost all Islamist parties in the Middle East are either formally or ideologically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Logic seemed to dictate, then, that support for democracy would, necessarily, translate into de facto support for various local tribunes of political Islam. Since Islamists were the immediate beneficiaries of a democratization policy, the administration was disposed to consider nearly all Islamist movements “moderate.”

Nevertheless, a bipartisan consensus on this issue turned this theory into a touchstone concept of Obama administration policy. Promoting Islamist groups has, over time, come to define the American national interest.

Reaping the Whirlwind

The failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East that Trump articulated on the campaign trail follow from these assumptions about political Islam. The Obama administration’s promotion of Islamism has not only failed to deliver its intended results, but encouraged terrorism, both international and domestic, while destabilizing Egypt, Libya, Syria and other regions vital to America. Long-time Sunni allies panicked as they saw the spread of the Islamists—whom they had once funded to operate against the West—now threatening, with implicit U.S. support, their own rule. Saudi Arabia banned Muslim Brotherhood materials from schools, and the United Arab Emirates designated numerous Brotherhood fronts, including ones operating in the United States, as terrorist entities.

Where the wave of political Islam met success, it was short-lived. Rather than promoting good governance and ending corruption, the Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt led to a rapid expansion of jihad in the Sinai, with the Brotherhood leaders’ tacit support. The triumphant Islamists spent more time establishing Islamic law and targeting Coptic Christians than providing desperately needed hard currency, natural gas, and food to the afflicted Egyptian people. The Brotherhood and other Islamists rose to prominence in Libya with the assistance of al-Qaeda-linked fighters, but could not maintain power democratically, rejecting the Libyan election result that favored their political opponents. The resulting civil war has made that country fertile grounds for both al-Qaeda and Islamic State fighters. In Syria, despite Western backing, Brotherhood-linked militias continue to insist upon close ties and cooperation with al-Qaeda’s local affiliates. And while the Islamic State has publicly criticized the Muslim Brotherhood for its relationship with the West, Israeli and Egyptian intelligence officials say the Islamic State in fact receives support from Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood for its attacks in the Sinai.

Here in the United States, law enforcement has been overwhelmed by hundreds of terror cases. While the focus of the media and the Obama administration has been on the Islamic State and its ability to influence potential supporters via the internet, few have noted the repeated appearance of Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Centers and organizations in attacks in Garland, Texas, San Bernardino, and Chattanooga, as well as in connection to several would-be Islamic State fighters who were caught before they could act.

It appears the new administration understands this error, and will correct it. At the Heritage Foundation last May, Secretary of Defense nominee General James Mattis asked the blunt but essential question: “Is political Islam in America’s best interests?” He went on to demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian theocracy (respectively, political Islam’s primary Sunni and Shia embodiments) were inimical to our well-being. President-elect Trump’s nomination of Mattis suggests he holds the same view.

From their service under President Obama both Generals Mattis and Flynn understand the mistaken premise of the outgoing administration’s engagement with political Islam: the unfalsifiable wish that, through participating in the democratic process, Islamists will be transformed from a source of anti-American terrorism into a bulwark against their more militant brethren. Despite the dangerous results of this hypothesis, the Obama administration viewed it as a way to simultaneously promote democracy and redirect militants’ energies from terrorist to politics. Consequently, even domestic Islamists stopped being the targets of counterterror investigations, and were treated instead as partners in “Countering Violent Extremism” programs.

Is the Muslim Brotherhood “Too Big to Fail”?

While the Bush Administration was engaged in a military and foreign policy struggle in the Middle East, it was also investigating domestic Islamist activity. Following the 9/11 attacks, investigations and prosecutions repeatedly touched upon individuals and groups in the United States affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. A careful study of these early cases revealed that the Brotherhood provided the ideological basis for jihadist violence, but also material support. In the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) case, for example, the U.S. government outlined a decades long plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to provide material support for Hamas. There were other instances:

Not only did each of these cases, and many others like them, involve Muslim Brothers, but the interlocking web of conspirators and co-conspirators makes clear that that the Muslim Brothers are not a cog in the Islamist terror machine—they are the engineers who designed and run it.

Law enforcement soon found that some of these cases were political hot potatoes. Many of the subjects were wealthy, politically connected, well-regarded religious figures, or perceived as prominent within the Muslim American community. At fundraising events held at many of the most prominent Islamic Centers around the country, for example, the Holy Land Foundation successfully solicited millions in donations for the violent jihad being waged by the designated terrorist group Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological offshoot in the West Bank and Gaza. This happened with the knowing cooperation of some of the most prominent and influential Muslims in the country. By late 2008, the Bush Justice Department would prove at trial that many of these organizations and individuals constituted a conspiracy to fund Hamas. Prosecutors would label 306 of these as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the terror-funding scheme, listing organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); as well as individuals like onetime HLF employee Kifah Mustapha and prodigious Hamas fundraiser Mohamed al-Hanooti.

In the wake of the Holy Land Foundation case, those who take the Islamist ideological threat seriously believed that secondary prosecutions targeting Muslim Brotherhood leaders and co-conspirators intimately involved in the Hamas funding scheme would be a crippling blow to domestic Islamist terror networks. But there were no secondary prosecutions. There’s some debate whether those prosecutions were squashed for political reasons by the incoming Obama administration, or by career Department of Justice officials. Regardless, the absence of follow-on cases against unindicted co-conspirators left in place a vast infrastructure that provided millions in hard currency—as well the equivalent of millions of dollars in media and public policy assistance—to terrorist groups. Even now, much of the evidence acquired by the government against the Muslim Brotherhood and its network in the United States—a large portion of which was entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial—remains classified. Despite multiple requests in the name of legislative oversight, the Obama Justice Department has taken pains to prevent anyone, including Congress, examining it.

Perhaps the government considered the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. “too big to fail.” For example, a federal judge noted that the government supplied “ample evidence” to link a Muslim Brotherhood organization like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the terror group Hamas. Yet ISNA is affiliated with something on the order of one out of every four American mosques. How would prosecution of such an entity appear to the broader American community? How would the rest of the Muslim American community respond to an indictment? If the Muslim Brotherhood network in America and its allies were able to raise a political maelstrom over the conviction of Sami Al Arian, a South Florida professor tied to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, how much louder would a hyper-partisan media and an aggressive, social media-fueled activist infrastructure shriek if, for example, the organizing force behind a quarter of American mosques were indicted?

It’s no wonder that capitalizing on the government’s “too big to fail” assessment has proven to be an effective strategy of Islamist leaders in the United States, as pressure groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood routinely conflate their own front organizations and political goals with the totality of American Muslims. Regrettably, an increasingly uncurious media accepts this falsehood—and membership records for Muslim Brotherhood groupsmake clear it is a falsehood.

A New Way Forward

The new Trump administration must be prepared to rebut the inevitable complaints from self-styled Islamist “civil rights” leaders and their enablers in the media. It’s important to remember that this would be the case whether or not the next president orders the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. The Trump campaign and national security team has withstood the overwrought allegations that his proposals target all Muslims.

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization should give law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to begin a serious, long-term investigation of the Islamist group’s network in this country. The new administration must undertake a genuine effort to map this clandestine system, and key organizational leaders should be made the target of legitimate investigation, and prosecuted as legally appropriate.

It will be difficult to immediately reverse a culture within the U.S. government that has favored engaging the Muslim Brotherhood over investigating it. Since at least the Clinton administration, the White House Rolodex has included officials from domestic Islamist groups whose names routinely appeared in the court documents of terror finance cases. Even more, the Obama administration has quietly removed many organizations and individuals designated as global terrorists from the list, undoing much of the work by counterterrorism agents who were responsible for our post-9/11 response.

Because of the Brotherhood’s political influence, which frustrated Bush-era prosecutions and halted them altogether under Obama, rolling back the Islamist group will require a joint counterterrorism/counterintelligence initiative. U.S. policy should treat all contacts with known and suspected Muslim Brotherhood members the way government personnel examine and report contacts with potential foreign intelligence services. Contact or association with the Brotherhood should be immediately disqualifying during ordinary background investigations for security clearances.

Additionally, a designation should provide added leverage for counterterrorism officials. Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Unlike the prosecution of the Mafia however, a Trump administration will need to accompany counterterrorism efforts with a strong public relations campaign. Informed, articulate spokesmen will need to explain how relevant prosecutions were conducted, why they were necessary, and—perhaps most importantly—how they targeted the Muslim Brotherhood for its criminal behavior, not its religious convictions. Officials will need to be prepared to push back with facts against accusations of inappropriate discrimination. This, in turn, may require a more open approach to terror prosecutions, making relevant documents available to journalists quicker, while doing so in a manner that protects sources and methods.

Additionally, such a campaign to target the Muslim Brotherhood will require gathering more and better intelligence on the group’s ideology than the Obama Administration permitted. Since the U.S. government’s threat-focused counterterror training has been aggressively purged during the past eight years, accurate subject matter instruction will be the first step before earnest policy reorientation begins. Due to the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamic extremists, training for counterterrorism and counterintelligence officials will necessarily address sensitive issues of Islamic doctrine and legal theory. Political correctness mustn’t be allowed to deny access to training based on demonstrable facts.

It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better

As has always been the case since its founding—and is currently the case in Egypt today—the Muslim Brotherhood has responded to crackdowns by proclaiming that Islam itself is under attack. The group has galvanized its membership to conduct numerous violent assaults, usually under the identity of a “splinter” faction. We can expect that, should it be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, at least some element of the Brotherhood will respond by seeking to increase terrorist violence against the United States. This will be difficult for a U.S. law enforcement infrastructure already strained by the Islamic State, but is a storm that can and must be weathered. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood remains necessary. The potential for violence must be weighed against law enforcement’s ability to take swifter action and develop a deeper, more accurate view of Islamic extremism operating in the United States and around the globe.

President-elect Trump successfully campaigned on the repudiation of the national security views of the Obama administration. With the failure of the “democratic Islamist” project, the time has come to return to the alternative: (a) the promotion of Islamists accelerates, rather than stifles, Islamic terrorism; and (b) the Muslim Brotherhood remains at the center of Islamic ideological extremism throughout the world. Any policy not prepared to abandon America’s promotion of political Islam broadly, and the Muslim Brotherhood specifically, merely perpetuates old failures.

Why Are Terror Leader al-Awlaki’s Video Messages Still on YouTube?

awlaki-1Fox News Insider, December 5, 2016:

YouTube has the ability to remove videos seen as having the potential to recruit terrorists, says Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.

The judge joined Jenna Lee on Happening Now to discuss growing questions on why the videos of radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – leader of the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen – have been allowed to remain on YouTube.

Investigators have linked the ideology of al-Awlaki, who was killed in Yemen five years ago, to at least 11 incidents since 2009, including the recent attack on the campus of Ohio State University.

According to a YouTube representative, “YouTube has clear policies in prohibiting terrorist recruitment and content intending to incite violence, and we quickly remove videos violating these policies when flagged by our users.” So why then are al-Awlaki’s videos allowed to remain on the platform, Lee asked.

“The short answer is his videos are still out there because like flag burning, they are protected speech,” Napolitano said. “Even though they are hateful, even though they advocate violence, even though they are profoundly un-American, they are protected speech…protected from the government…but not protected from YouTube, which is not the government.

“So the First Amendment says the government shall not interfere with free speech, but YouTube could take them down in a flash just because it doesn’t want this stuff being propagated on its platform.”

Napolitano said YouTube should make a “business judgment” on how to handle this content.

“If they think their their shareholders want a free and open platform where any political idea can be aired no matter how horrible, hateful or harmful it may be, they should keep it on there,” he said. “But if they want to cleanse the airwaves of this horror and terror producing stuff, they can take it down with impunity.”

9/11 Mastermind Reveals Trump’s Plan to Fight Terrorists Works

rdw

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows anti-war leftists were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield,  December 2, 2016:

The left aided Islamic terrorists most not with street protests, but by embedding counterintuitive narratives into the framework of counterterrorism. These narratives turned reality on its head.

In counterterrorism, counterintuitive narratives transformed inaction into a virtue.

One of the most pervasive myths was that Islamic terrorists actually wanted us to fight them and that we could only defeat them by ignoring them. The irrationality of the myth that terrorists wanted us to bomb and kill them was exceeded only by its persistence among experts and political officials.

Popularly known as “Playing into their hands”, the goal of this counterintuitive narrative was to make the ostrich approach appear prudent and masterful while flipping around patriotism by accusing national security hawks of playing into the hands of the terrorists by killing them.

Only the appeasers had the secret to defeating Islamic terrorism while the patriots were truly traitors.

Trump faced repeated accusation from Hillary and her proxies that he was playing into the hands of ISIS with calls to get tough on Islamic terrorism. And you can expect the smear that he’s playing into the hands of the terrorists by bombing and killing them to recur throughout his administration.

But the myth has been shredded by James E. Mitchell’s book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America.” As the man who helped the CIA break terrorists, Mitchell had written the “book” on effective methods for fighting Islamic terror. And now he actually wrote the book on what the terrorists really wanted and fear.

And no, they didn’t want to be bombed. We weren’t “playing into their hands” by killing them or by making it harder for them to come to America. It was the left that was playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

And that still is.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, revealed that Al Qaeda shared the leftist panic and disaster over Bush’s “cowboy” approach to fighting terrorists. The United States had backed down from Islamic terrorists so many times that they had come to take our defeatism for granted. Al Qaeda didn’t have a masterful plan to lure us into Afghanistan, as the left liked to insist, instead it expected President Bush to follow in Clinton’s footsteps by delivering an empty speech and then writing it off as a law enforcement problem. Much as Obama had done with Benghazi.

It wasn’t expecting the roar of jets over Kandahar.

“How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whined.

“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks”, but instead Al Qaeda and its plans for the next wave of attacks were crushed “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

Like Saddam’s WMDs, the left has made great sport of the lack of major follow-up attacks by Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda couldn’t follow up because it was under too much pressure. Unsurprisingly, killing terrorists actually worked. Unknown numbers of American lives were saved because President Bush believed that killing terrorists was more effective than appeasing them.

The left had always insisted on treating 9/11 as a law enforcement matter. That is why Obama aggressively pushed to move Islamic terrorists into criminal courts. Even his Osama bin Laden bid was only an effort to capture the top Al Qaeda terrorist so that he could put him on trial in a criminal court.

“My belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda,” Obama had argued, showcasing a typical counterintuitive narrative myth.

Osama’s death proved to be a lucky political break for Obama, but he hadn’t been trying to fight terror. Instead he was working to appease it.

Various counterintuitive narratives were invoked in defense of this bad policy, including the “Playing into their hands” myth. But now we know that it was leftists who were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

The mastermind of 9/11 wanted us to send the cops after Al Qaeda. He wasn’t looking to dance with an A-10. And had Bill Clinton turned over the White House to Al Gore instead of George W. Bush, 9/11 would have been far more devastating as the opening round of a series of major Islamic terror attacks.

Another great counterintuitive myth is that Islamic immigration, which provides fertile recruiting ground for foreign terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their Jihad on America using operatives already embedded in the country, is actually the best way to fight Islamic terrorism.

When Trump called for a ban on Muslim migration, counterintuitive narratives were deployed that accused him, once again, of playing into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Islamic immigration, the counterintuitive myth claimed, disproved the claims of Islamic terrorists about America. The more Muslim migrants we took in, the more Muslims would come to love us and reject Islamic terrorism.

But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed that he did not oppose Islamic immigration. He viewed it as the certain way for Muslims to defeat America and the free world. Islamic terrorism was a short range gamble. The “moonshot” of Islamic conquest wasn’t terrorism, it was Muslim migration to the West.

And even in the short term, Islamic terror was still enabled by Islamic immigration.

“Jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws’ while continuing their attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted.

While the counterintuitive narrative deeply embedded in CVE insists that Islamist “civil rights” groups like CAIR are our best “partners” in fighting Islamic terrorism and that extending every possible legal protection to Islamic terrorists will help discredit them, Mohammed saw Islamic migration and the whole Islamist civil rights scam enabled by the radicals at the ACLU and elsewhere, as cover for Islamic terrorism.

All of this is obvious to any thinking person who possesses enough common sense to come out of the rain. So why did so many important people fall for the counterintuitive myths of counterterrorism?

The strange seductiveness of counterintuitive narratives lies in their rejection of common sense solutions. Instead they follow the standard leftist pattern of descending into the matrix of a logically illogical system which is internally consistent, but makes no sense when applied to the real world.

Counterintuitive narratives make elites and experts feel smart for appearing to transcend common sense to grasp deeper insights into human nature and how the world works. Such gnostic revelations are a big part of the left’s appeal, particularly to college students, but these mythologies are a myth.

The left loves to play with language, but word games don’t change reality. They just seduce those who consider themselves bright into believing that their cleverness is more meaningful than reality.

But eventually the ivory towers fall, the sand castles are washed away by the tide and the lies die.

Common sense was always right. Killing terrorists works. Appeasing them doesn’t. Terrorists are broken through pressure, not milk and cookies. Trump’s proposals work. Those of the left only enable terrorism.

“America will expose her neck for us to slaughter,” Mohammed predicted. And it did.

But just as the mastermind of September 11 had not anticipated what President Bush would do, Islamic terrorists never saw President Trump coming.

***

A good follow-up on the manipulation of language to achieve political ends:

***

Brian Kilmeade recently interviewed Dr. James Mitchell on his new book. “‘Enhanced Interrogation”:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

AFP PHOTO / SITE INTELLIGENCE GROUP

AFP PHOTO / SITE INTELLIGENCE GROUP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 30, 2016:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily to discuss security issues around the world.

The conversation began with Kassam asking Dr. Gorka for his take on CIA Director John Brennan, saying that if President-elect Donald Trump keeps his campaign promise to exit from the Iran nuclear deal, it would be “the height of folly.”

“John Brennan, to be honest, was a man who was an intelligence analyst, worked through the system, tried his hand at being an operator, failed abysmally, was a very unsatisfactory chief of station, and then under the Obama administration became the wingman for the President, promoting his disastrous policies around the world,” Gorka replied.

Kassam next brought up the terrorist attack on Ohio State University by Somali-born refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan and the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility.

“We have to look at the forensics of that claim,” Gorka advised. “We have to look at what he was posting on social media, his connections on the Internet. The rapidity with which the claim was made is very interesting. So I’d give it a 50-50 chance that this is a serious claim of responsibility for the attack.”

Kassam noted that all of these “lone wolf jihad” stories seem to circle back to one person, whom Gorka was able to name immediately: Anwar al-Awlaki. He agreed with Kassam’s comment that Awlaki seems to have a more enduring legacy as an inspiration for terrorism than even Osama bin Laden.

“There is one man who, from beyond the grave, is perhaps the most dangerous jihadi today. It is Anwar al-Awlaki,” Gorka declared. “Any significant case, whether it’s the Boston bombing case, whether it’s this case, sooner or later, you find that the individuals who executed that attack were consuming Anwar al-Awlaki’s audio lectures, were reading his materials. He is more significant than bin Laden today, by a long shot.”

“The key thing about Anwar al-Awlaki is that this is a man who was socialized in both worlds that are essential to successful jihadi operations,” Gorka explained. “Coming, as his family did, from Yemen, yet growing up from a young age in America, means that he straddles both cultures. He can quote the hadith. He can quote the Koran. He can talk about the need for jihadism to cleanse Islam of the influence, the undermining corruption of the West. But at the same time, he knows how to do it in English. He knows how to do it using the cultural themes of the West. And as a result, he is all the more dangerous, because he isn’t like bin Laden: a man who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, spent his formative years in Afghanistan. This is a man who operated in both worlds, and that is why he is so deadly.”

Gorka noted there has been no effort to delegitimize Awlaki as a religious authority, the way Osama bin Laden was diminished after his decidedly unheroic death because “we’d have to talk about religion, and we’re not allowed to do that, at least under the current administration.”

“If we have the censorship, the political correctness that we do here in Washington – and to be honest, in the UK, as well – you can’t talk about the credibility of individual jihadi strategists without talking about religion, without talking about Islam, without talking about the religious texts they’re quoting. So if you deny that, if you say that’s prohibited territory, then all you have is the killing part of it, the whack-a-mole that we call it here in the United States. And as a result, you miss the broader picture, which is the ideology of why people become terrorists.”

“At least here in America, I don’t know about the UK, that’s all going to change on January 20th,” Gorka predicted, referencing the date of President Trump’s inauguration.

Kassam asked if the appointment of Mitt Romney as secretary of state would represent the kind of change for which Gorka was hoping.

“That would depend wholly upon the agreement that he came to with Mr. Trump,” Gorka replied. “The thing that people don’t understand is that Mr. Trump is different. You can’t judge him by the expectations of former politicians and former presidents-elect. This guy has his own rule book.”

“He’s not my favorite candidate, I’ll be honest, but the decision is up to Mr. Trump. And if he can come to a deal – well, he is the dealmaker par excellence,” Gorka added. “I’d like to see somebody like Ambassador Bolton, a hardcore individual who knows where the skeletons are buried at the State Department. But at the end of the day, the American people chose Donald J. Trump, and he will choose his own cabinet.”

Finally, Kassam mentioned the shocking story of a German intelligence officer who was arrested for helping to plot an Islamist terror attack on his own organization’s headquarters. “Do you think this is a sole operator, or do you think there is a wider attempt to infiltrate these organizations?” he asked.

“I’ve always said, for years now, there is no such thing as ‘lone wolf terrorism,’” Gorka answered. “That is a phrase invented to make the average voter stupid. We never, ever have seen a significant plot of an individual sitting in his basement, getting online, and suddenly becoming a jihadi. Sooner or later, there are links to other individuals, to networks, to people who provide training, logistical support. So if this is a serious arrest, if this was a serious plot, I expect there to be a broader conspiracy.”

***

***

Gorka on Trump: ‘Jan 20th Will Be When Common Sense Reenters the US Gov’t’

***

Brigitte Gabriel traces the path of Abdul Razak Ali Artan from Pakistan to a Kenyan refugee camp to Pakistan for 7 years and finally to the United States. 

***

Ohio State Attacker Abdul Razak Ali Artan Bought Knife in Washington

***

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz on his interview with Somalis in Minnesota.

***

Insight from Tom Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and senior editor of Long War Journal

***

***

Terror mosque link to Ohio State attack?

Also see:

UTT Throwback Thursday: Treasonous Leadership Decisions by Ohio Officials Have Deadly Consequences

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 1, 2016:

Ohio is reaping what it has sown.  They have protected and promoted jihadis for several years.

In 2009, the Ohio Department of Homeland Security hosted a day-long seminar which included senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood officials, including Hani Sakr, a member of the U.S. MB’s Board of Directors, and the leader of Hamas in Ohio, Asma Uddin.

screen-shot-2016-11-30-at-10-24-44-pm-768x577

Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Hani Sakr Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference

Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Hani Sakr Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference

Ohio Hamas Leader Asma Uddin Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference in 2009

Ohio Hamas Leader Asma Uddin Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference in 2009

In 2010, the Strategic Engagement Group (predecessor to UTT) conducted a 3-day training program at the Columbus (Ohio) Police Department.  At the end of the program, the Ohio DHS Director Bill Vedra, the Chief of the Columbus Police Department, and others came into the room and defended Hamas (doing business and CAIR), the outreach programs to the Muslim community, and commented negatively about the 3-day program even though none of them sat through one minute of the training.

Several of the officers in the room stood up and confronted the leadership, calling them out.

Ohio DHS Director Vedra, Omar Alomari (Ohio DHS), & Hamas Leader Babak Darvish (CAIR)

Ohio DHS Director Vedra, Omar Alomari (Ohio DHS), & Hamas Leader Babak Darvish (CAIR)

One of the people Ohio DHS Director Vedra defended was Omar Alomari, a Jordanian who was later fired from Ohio DHS.  Alomari produced a pamphlet for Ohio DHS which listed organizations they worked with including Hamas (dba CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – all Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

After this was made public in articles by The Jawa Report, Ohio DHS tried to secretly destroy all the pamphlets.

As recently as 2015, Hamas (dba CAIR) trained the Columbus Police Department on “diversity.”

In February 2016, Somali Mohamed Barry walked into the Nazareth Restaurant in Columbus, Ohio with a machete screaming “allah u akbar” and began attacking customers.  He injured four people and was later shot dead by police.  The restaurant is owned by an Israeli.

Columbus police spokesman Sergeant Rich Weiner stated, “There was no rhyme or reason as to who he was going after.”  The FBI investigated Barry in 2012 for making “radical Islamic threats” but then abandoned the investigation, and FBI Special Agent Rick Smith said it was “too early” to jump to conclusions. (dallasnews.com, 2/12/16, “Man Killed After Machete Attack”)

CNN is still searching for a motive.

In describing this attack, the Washington Post wrote, “Did the quiet immigrant suffer a mental breakdown? Or was the attack an orchestrated act of international jihad as claimed by a host of anti-Islamic groups?”

Is it possible the entire effort by the jihadi Movement in Ohio – and everywhere else across the nation – was/is to get the leadership of the police and FBI to place their trust in the Muslim leaders to “help” them “understand” acts of “terrorism” in a way that never points back to jihad, Islam and sharia?

This week, after yet another jihadi attack in Ohio, the response was the same.

Until law enforcement decides to prosecute and lock up terrorists instead of befriending them and allowing them to train their departments, this nonsense will not end.

Citizens must stand firm and hold elected officials, police chiefs and state homeland security officials feet to the fire, and ensure they are trained by UTT, not by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Get them a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for Christmas.

Israeli-based tactics used in Ohio State takedown: Expert

15196056_10157964631555389_7375677742094695970_o

In an exchange between a liberal and Dana Loesch on the Kelly File the other night it was suggested by the liberal that officer Alan Horujko was too quick to use deadly force. Aaron Cohen explains why it is so important to quickly identify the perpetrator as a terrorist and not a criminal and therefore take the head shot immediately to inactivate the hands holding the weapon.

TORONTO SUN, BY TERRY DAVIDSON, November 29, 2016:

Aaron Cohen, a former Israeli special forces soldier, is an American counter-terrorism consultant who has trained U.S. military, police, and SWAT teams in confronting such threats.

He says Alan Horujko, the Ohio State University cop who shot and killed a knife-wielding man on Monday, used Israeli-based tactics to “neutralize” the threat. Cohen spoke with the Sun about the method, which he has been teaching for years, on Tuesday.

Q: What is unique about these tactics?

A: The tactics he used involved a very Israeli-centric type of response. He initiated a single-officer response, which is rare for U.S. law enforcement. Patrol will typically wait for two, three more officers to show up before making entry into such a situation. The Israeli model doesn’t allow for that. There is no time. He was able to get directly to the threat via sprinting. The philosophy is: For every second you waste, another innocent person is killed. They engage using a point-shooting method, just focusing on the front end of the weapon. In short distances, where terrorism occurs in crowded areas, it allows you to get on target very quickly. Then there is the neutralizing head-shot to keep the threat’s hands from moving. This officer still fired three, four shots to the body, but if the attacker is still a threat, we sprint up to the threat to fire a shot into the head.

Q: In the case of Ohio State, what would have gone through the head of this officer?

A: Going through the mind of this particular officer would be the protocol he was taught via the Israeli model, which is based on a counter-terror response doctrine he had been walked through over several days. He has already been put through the paces of responding alone, with a combat philosophy designed for terrorism: Spot all the threats immediately, neutralize all of the threats immediately, and then continue sweeping and looking for more threats. Also, speed. I don’t have time to wait. If I wait and I don’t take action, and deploy aggression as an actual tactic, more innocent life will be lost.

Q: Are an increasing number of officers such as this being taught these tactics?

A: There was a lot of it happening after 9/11. But once President (Barack) Obama came into office, a lot of the training for these agencies was cut. During the (George W.) Bush administration, there was a lot of counter-terror money and a lot of training happening with these agencies. Then I noticed a demilitarization. I don’t necessarily believe this was the most effective thing to do, not with terrorism.