Two members of Congress accused of Muslim Brotherhood ties

tedcruzAmerican Thinker, by Carol Brown, June 29, 2016:

Covering the Senate hearings on Islamic terror, Tuesday’s HuffPo headline read: “Witness At Ted Cruz Hearing Accuses Congress’ Two Muslim Members Of Muslim Brotherhood Ties.” The teaser read: “This doesn’t normally happen on the Hill.” The teaser should have been: It’s about time.

I rarely venture over to the HuffPo, but I couldn’t resist reading their coverage:

In explosive testimony Tuesday, a witness before a Senate panel about Islamic terrorism accused the two Muslim members of Congress of having attended an event organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The charge was leveled by Chris Gaubatz, a “national security consultant” who has moonlighted as an undercover agitator of Muslim groups that he accuses of being terrorist outfits, and it was directed at Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). At the heart of his accusation is the attendance by those two members at a 2008 convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America — a Muslim umbrella group, which Gaubatz claims is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

HuffPo was eager to smear Chris Gaubatz, whose impressive undercover work inside CAIR is chronicled in his book Muslim Mafia. (To learn more about him, The Clarion Project has a short interview, here.)  The Huffpo continues:

“I attended a convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008, organized by Muslim Brotherhood group, ISNA, and both the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons had recruitment and outreach booths,” Gaubatz said in his testimony. “Both Congressman Keith Ellison, MN, and Andre Carson, IN, spoke at the Muslim Brotherhood event.”

Allegations that Ellison and Carson are secret Muslim agents with extremist leanings are usually found among fringe groups online, often discussed in dire tones on poorly designed websites. Rarely, if ever, do such sentiments get read into congressional testimony, with the imprimatur that offers.

Wow, this is why, as a rule, I don’t read the HuffPo. But seriously, the excerpt noted above highlights how behind the curve we are regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB should have been declared a terrorist organization ions ago. Instead, they have been operating through countless front groups that are legitimized and lauded by leftist politicians and the media. As a result, no red flags are raised about anyone affiliated with these groups.

Responsibility for this rare instance lies with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who oversaw the hearing as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts and whose staff likely saw the testimonies of the witnesses.

Oh, well. Leave it to Ted Cruz to invite someone associated with “fringe groups” that operate online using “dire” tones on “poorly designed websites.”

An aide to Ellison confirmed that he did attend the 2008 ISNA convention. He’s gone to a few of the group’s conventions, in fact. Carson’s office didn’t return a request for comment. But news reports show that both he and Carson led a discussion at the 2008 convention on how to mobilize Muslims politically. President Barack Obama has addressed the group as well, though only via a video recording.

Mobilizing Muslims politically. Hmm. I’m sure that’s perfectly innocent, right? And who can forget Obama’s video recording where he praised ISNA, Muslims, the fabulous halal food in his hometown of Chicago? (Warning: Don’t look in his eyes for too long.)

Critics of ISNA have insisted that these politicians have either turned a blind eye to — or explicitly embraced — the group’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, an affiliation that is based on ties some of the founding ISNA members have allegedly had to the hard-line religious organization. ISNA has long insisted that no such connection has ever existed.

“I can definitely tell you we are not Muslim Brotherhood. We are not affiliated with them at all and never were,” said Faryal Khatri, an official with ISNA. “That much I can reassure you.”

Well if an ISNA official has gone on record to assure everyone that the organization is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in any way, that’s good enough for me! Mr. Khatri wouldn’t lie, would he?

ISNA is not the only group targeted by Gaubatz. In 2009, he told Talking Points Memo that he obtained an internship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as part of an effort to secretly collect evidence against the group to be used in a book written by his father. The book, “Muslim Mafia,” alleged that CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group that works to combat Islamophobia, was a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In case there is any confusion, CAIR is a front group for the MB. Now if we could all stay focused on facts such as these, we might actually get somewhere.

And to those who think I might be a “fringe” person using a “dire” tone (surely AT isn’t one of those “poorly designed websites” to which HuffPo referred), I’m not just making this up. The MB told us who their front groups were in their Explanatory Memorandum during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Here’s the list. ISNA’s right on top.

Cruz’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Gaubatz’s allegations against Ellison and Carson or whether it had given either member a chance to respond. But the senator has displayed a tolerance for these kinds of conspiracy theories in the past.

Oh my goodness! I am kicking myself for reading through the entire HuffPo piece. “Conspiracy theories?” Anyone who thinks any of this is a conspiracy theory is on the fringe of reality. Dire, desperate, and dumb. (Whether they are affiliated with a poorly designed web site, or not, I couldn’t say.)

Before he suspended his presidential campaign, Cruz appointed known Islamophobe Frank Gaffney to his team of national security advisers. Gaffney, now head of the Center for Security Policy, has objected to Ellison and Carson serving on the House Intelligence Committee because he believes their Muslim faith could compel them to leak information to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also accused Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and conservative heavyweights Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan of being closeted Muslim Brotherhood members.

When asked about his controversial selection, Cruz defended Gaffney as a “serious thinker” focused on “fighting jihadism across the globe.”

Frank Gaffney is a tireless warrior trying to inform the idiot masses on the looming threat before us. His work, and the work of his colleagues who sound the alarm day in and day out might one day save the lives of those who smear him as aall that they do n “Islamaphobe” (a fabricated word that has no actual meaning).

God bless Ted Cruz, Frank Gaffney, and everyone on the front lines of this fight of the ages.

***

And God bless David Reaboi and the folks at CounterJihad.com and centerforsecuritypolicy.org for all that they do to defend freedom! Everyone should go back and see the updates in their masterful coverage of Ted Cruz’s Willful Blindness hearing featuring running commentary and video clips!

The Senate Judiciary Committee is questioning Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson right now – Livestream

David Reaboi rips into the Huff Po’s propaganda:

Robert Spencer: Should we censor ourselves to avoid offending Muslims?

Published on Jun 29, 2016 by JihadWatchVideo

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses recent recommendations by David Petraeus and Larry Summers that Americans should censor themselves in order to avoid offending Muslims, and explains why these suggestions are wrongheaded and dangerous for free societies.

offending muslims

Analysis: Political Correctness is the Handmaiden of Terrorism

maxresdefault_39 (1)

Truth Revolt, by Scott Powell, June 29, 2016:

If Americans were shocked by the recent terrorist massacre in Orlando committed by Omar Mateen in the name of ISIS and other Islamist jihadis, they should be even more alarmed by the Obama administration’s response, which once again sought to obfuscate the role of Islamist ideology in motivating that terrorist attack — the largest on U.S. soil since 9/11.

In spite of Islamists having established an unparalleled record of terrorism — some 20,000 assaults globally in the name of Islam since 9/11 – U.S. law enforcement, intelligence and national armed forces have for many years been operating partially blindfolded and with one hand tied behind their backs by the politically correct posture of protecting Islam and Muslims.

The tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its myriad front groups, was established in the U.S. long before 9/11. We know this from the successful trial of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008. Uncovered in the discovery treasure-trove for the HLF trial was a 1991 strategy plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the U.S. Constitution via stealth “civilization jihad” and to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” the precondition to establishing a Sharia-ruled Caliphate.

The extent of penetration of Muslim influence in the Bush administration can be understood by way of a cursory comparative analysis. The lexicon found in the 2004 9/11 Commission Report, which contained hundreds of instances of the use of words like “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam,” was basically eliminated by the end of the Bush administration. In 2008 when the FBI published its unclassified Counterterrorism Lexicon, those words were entirely missing. It marked a major step in the post-9/11 world of disconnecting radical Islamist ideology from terrorism and limiting the U.S. in its investigative tools, intelligence collection, law enforcement, and war-fighting capabilities.

The process of separating terrorism from its radical Islamist roots took on new momentum in the first year of the Obama administration, simultaneous with the president’s Middle East apology tour in the spring of 2009. According to Philip Haney — a founder of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, established in response to 9/11 — DHS superiors brought in by the Obama administration ordered him in November 2009 to scrub and delete hundreds of records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Hamas, from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System database.

These records are of course the basis for Immigration Control and Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Terrorist Screening Center to “connect the dots” and identify individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations who should be denied entry to the U.S., be put on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list.

When self-described “soldier of Allah” Nidal Hassan killed 13 in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree, many were dumbfounded that the Defense Department recorded and has since maintained this incident as “workplace violence.” What most don’t know is that the DOD bureaucracy had no other choice, as it was then in the midst of a politically-correct purge at West Point and the Naval War College of all “vital references to Islamist ideology driving terrorism or conflating terrorism with Islam.”

The 2013 Islamist Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had a high-risk profile due to six months of travel to a known Islamist terrorist training center in the Dagestan-Chechnya area in Islamic Russia. But the FBI suspended its investigation of Tsarnaev in 2011 because of insufficient evidence of terrorist activity but also because Bureau leadership was accommodating and encouraging leniency toward Muslims, being then in the midst of the final stages of purging some 900 pages of FBI counterterrorism training manuals that were considered offensive to Muslims. So Tsarnaev could take his time and pick his spot to strike.

The December 2, 2015 ISIS-inspired San Bernardino killing spree, committed by the Islamist terrorist married couple Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, might also have been prevented. Former DHS official Haney points out that the San Bernardino terror attack might have been averted if Farook’s ties to the terror group Tablighi Jamaat had been known. Unfortunately, those records were among the sixty-seven deleted from the key federal database — the Treasury Enforcement Communications System — in the politically-correct purge of 2009. Those ties would have put Farook on the “no-fly list,” and would have prevented him from traveling to Saudi Arabia. Additionally, his pending fiancée, Malik, would have been denied a visa to enter the U.S. Thus, the dynamics and circumstances that led to their coordinated attack in San Bernardino would not have developed.

Then there was also the neighbor of Farook and Malik, who disclosed that in the weeks before the terrorist couple’s killings, there had been a flurry of activity at their home — with a multitude of package deliveries and Middle Eastern individuals coming and going at all hours. Yet that neighbor chose not to alert the police for fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic.

There can be no doubt now, in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, that political correctness puts the United States in grave danger, and it is a wonder that PC has been accepted for as long as it has.

After the orchestrated deception of blaming the September 11, 2012 killing of Ambassador Stevens and three others in Benghazi on a “blasphemous” internet video rather than the pre-planned terrorist attack that it was, it was contemptible that the Obama Justice Department would initially attempt a deception replay with regard to the Orlando nightclub massacre — the worst since 9/11. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s initial censorship of the record of Omar Mateen’s many statements of solidarity with ISIS and the cause of radical Islam brought on such widespread criticism, that Obama tactically reversed course within 24 hours and decided to release a good portion of Mateen’s transcripts uncensored.

However, the strategy of maintaining the hegemony of political correctness to frame the Islamist terrorist threat shows no sign of being abandoned or diminished and is likely to continue through the balance of the Obama administration.

And the black flags will surely keep coming under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Having learned nothing from the spate of Islamist terrorist attacks, Clinton has recently stated she plans to massively increase immigration from the Middle East even without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.

It may be an irony of history, perhaps a blessing in disguise, that an unconventional presidential candidate has been raised up to break the shackles of political correctness and shock the American people into facing reality. Donald Trump’s candidacy for president raises uncertainties of various kinds in the minds of many voters. But there should be considerable certainty that Mr. Trump won’t be easily snookered on the causes of terrorism and other challenges facing the United States, nor will his resolve to win in the cause of patriotism be easily shaken.

Scott Powell is senior fellow at Seattle-based Discovery Institute and managing partner at Remington Rand LLC. Reach him at scottp@discovery.org

Rhodes: ISIS Fight ‘Will Be More Effective’ Not Calling Them ‘Religious Organization’

President Obama works on his speech to AIPAC with Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes on March, 3, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Obama works on his speech to AIPAC with Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes on March, 3, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, June 15, 2016:

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told PBS that President Obama doesn’t use the term “radical Islam” because “we will be more effective in combating that ideology” of ISIS “if we don’t describe them as a religious organization.”

Rhodes said the concern after the Orlando nightclub attack, in which shooter Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, is “how are we going to pursue a strategy that both defeats ISIL overseas, but also tries to combat an ideology that could prey upon a deeply disturbed individual like this, and lead them to do something as tragic as what we saw in Orlando.”

He said the point Obama was trying to make in his Tuesday speech outside of a National Security Council meeting “is that if we are engaging in policies or rhetoric that stigmatizes the entire Muslim-American community, that blames an entire faith for this terrible act of violence, that suggests in any way that we are at war with Islam we’re going to make that job much harder because, essentially, ISIL depends upon a narrative of a war between the United States and Islam to recruit.”

Host Charlie Rose asked if Obama “does believe that there is something happening called fundamental radical Islamic terrorism.”

“We believe that there is clearly a perversion of Islam from groups like ISIL. So, yes, they take Islam and they pervert it to their twisted ideology,” Rhodes replied. “They used it to justify the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims as well. And we have to combat both the organization of ISIL and that ideology.”

“We’ve had these debates about labels for some time, and we’ve been clear that we did not want to define ISIL, or al-Qaeda, or any other extremist group as speaking for Islam in any way. And we’ve avoid that terminology. The problem is, when you see that terminology taken to its logical end, if this is defined as a conflict that is inherently about religion that leads to policies like not allowing Muslims to enter the United States or policies of more excessive surveillance and denial of civil liberties to Muslim-Americans, as the president said today,” he continued.

“And that is what is so deserving is that ultimately, if we make decisions guided by fear, or by painting a very broad brush on our fellow Americans who happens to be Muslim, they will make the wrong decisions and do things that ultimately harmful to both our national fabric and to our national security.”

Rhodes added that even if you call it “radical Islam,” the “sun will come up the next day, ISIL will still there.”

“People may use different terminology, but the fact is, when you’re talking about who we’re at war with, we believe that we should define that as a war against terrorist networks, or against ISIL, or against al-Qaeda, not as war against a certain type of religious terminology because that has the potential to be interpreted and utilize by groups like ISIL as a means of saying, we are indeed at war with Islam, and they use that as a means of recruitment,” he said. “So we avoid that terminology and make it clear that we’re at war with terrorists.”

***

An Israeli Rabbi’s Response to Obama’s Speech on Radical Islam

thelandofisrael h/t Christopher Holton

After your HISSY fit yesterday Mr. President, I need to school you on something…

angry oWritten by Allen West on June 15, 2016

President Obama evidenced just how rattled he was yesterday in a press statement that was supposed to be about “progress” against ISIS…of course he still says ISIL — we explained why here. Obama seemed rather bored as he read the “statistics” on ISIS. Then his demeanor shifted as Obama showed deep anger and disdain — not towards the Islamic jihadist murderer, but rather toward his regular foe, Republicans, and his new nemesis, Donald Trump.

Barack Obama became literally unhinged and went into full lecture mode to the American people, and attack mode on Trump. It would appear that being called weak and having your dismissal of Islamic jihadism called out has indeed struck a nerve.

As reported by Fox News, “After years of brushing off criticism for avoiding the term “radical Islam,” President Obama fired a point-blank broadside Tuesday at his critics, calling the debate a “political distraction” that will do nothing to combat terrorism.

Speaking from the White House during what was expected to be an update for the public on the fight against the Islamic State, Obama lit into his critics and specifically presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Their criticism has mounted in the wake of the Orlando terror attack, which Obama declined to publicly link to radical Islam. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.”

No Mr. President, once again you’ve got it dead wrong. Defining an enemy and understanding its goals and objectives enables you to defeat it. A political talking point is the left’s incessant rant about a “war on women.” The real war on women is being waged by militant Islamic jihadists — you know those cheeky fellas enslaving and raping young girls while you throw a hissy fit.

There’s magic in understanding the enemy — just ask Thomas Jefferson who took the enemy for its word back in the 1790s when he and John Adams met with the Dey of Algiers. As President Jefferson, he clearly realized, even though he was perceived a pacifist, that he had to make the enemy — and its threat that was seizing American shipping and goods while enslaving its citizen — go away. Jefferson built up and deployed the Navy and the Marines. Jefferson did not throw a hissy fit when Islamic jihadists were attacking and killing Americans – but he did make the problem go away.

So President Obama, the problem is, after all your “talking points” and lack of strategic direction, ISIS still occupies the battle space, the caliphate. They have expanded and expertly exported their depraved vision across the globe, all on your watch, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize (for what mindless chuckleheads believed you “would do.”)

What you’ve done is enable a proliferation of the most vile and savage enemy we have seen since Nazi Germany. And oh by the way sir, there is a reason why we fought WW II. It was against Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese Imperialism. Yes, we defined the threat and understood their ideological objectives – that’s what enabled us to strategically defeat them — something you’ve so horribly failed to do after some three years with the crew you called a jayvee team.

Mr. President, here’s a little history lesson. Since you’re so into giving lectures, take a listen. We, the American people, are smart enough to know we’re not endeavoring to declare a war against “Islam.”

However, you should know what Islam has been since Mohammed migrated, in the Al Hijra, from Mecca to Medina circa 622 AD. From that point on, Islam has been based on violent combat, jihad, and conquest As a matter of fact sir, Mohammed led some 33 combat raids himself, culminating with his triumphant return to Mecca after violating the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah — a tradition Iran seems to be following — and attacked Mecca and ordered the beheading of some 3,000 of the Banu Qurayza tribe — all males from puberty up.

Mr. President, we understand the centuries — almost 1,400 years — of violence at the hands of a post 622 AD Islam. No, we’re not condemning ALL Muslims, but we’re smart enough to be able to read and understand the savage and violent nature of militant Islam. It’s not “radical” because these concepts and precepts are part of its book and the traditions of its leader.

There’s no need Mr. President to throw a hissy fit about gun control, and you must understand we’re not about to be disarmed so this enemy will find us even easier targets. You sir, have had several of the most deadly Islamic jihadist attacks occur on your watch, after 9-11.

Let me school you on something, along with your progressive socialist acolytes.

After 9-11 when Islamic terrorists used airplanes, we did not discuss airplane control and force people to take Greyhound. After the Boston Tsarnaev Islamic terrorist bombing, why didn’t we speak of pressure cooker control?

After the beheading of a woman and the near beheading of another at a chicken processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma why didn’t we institute knife control? Just yesterday we have several Parisians killed by an Islamic jihadist using a knife — should we have an international ban on knives?

Sir, I know you’re concerned about your “legacy.” Let me advise you that right now, your legacy is somewhere below whale dung at the bottom of the ocean.

Ideologies matter, and defining them enables one to defeat the enemy’s strategic objective. Now, here’s the problem you fail to realize: your reticence and recalcitrance in confronting this enemy leads many to certain speculations. Folks begin to wonder, on whose side are you? Your misplaced rage yesterday is cause for grave concern. This is Ramadan Mr. President, let’s be honest with the American people and tell them what that means to Islamic jihadists and whatshaheed status is. Mr. President, you only have a few months to go; stop deflecting from the issue.

Know that your conduct yesterday was unbecoming of an American president, especially after the biggest Islamic terror attack in our history after 9-11. The American people wanted your rage to be cast towards the enemy, the jihadists — not your favorite political adversaries.

Our America has been attacked, viciously, and here we are three days afterwards and your response was to rant against Republicans and Donald Trump. No wonder ISIS is emboldened. They kill Americans and you want to disarm us and yell at other Americans. How utterly unconscionable that at a time such as this you continue to demonstrate a protectionism and sympathy towards Islamists — and not our country.

FUBAR.

Frank Gaffney: Obama’s Failure to ‘Grapple with the Reality’ of Sharia and Jihad is ‘Getting People Killed in America’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 15, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, responded to President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s complaints about being forced to use the phrase “radical Islam” on Wednesday morning’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon.

Gaffney said that for all of Obama and Clinton’s efforts to minimize the importance of using the correct terminology for the enemy we face, the bigger problem is that “they don’t want to go anywhere near the underlying reality, which is that inherent in the sort of DNA of Islam, its adherence called sharia, is the root of this problem.”

“It’s the root of the problem with respect to killing homosexuals, it’s the root of the problem with respect to oppressing women, it’s the root of the problem with respect to genocide against Christians, killing Jews wherever they can, and apostates, on and on,” Gaffney said.

“And that is this idea that a brutally repressive, totalitarian doctrine has to rule the whole world, and jihad – which is another term they don’t want to use, and in fact they’ve got a new report out of their advisory group at the Department of Homeland Security that says, you know, you can’t use words like ‘sharia.’ You can’t use words like ‘jihad.’ You gotta focus on those ‘right-wing violent extremists. They’re the real problem,” he said.

“That’s what’s getting people killed in America – a failure to grapple with this reality. And I’m afraid Donald Trump is right that the President has exhibited, if not sympathy for the terrorists, certainly for the Islamic supremacists. And the documentation for that is certainly all over SecureFreedom.org, as well as what we talk about, day in and day out,” Gaffney declared, referring to the Center for Security Policy’s website.

On the matter of Islamic supremacism, Bannon asked Gaffney about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s call for a congressional investigation into the threat.

“He referred, unfortunately, to a particular model that the anti-anti-communists managed to irradiate, the House Un-American Affairs Committee,” Gaffney said of Gingrich’s proposal. “I do think congressional oversight, congressional investigation, congressional efforts to hold the executive accountable, is absolutely essential.”

He said one of the reasons we’ve seen Obama and Clinton “responding so viciously to Donald Trump’s criticisms” is because “they are hugely vulnerable in this area, and a decent investigation by the Congress, accountability by the Congress, would expose this – and, I think, make it clear you don’t want, you can’t afford four more years of this stuff under a President Hillary Clinton.”

Bannon lamented that current House Speaker Paul Ryan undercut the points Trump and Gingrich sought to make. “What you guys want, and holding people accountable for this Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacism, the imposition of sharia law here in the United States of America – Paul Ryan says, ‘Nope, that’s not American values. You guys are haters, you guys are nativists.’” He asked Gaffney what his advice to Ryan would be.

“I had the chance to speak to one of his senior people last week, and I would say the same thing: you’ve got to get this right,” Gaffney responded. “It’s not just Paul Ryan. I’m sorry to say, a whole bunch of other people on the Republican side of the aisle, for most of the past fifteen years, have been getting this wrong too, I’d say starting with President George W. Bush.”

He said Bush made his famous “Religion of Peace” declaration after being subjected to “an intensive, highly successful political influence operation, and I believe it screwed up American foreign and national security policy, from his time to the present one.”

“Look, there are peaceful Muslims, no question about it. There are Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia any more than the rest of us do,” Gaffney declared. “I believe they can be our natural allies. But mistaking either their number, or their importance, or their standing against the authorities of Islam who say, ‘wait a minute, sharia is Islam, sharia is the way this has to be practiced’ is the height of folly, not just professional malfeasance.”

“This is a moment when we’ve got to understand that hundreds of millions of Muslims believe Islamic supremacism is God’s will, and they will engage in jihad – not just of the violent kind, Steve. They’ll do hijra, this migration, to expand the faith. They will use zakat, funding, material support if you will, for terrorism, to enrich and enable the jihad,” Gaffney warned.

“And, of course, they will do what the Muslim Brotherhood has been all about – we don’t even know they’re here for fifty years! They’ve been running what they call ‘civilization jihad’ against America, and it’s working. Part of why President Obama got it wrong, part of why President Bush got it wrong, why Republicans and Democrats in office have gotten it wrong, is the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in running influence operations that have obscure the true nature of sharia, and the jihad that it calls for,” he argued.

Gaffney declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is “absolutely a terrorist organization.”

“Its franchise Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. It aspires to use violence in the way of Allah, as its creed calls for. The federal government of the United States, under Republicans and Democrats, has repeatedly found it to be a terrorist organization. We need to designate it as such,” he urged, noting that Senator Ted Cruz – who Gaffney served as a national security adviser during his 2016 presidential campaign –  has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.

Bannon asked why only 80 Republicans in the House have signed on to the effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and asked why the other 252 Republicans were reluctant to do so.

“The bigger question is, why isn’t the State Department doing this right now?” Gaffney replied, pointing out that no new legislation would be required for them to do so.

As for the recalcitrant House Republicans, Gaffney said it goes back to Speaker Ryan: “If he doesn’t get what we’re up against, he’s not going to be supporting this legislation. One of the first things he could do, to show that he does get it, I believe would be to schedule this legislation that has been offered up, and has been now approved by the House Judiciary Committee, it is ready to go to the floor, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

“Get that floor time, get that vote. Demonstrate that Republicans do have a clue about the danger we’re facing, and are preparing to take responsible action,” Gaffney urged Ryan. “It’s what the public expects them to do. Look, we all, Republicans and Democrats, need them to do.”

Bannon rephrased that advice in somewhat stronger terms, saying Ryan should bring Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey before Congress to “keel-haul” them for security lapses that grow more obvious as each new detail of jihadi Omar Mateen leaks out through the media. He wondered how Ryan and his caucus could leave it up to media outlets like Breitbart News to hold the Administration accountable, when oversight is a clear duty of Congress.

“We need a serious investigation,” Gaffney agreed. “Those guys would claim, hey, wait a minute, we’re in the middle of an ongoing one with regard to this. The thing that needs to be investigated is how we got here.”

As a starting point for such an investigation, he recommended a book he co-authored with Center for Security Policy Vice-President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense.

He also recommended See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad  by Philip Haney, also a recent guest on Breitbart News Daily.

“There’s plenty of evidence that what we’ve been doing is willful blindness to a threat that has been metastasizing by the day. That ought to be the object of these investigations. You’ll find, if you ask the FBI – certainly the agents, if not the leadership – have you been handcuffed by this willful blindness, have you been kept from doing your job? They have. So has the military. So has the intelligence community. So have the DHS law enforcement guys,” Gaffney said.

“It’s going to get more of us killed, if we don’t get this corrected,” he warned.

“Republicans ought to be in the lead, because this is one of their strong suits, or at least has been historically, national security. They’re not measuring up. They’re not stepping up. We need them to do it, and I think Donald Trump is – you know, with all of his faults, and there are some – he’s got this right,” he said. “We don’t need to import more jihadists. The American people understand that. We need to  stop the ones that are here as well – even, and most especially, really, those that are doing business as the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “stealthily, covertly subverting us from within,” and “creating the infrastructure that jihadists are using around the world, to do the violent jihad as well. It’s both that we need to address.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Five Ways Political Correctness Kills Americans

OmarMateen2-640x480

Daily Caller, by Mark Tapson, June  15, 2016:

Political correctness in the federal government protected radical Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen in at least five ways during the months leading up to his deadly assault on a gay nightclub in Orlando, according to a national security expert.

“The fact is that the FBI did recognize Omar Mateen, twice in fact, but as a matter of official policy under the Obama administration’s politically correct ‘countering violent extremism’ policies, the institutional rules of our national security agencies as a matter of intentional design ensure that investigative clues are obscured,” Patrick Poole told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Poole is co-founder of Unconstrained Analytics, non-profit group dedicated to analyzing “evidence unconstrained by preconceptions and biases” concerning international terrorism. He has been a guest lecturer on counter-terrorism issues at the U.S. Army War College and a speaker at the Army Provost Marshal’s annual Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection conference.

  • PC blinds homeland defenders: Among the most controversial of the five factors Poole cited was a 2011 decision by FBI officials to remove from its counter-terrorism training materials references to all terms found objectionable by a team of Muslim experts retained by the Department of Justice. Despite congressional protests, the material was never restored.

As a result, “violent extremist” effectively became the official federal designation for individuals like Mateen, San Bernadino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, despite their shared devotion to radical Islamic movements, including ISIS and al Qaeda.

Political correctness in the federal government protected radical Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen in at least five ways during the months leading up to his deadly assault on a gay nightclub in Orlando, according to a national security expert.

“The fact is that the FBI did recognize Omar Mateen, twice in fact, but as a matter of official policy under the Obama administration’s politically correct ‘countering violent extremism’ policies, the institutional rules of our national security agencies as a matter of intentional design ensure that investigative clues are obscured,” Patrick Poole told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Poole is co-founder of Unconstrained Analytics, non-profit group dedicated to analyzing “evidence unconstrained by preconceptions and biases” concerning international terrorism. He has been a guest lecturer on counter-terrorism issues at the U.S. Army War College and a speaker at the Army Provost Marshal’s annual Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection conference.

  • PC blinds homeland defenders: Among the most controversial of the five factors Poole cited was a 2011 decision by FBI officials to remove from its counter-terrorism training materials references to all terms found objectionable by a team of Muslim experts retained by the Department of Justice. Despite congressional protests, the material was never restored.

As a result, “violent extremist” effectively became the official federal designation for individuals like Mateen, San Bernadino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, despite their shared devotion to radical Islamic movements, including ISIS and al Qaeda.

  • PC perverts religious tolerance: The FBI’s head-in-the-sand approach is also seen in a recently completed Department of Homeland Security report that directs federal officials there “not to use any language that might be ‘disrespectful’ to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia’ and ‘takfir.’” Poole said the policies recommended by the report are in effect throughout the federal government.

Among the federal agencies in DHS are the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration.

  • PC discourages witnesses: The refusal of federal officials to describe terrorist attacks by radical Islamic terrorists accurately also discourages citizens with important information that might prevent deaths and injuries from telling authorities what they know before it’s too late, according to Poole.

The refusal turns “suspicion around on anyone who recognizes the warning signs. When Mateen’s coworkers expressed concern about his extremist statements, the FBI dropped the case because they believed the coworkers, not the future killer, were the problem. The coworkers were deemed racist Islamophobes by the FBI, and Mateen’s behavior and statements were excused,” he told TheDCNF.

“We now have two terrorism cases with dead Americans six months apart, namely San Bernardino and Orlando, where potential witnesses did not report suspicious activity because they were afraid of being called racists and bigots,” Poole added.

  • PC gives cover to terrorist allies: Too often “dialogue” between federal officials and Muslim advocacy groups make it possible for organizations with confirmed terrorist links to influence government policy. Poole pointed to multiple meetings between Department of Justice officials and representatives of the Council for American-Islamic Relations in 2012.

Poole noted that “the FBI and DOJ responded by officially cutting ties with CAIR, but these same agencies regularly disregarded their own rules about engaging these extremist groups with a wink and a nod by the White House.”

  • PC hamstrings Congress: Poole pointed to controversial hearings convened in 2011 by Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican, focused radical Islamization among young American Muslims. King was subjected to relentless and often savage criticism in the media, often based on comments from individuals and groups with links to terrorist ties.

“The politicians on the Hill and elsewhere saw exactly what happened to Peter King when he tried tackle this issue head-on,” Poole told TheDCNF, adding that “these counter-terrorism failures will continue to occur” as long as long as Congress avoids taking decisive budget and legislative actions to end PC-based policies.

Follow Mark on Twitter

On ‘Radical Islam,’ Obama Contradicts Eight Years of Obama

President Obama speaks at the Treasury Department in Washington on June 14, 2016, following a meeting with his National Security Council. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

President Obama speaks at the Treasury Department in Washington on June 14, 2016, following a meeting with his National Security Council. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

National Review, by Andrew McCarthy, June 14, 2016:

In today’s meandering remarks on the Orlando jihadist attack, President Obama rebuked detractors who criticize him for failing to use the term “radical Islam” and be clear about the enemy waging war against the United States. “There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” the president declared. “It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.” Calling the enemy by a different name, he insisted, would not change the enemy’s behavior – would not “make it go away.”

When Obama speaks about our Islamist enemies, it is always tough to decide whether he is (a) arrogantly clueless (because he always thinks he knows more about this subject than anyone else), or (b) cynically well-aware that what he’s saying is nonsense.

It has been Obama who has maintained for the entirety of his presidency that we have to be careful about the language we use to describe our enemies because our words affect their self-perception and their behavior. Calling jihadists “jihadists,” we were told, gives them too much credit and esteem in their culture. We should, we were lectured, resist applying Islamic terms to them because that affirms their self-image: warriors in a great cause, rather than the perverters of a great religion.

This theory has always been absolute, unmitigated, one-hundred percent BS.

As I’ve argued about a million times, our enemies despise us and do not judge themselves by how we talk about them. At best, they are indifferent to our language; otherwise, they are so hostile that they mock our “progressive” obsession over it. Sharia supremacists have their own civilization and cultural norms by which they judge themselves. They couldn’t care less what we think.

I often use the example of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood honcho who is about as influential a Sunni sharia jurist as there is in the world. Sheikh Qaradawihas a lot to say about Christianity and Judaism. Do you care what he thinks? Has it even occurred to you to find out what he has said? Of course not. And why not? Because you don’t care. You are not going to do or refrain from doing something because of what Qaradawi might say. We have our own norms against which we judge ourselves. We don’t give a thought, never mind a second thought, to the language some high-profile sharia supremacist uses to describe us.

So why on earth would we think radical Muslims, or Muslims in general, are hanging on our every word? They’re not.

The point Obama detractors have made about his failure to name our enemies has to do with our mindset, not the enemy’s. The question is whether we understand what we are fighting.

Obama was indignant on this subject, simple-mindedly contending that because we’ve killed a lot of terrorists we must know what we’re doing and why. But the terrorists are the easy part. Do we understand that terrorists are fighting to impose sharia? Do we understand that lots of other Muslims are also pushing to impose sharia, though they are not necessarily using or endorsing violence? Do we understand that there is a sharia-supremacist movement seeking to sabotage us from within, seeking to integrate into our society without assimilating, seeking to become a viable fifth-column that advances the sharia agenda while radicalizing young Muslims?

Calling the enemy “radical Islam” – and better, discussing their sharia-supremacism – conveys that we understand that our enemies are not just the terrorists; they also include other radicals who want to spread sharia and supplant our Constitution with it. It further conveys that our Muslim friends and allies are the non-radicals who support and embrace Western liberalism.

January 20, 2017, cannot get here fast enough.

***

Bolton Rips ‘Narcissistic’ Obama: ‘A Small Man Who’s Never Been Qualified’

Also see:

Homeland Security Instructed To Combat Violent Extremism With Political Correctness

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testifies before a House Judiciary committee hearing on the 'Oversight of the US Department of Homeland Security' on Capitol Hill in Washington July 14, 2015. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testifies before a House Judiciary committee hearing on the ‘Oversight of the US Department of Homeland Security’ on Capitol Hill in Washington July 14, 2015. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

Daily Caller, by Peter Hassan, June 13 2016:

Less than a week before Omar Mateen walked into an Orlando gay club and killed or wounded more than 100 people, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) submitted its Countering Violent Extremism report to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson. The report instructs the DHS not to use any language that might be “disrespectful” to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words “jihad,” “sharia” and “takfir.”

The report was crafted by an HSAC subcommittee that Secretary Johnson created in November 2015. The head of that subcommittee, Farah Pandith, was appointed by Johnson in May 2015. The subcommittee published the report on June 9.

In addition to combatting violent extremism by reaching out to “gender diverse” Americans and teaching youth “appropriate online etiquette,” the report recommends that the DHS “avoid stigmatizing specific communities.”

The report urges DHS officials to “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

For example, the report says the DHS should be “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’”

The report acknowledges that, “There is a disagreement among scholars, government officials, and activists about the right lexicon to use around the issues of violent extremism.”

Nevertheless, the report states, “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”

“We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and words. Tone and word choice matter,” the report states.

The report includes other recommendations for countering violent extremism, such as: “Focus on gender diversity of youth through careful attention to the range of push and pull factors that attract individuals of differing gender.”

The report also recommends countering extremism by teaching youth “appropriate online etiquette.”

The report instructs the DHS to “Develop a curriculum in partnership with the Department of Education and education experts and non-profits to disseminate to schools, teaching children appropriate online etiquette to mitigate online hate.”

The DHS website states that HSAC, “Provides organizationally independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary, including the creation and implementation of critical and actionable policies for the security of the homeland.”

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

See also:

University Spikes Lecture Due to ‘Hateful’ Chalk Messages Criticizing Terrorists

Nonie-Darwish-facebook-photo-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 21, 2016:

It’s yet another story of politically-correct lunacy involving a university losing its collective cookies over chalk writings, but this time the “hateful” speech isn’t Donald Trump’s name.

It’s the question: “Why do terrorists hate America?”

That message, repeated in chalk advertisements and flyers, is the reason Wingate University in North Carolina cited when revoking the funding for a lecture by Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim of Egyptian descent. She is the author of several books, including Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad For America, Israel, and the War on Terror, and most recently The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.

An administrator for Wingate University emailed Young Americans for Freedom, organizers of the event, to say that chalk advertisements for the lecture were of “extreme concern.”

“Concerns have also come to my attention regarding ‘flyers’ that have been posted around campus and although I have not seen them personally, this in conjunction with the concern of a number of individuals that have reached out to me is yet again concerning,” the administrator added.

Evidently not a matter of concern was the administrator’s admission that she hadn’t even seen the concerning messages that made her concerned enough to pull the plug on the concerning lecture this uncertain number of unnamed individuals expressed their concerns about.

The flyers and chalk drawings in question included the title of Darwish’s lecture: “Why Terrorists Hate America and the West.”

“We do not promote and/or associate hate with a Faith Lyceum event,” the administrator declared — an interesting standard, given that the Lyceum program compares itself to Aristotle’s lectures, boasts of airing “big ideas,” and claims to be a program “designed to expose students to ideas and opportunities they don’t have in the classroom.”

“I am requesting that you immediately remove all flyers that promote this event as a Lyceum and would ask that you remove all chalk advertisements as well,” the administrator told the YAF. “With this no longer being a Lyceum, I also am no longer able to fund this event and ask that you please plan accordingly.”

The Wingate YAF denounced the administrator’s decision as “cowardly” and “stepped in to pay the additional cost in order to ensure that students at Wingate University will have the opportunity to hear Nonie Darwish speak.”

“There are constant attempts to silence us by many Islamic organizations. We are the No. 1 target of jihadists and ISIS sympathizers who are now in all fifty states,” Darwish told Fox News just a few weeks ago, when discussing the fatwa (Islamic religious edict) that has been issued for her death.

She said “we” because the Fox report discussed five other women sentenced to death by Islamist edicts. One of them, cartoonist Molly Norris, was literally erased from society by a tidal wave of death threats, and a fatwa from Al-Qaeda guru Anwar al-Awlaki, because she drew unpublished images of Mohammed that were leaked onto the Internet. “There is no more Molly,” her erstwhile publisher Seattle Weekly wrote, by way of bidding her farewell when she went into hiding.

Apparently the jihad sympathizers Darwish spoke of are active at Wingate University, and their “concerns” are taken very seriously by the administration.

Hate Can Be a Virtue

de9a474abe02de62159350e76987d4e9
Published on Apr 7, 2016 by Political Islam

Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?

I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.

I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.

I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.

I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.

I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.

I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.

As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.

Politically Correct Counterterrorism

Screen Shot 2016-03-27 at 6.43.37 PMThe American SpectatorBy ed Babbin3.28.16

Je suis fed up with the politically correct methods and means of counterterrorism pursued by America and its Western allies. There’s so much of that stupidity controlling what we do, with so many bad policies imposed by President Obama and others of his ilk, it’s no wonder the terrorists are winning.

Every time another mass murder occurs, the media’s coverage focuses on the memorials — piles of flowers, rows of candles and hand-drawn signs — and the calls for “unity” and pledges of resolve by national leaders. But all the memorials are totally meaningless. They are merely a stage for politicians to act on, professing emotion, proclaiming unity, and calling for everyone to just keep calm and carry on. Nothing else results from them.

President Obama began military action against ISIS in June 2014. Since then ISIS has grown despite the occasional killing of some ISIS leader accomplished by good intelligence work and a drone strike. Not only does ISIS control big chunks of Iraq and Syria, it now controls key portions of Libya as well. ISIS-trained terrorists — and those radicals who don’t bother to travel to ISIS-held lands for training — are a growing menace to us all.

Obama’s strategy and tactics were intended, as he said, to degrade and eventually destroy ISIS. They have failed. Obama said last Wednesday that defeating ISIS remained his number one priority. But, he added, there will be no change in strategy. Amazingly stupid.

It’s entirely clear that terrorists operate freely among European Union countries — including moving arms and bomb-making materials — because of the EU’s “Schengen” (open borders) agreement. We also have, though President Obama insists otherwise, borders that are open to anyone who wants to sneak across. Obama reminded us last week that he’s committed to bringing about 100,000 “Syrian” refugees to America this year. Dangerously stupid.

Among our European allies things are far worse. There is no sharing of counterterrorism Intelligence among the 28 members of the European Union, so their police and military forces are groping in the dark as a matter of policy. Stupendously stupid.

It’s no wonder that, as the Economist reports, six European nations have at least 18 ISIS terrorists in custody, but ISIS still manages to carry out coordinated attacks as it did at the Brussels Zaventem airport and a subway station last Tuesday. ISIS’s terror network is evidently thriving among the European Union’s 28 member nations. Raids since the Brussels attacks have uncovered evidence proving that point. YGBSM.

Two Fridays ago, the Belgians captured Saleh Abdeslam, ending a four-month manhunt for one of the principal terrorists who had perpetrated the Paris massacre in November. Press reports said that Abdeslam was talking to police. This, undoubtedly, caused his fellow terrorists to accelerate plans for the airport and subway attacks on Tuesday. But for whatever politically correct reason the Belgians chose, they neglected to question him about planned attacks in the future. Ditto.

The Tuesday massacre at the Brussels airport might have been interdicted if Abdeslam had been properly questioned. It’s unlikely, but possible. To not have even tried to question him about what he might know about future attacks is beyond belief.

That was the “ticking time bomb” scenario we’ve all heard about. Not only didn’t the Belgians resort to the enhanced interrogation techniques the CIA used to perform (which weren’t, under American law as it was then, torture). They didn’t even try to question Abdeslam once he decided he wouldn’t talk.

What is the root cause of this politically correct cowardice? For that’s what it is. You can call it what you’d like, but the fact is that our government — and those of our supposedly-strong allies in Europe — are too fearful of offending Muslims to do what is necessary.

Let’s catch our breaths for a minute. We know — as we are reminded by former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden’s new book Playing to the Edge — that our intelligence people are working overtime to do everything possible to stop terrorist attacks. Working with the FBI, they’ve interdicted a great many attacks.

But even the NSA, CIA and FBI, with all the computer power and snooping technologies at their disposal, can’t stop events like the San Bernardino terrorist attack last December. That’s because they can’t go where a lot of the intelligence needs to be obtained.

For example two years ago, under orders from New York’s hyperliberal Mayor Bill de Blasio, NYPD ceased its undercover surveillance program of Muslim communities in New York and neighboring states. At the time, Muslim activists were suing to stop the program. At one point in the proceedings, the judge sided with NYPD saying, according to one report, “‘The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself,” and that any harm done to the Muslim community was the result of leaks to the press, not the surveillance itself.’

Nevertheless, de Blasio ended the program with considerable fanfare and no visible criticism.

There are two issues here. First, when and where must intelligence gathering be done? Second, when is the application of “hard power” — military and CIA paramilitary action — proper in the face of the consistent failure of “soft power”?

Intelligence gathering has to be done in the places where the information is most likely to be found. The terrorist networks themselves — and their nation-state sponsors such as Iran — are obvious targets. We hear almost every day about ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the rest using social media and encrypted cell phone technology to conduct their operations. The CIA and NSA concentrate much of their assets on those areas every day.

But that’s only half the picture. The NSA — with its partners abroad such as the UK’s GCHQ — tries to connect foreign terrorists to those within the U.S. and our European allies. Sometimes they can’t.

The NSA is legally barred from active surveillance of “U.S. persons” — i.e., anyone in the United States whether or not a citizen — and the CIA is similarly prohibited from operating within the US.

But others can. There’s no constitutional problem with what the New York Police Department did. They went where the intelligence is likely to be obtained. That meant where Muslim men between the ages of 16 and 50 gather: mosques, community centers, and schools. The NYPD, and other state and local law enforcement organizations, need to send intelligence officers (i.e., spies) into those places. They can use court-ordered wiretaps and listening devices. They can do what NSA and CIA can’t. And they must.

Ted Cruz got it wrong last week when he said that police need to “patrol and secure” (i.e., pacify) Muslim neighborhoods. NYPD, to give the most obvious example, isn’t an occupying force. If it is seen as such, intelligence sources will not come forth and those that have will dry up quickly.

The NYPD — and other state and local police forces — need Muslim allies within the community to help gain access to the places they should surveil. When those allies don’t come forward, all other legal, constitutional methods must be pursued.

The application of hard power is a tool of national governments. We have been at war with terrorist networks for fifteen years without dealing decisively with them. As I’ve written many times, we haven’t pursued the ideological half of the war. We have to or we can’t win this war. None of our presidential candidates on either side have given evidence that they understand. We can count on Clinton and Sanders to continue the politically correct approach.

Our intelligence agencies are working hard to spot targets and they succeed only occasionally. That’s not enough. Our next president should give them the tools they need — legislatively and by appropriations — to do the job.

We need to apply hard power in many forms. NSA has undertaken offensive cyberwar against terrorist networks. It should be expanded to more effectively interfere with the money flow not only to terrorists but also to the assets of governments that support terrorism.

The rest of hard power needs to be undertaken under the authority of — at least — a new authorization for the use of military force without the restraint of the one passed quickly after 9/11. All our tools of war need to be employed against the terrorist networks and the nations that support them. That’s easy to say but hard to do. Allies can be helpful, but we can’t be restrained by their lack of courage and assent.

Nous sommes Americans. End the politically correct stupidity. Let’s get on with it.

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. He is coauthor (with Herbert London) of the new book The BDS War Against Israel. You can follow him on Twitter@jedbabbin.

Bill Maher: Democrats Risk Losing Election If Can’t Say ‘Islamic Extremism’

11163756_10205979371072070_8460604835929078910_nNewsbusters, By P.J. Gladnick, March 26, 2016

“Just say ‘Islamic terrorism.’ Just say those words and you’ll win the election. Avoid those words and you’re going to lose the election.”

Please! Pretty please! Just say them. …Despite the pleas of Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time last night, Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey declined to utter the words that seem so taboo for the Democrats. Bill Maher knows, as you can see in the video below, that the refusal by the Democrats to call out terrorism for what it really is could cost them the general election this year. Despite this outspoken concern by Maher, Booker still refuses to bow to this reality.

BILL MAHER: It was a horrible attack this week in Brussels. I know what Trump’s message is. It’s a horrible message. I don’t agree with it. I don’t know what the Democrat message is on this. What is it?

COREY BOOKER: Well, first of all, I don’t want to think about one of the great threats to our country through a political lens. I want to think about what’s the American message in all of this and how are we going to defeat what we see is a determined enemy that is doing horrific things, not just to the United States, not just to Europe, we have a lot of attention on things that happened this week but just today there were people killed in Iraq at a soccer game. Can’t even go to a soccer game. In fact, ISIS has been killing more Muslims than they have been killing anybody else. And so our response has got to be what we’re doing right now which is taking their territory away from them. This ideal they have. This perverse ideal that they have of creating a Caliphate. We’re going to take their land back and we’re going to win that war in that field. But we also have to disrupt their terrorist networks and we also have to counter violent extremism at home. And so that’s not a sound bite…

The term “violent extremism” at the tail end of Booker’s rambling reply set Maher off with this:

MAHER: But see, wait. You say “violent extremism.” I’ve said this before on this show. I think the Democrats risk losing this election if they cannot put together the words “Islamic extremism” as opposed to “violent extremism.” Please just tell me that you recognize that it is a distinct threat much greater than any other violent extremist threat. You don’t really think it’s on the same order as the KKK? Are you really worried about the KKK?

BOOKER: What I’m worried about is that you begin that question by saying “the Democrats will lose if.” First of all if the Democrats lose because of how they talk about this extremism, then they’ve got more problems.

MAHER: Maybe that’s their biggest problem. Maybe that’s what will lose the election.

Later Booker attempts using standard Democrat talking points on this matter but Maher will have none of it.

BOOKER: I’m not creating a false equivalency here but since 9/11, we’ve lost 48 Americans. Boston bombings. Christian walking in to a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, massacring people.

MAHER: Christians are not trying to get a dirty bomb. That is a false equivalency.

Towards the end of the interview, Maher pleads with Booker to just say “Islamic extremism” but to no avail.

MAHER: Just say ‘Islamic terrorism.’ Just say those words and you’ll win the election. Avoid those words and you’re going to lose the election. That’s my advice.

Of course, Booker did not take his advice. Instead he stuck resolutely to the Democrat playbook of treating the terms “Islamic extremism” or “Islamic terrorism as taboo.

Also see:

Jihad Returns to Belgium

Answering Muslims, by David Wood, March 22, 2016:

On March 22, 2016, multiple jihadists, under orders from the Islamic State (ISIS), carried out coordinated terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium. Dozens were killed, around 200 were injured. In this video, I explain what will happen in the near future as a result of this attack.

55372116-1

Also see: