Europe has lost the Islamic war

img715001There is a war, but only the attackers are fighting it. Europe just wants to be left in peace.

Arutz Sheva, by Giulio Meotti, July 25, 2016:

The Wall Street Journal just published a shocking article revealing what Patrick Calvar, France’s director general of intelligence, has in mind.

“The confrontation is inevitable,” said Mr. Calvar. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street”.

Yes, France is heading toward the “inevitable confrontation”. 84 adults and children have just been tortured to death in Nice by a truck whose driver  told a guard he was bringing ice creams to celebrants of the French holiday of egalitarian values. An apparent gesture of mortuary hysteria, but in fact a spectacular horrendous massacre celebrated by the international Jihad and by many European Muslims.

Meanwhile, in response, Europe just renewed its show of shallow rhetoric. Take the declarations of the French leaders after the attack at Charlie Hebdo, Paris’ theatre and restaurants and now in Nice. These are always identical.

Nobody is really fighting this war. Europe just wants to be left in peace.

On the ashes of the World Trade Center, George W. Bush rose to the fight. In those years, the United States and its European allies proved themselves “the stronger horse” and the forces of the “weaker horse” of Al Qaeda began to lose heart. When Islamists were thrown on the defensive, recruits dropped off. Attacks on Western cities diminished.

After eight years of Barack Hussein Obama and Europe’s retreat from the war on terror, the West appears to be the weaker horse and the Islamists the stronger one.

A few days ago, I asked Professor Bruce Thornton of California State University what Europe should do to reverse this horrible trend. His answer was revealing: “There is no political will for waging total war against ISIS. It would require 100,000 troops and massive bombing to eliminate as many jihadists as possible. We would have to abandon rules of engagement that privilege the enemy’s people over our own. At home, we would have to increase deportations and publicly demani[d] that Muslim communities in the West disavow Jihadism and Sharia law”.

Of course, Europe and the West are not adopting any of these important and clearly articulated measures.

-Radical Islamists have already infiltrated Europe’s universities, mosques and cities’ outskirts.

-Institutional Islam has been able to convince Europeans that terror “has nothing to do with Islam”.

-Mainstream media is refusing even to spell the name of the enemy and it is just preparing new articles about the next victims of Jihad.

-Pope Francis is busy in preaching clemency to everybody.

-The remnant of European Jewry is fleeing the old continent.

-Europe’s armies are getting smaller by the day.

Abandon any hope: Without a major cultural revolution and shock, Europe is lost, Islamists will win! And as it goes along, we will cede more and more of our freedom and civilization to the Grand Jihad.

France: The Coming Civil War

Gatestone Institute, by Yves Mamou, July 16, 2016:

  • For French President François Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: “terrorism” or “fanatics”.
  • Instead, the French president reaffirms his determination to military actions abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.
  • So confronted with this failure of our elite who were elected to guide the country across nationals and internationals dangers, how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?
  • “Western elites, with a suicidal obstinacy, oppose naming the enemy. Confronted with attacks in Brussels or Paris, they prefer to imagine a philosophical fight between democracy and terrorism, between an open society and fanaticism, between civilization and barbarism”. — Mathieu Bock-Côté, sociologist, in Le Figaro
  • In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the “bad” voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not.
  • Similarly, the British took the first tool that was given to them to express their disappointment at living in a society they did not like anymore. They did not vote to say: “Kill all these Muslims who are transforming my country or stealing my job or soaking up my taxes”. They were just protesting a society that a global elite had begun to transform without their consent.
  • The global elite made a choice: they took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. They also made a choice not to fight Islamism because Muslims vote collectively for this global elite.
French police shoot dead a Tunisian-born Islamist terrorist who murdered 84 people in Nice, France, July 14, 2016. (Image source: Sky News video screenshot)

“We are on the verge of a civil war.” That quote did not come from a fanatic or a lunatic. No, it came from head of France’s homeland security, the DGSI (Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure), Patrick Calvar. He has, in fact, spoken of the risk of a civil war many times. On July 12th, he warned a commission of members of parliament, in charge of a survey about the terrorist attacks of 2015, about it.

In May 2016, he delivered almost the same message to another commission of members of parliament, this tme in charge of national defense. “Europe,” he said, “is in danger. Extremism is on the rise everywhere, and we are now turning our attention to some far-right movements who are preparing a confrontation”.

What kind of confrontation? “Intercommunity confrontations,” he said — polite for “a war against Muslims.” “One or two more terrorist attacks,” he added, “and we may well see a civil war.”

In February 2016, in front of a senate commission in charge of intelligence information, he saidagain: ” We are looking now at far-right extremists who are just waiting for more terrorist attacks to engage in violent confrontation”.

No one knows if the truck terrorist, who plowed into the July 14th Bastille Day crowd in Nice and killed more than 80 people, will be the trigger for a French civil war, but it might help to look at what creates the risk of one in France and other countries, such as Germany or Sweden.

The main reason is the failure of the state.

1. France is at War but the Enemy is Never Named.

France is the main target of repeated Islamist attacks; the more important Islamist terrorist bloodbaths took place at the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the Hypercacher supermarket of Vincennes (2015); the Bataclan, its nearby restaurants and the Stade de France stadium, (2015); the failed attack on theThalys train; the beheading of Hervé Cornara (2015); the murders at a school in Toulouse (2012); the three week torture and murder of young Ilan Halimi (2006); the assassination of two policemen in Magnanville in June (2016), and now the truck-ramming in Nice, on the day commemorating the French Revolution of 1789.

Most of those attacks were committed by French Muslims: citizens on their way back from Syria (the Kouachi brothers at Charlie Hebdo), or by French Islamists (Larossi Abballa who killed a police family in Magnanville last June) who later claimed their allegiance to Islamic State (ISIS). The truck killer in Nice was also French, of Tunisian descent, living quietly in Nice until he decided to murder more than 80 people and wound dozens more.

At each of these tragic episodes, the head of state, President François Hollande, refused to name the enemy, refused to name Islamism — and especially refused to name French Islamists — as the enemy of French citizens.

For Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: “terrorism” or “fanatics”. Even when the president does dare to name “Islamism” the enemy, he refuses to say he will close all Salafist mosques, prohibit the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist organizations in France, or ban veils for women. No, instead, the French president reaffirms his determination for military actions … abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.

For France’s head of state, the deployment of soldiers on the national ground is for defensive actions only: a dissuasive policy, not an offensive rearmament of the Republic against an internal enemy.

So confronted with this failure by our elite — who were elected to guide the country across national and international dangers — how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?

As Mathieu Bock-Côté, a sociologist in France and Canada says in Le Figaro: “Western elites, with a suicidal obstinacy, oppose naming the enemy. Confronted by attacks in Brussels or Paris, they prefer to imagine a philosophical fight between democracy and terrorism, between an open society and fanaticism, between civilization and barbarism”.

2. The Civil War Has Already Begun and Nobody Wants to Name It.

The civil war began sixteen years ago, with the second Intifada. When Palestinians invented suicide attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, French Muslims began to terrorize Jews living peacefully in France. For sixteen years, Jews — in France —were slaughtered, attacked, tortured and stabbed by French Muslim citizens supposedly to avenge Palestinian people in the West Bank.

When a group of French citizens who are Muslims declares war on another group of French citizens who are Jews, what do you call it?

For the French establishment, it is not a civil war, just a regrettable misunderstanding between two “ethnic” communities.

Until now, no one has wanted to establish a connection between these attacks and the murderous attack in Nice against people who were not necessarily Jews — and name it as it should be named: a civil war.

For the very politically correct French establishment, the danger of a civil war will begin only if anyone retaliates against French Muslims; if everyone just submits to their demands, everything is all right. Until now, no one thinks that the terrorist attacks against Jews by French Muslims; against Charlie Hebdo’s journalists by French Muslims; against an entrepreneur who was beheaded a year ago by a French Muslim; against young Ilan Halimi by a group of Muslims; against schoolchildren in Toulouse by a French Muslim; against the passengers on the Thalys train by a French Muslim, against the innocent people in Nice by a French Muslim were the symptoms of a civil war. These bloodbaths remain, still today something like a climatic catastrophe, a kind of tragic mistake.

3- The French Establishment Considers the Enemy the Poor the Old and the Disappointed

In France, who most complains about Muslim immigration? Who most suffers from local Islamism? Who most likes to drink a glass of wine or eat a ham-and-butter sandwich? The poor and the old who live close to Muslim communities, because they do not have the money to move someplace else.

Today, as a result, millions of the poor and the old in France are ready to elect Marine Le Pen, president of the rightist Front National, as the next president of the Republic for the simple reason that the only party that wants to fight illegal immigration is the Front National.

Because, however, these French old and poor want to vote for the Front National, they have become the enemy of the French establishment, right and left. What is the Front National saying to these people? “We are going to restore France as a nation of French people”. And the poor and the old believe it – because they have no choice.

Similarly, the poor and the old in Britain had no choice but to vote for Brexit. They took the first tool given them to express their disappointment at living in a society they did not like anymore. They did not vote to say, “Kill these Muslims who are transforming my country, stealing my job and soaking up my taxes”. They were just protesting a society that a global elite had begun to transform without their consent.

In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the “bad” voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not.

The global elites made another choice: they took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. The global elites also chose not to fight Islamism, because Muslims vote globally for the global elite. Muslims in Europe also offer a big “carrot” to the global elite: they vote collectively.

In France, 93% of Muslims voted for the current president, François Hollande, in 2012. In Sweden, the Social Democrats reported that 75% of Swedish Muslims voted for them in the general election of 2006; and studies show that the “red-green” bloc gets 80-90% of the Muslim vote.

4. Is the Civil War Inevitable? Yes!

If the establishment does not want to see that civil war was already declared by extremist Muslims first — if they do not want to see that the enemy is not the Front National in France, the AfD in Germany, or the Sweden Democrats — but Islamism in France, in Belgium, in Great Britain, in Sweden — then a civil war will happen.

France, like Germany and Sweden, has a military and police strong enough to fight against an internal Islamist enemy. But first, they have to name it and take measures against it. If they do not — if they leave their native citizens in despair, with no other means than to arm themselves and retaliate – yes, civil war is inevitable.

Yves Mamou, based in France, has worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

Also see:

Islamic Jihadists in France Gouged Out Eyes, Castrated and Disemboweled Victims

4221396001_4616462564001_4616354211001-vs

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, July 15, 2016:

Warning: Graphic Content

All for the greater glory of Allah.

A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not released to the media, that the killers in the Bataclan tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

Q. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry….can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan:beheadings, evisceration, eyes gouged out …?

Investigator: After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside  to vomit. He told us what he had seen.

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

A. Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disembowelled . There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

The French authorities have little interest in seeing more information released that will make it even more clear how horrifying these attacks were.

***

US Preparing for Islamic State’s ‘Terrorist Diaspora’

FILE - Demonstrators chant pro-Islamic State group slogans as they carry the group's flags in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, Iraq, June 16, 2014.

FILE – Demonstrators chant pro-Islamic State group slogans as they carry the group’s flags in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, Iraq, June 16, 2014.

VOA, by Jeff Seldon, July 14, 2016:

Top U.S. counterterror and law enforcement officials are offering grim warnings about what awaits once the Islamic State terror group’s self-declared caliphate ultimately collapses.

Much of the U.S. and coalition strategy against IS has been predicated on the idea that without the ability to hold territory in Iraq and Syria, the terror group will falter, unable to make good on its promise of a utopian society.

Yet as the fall of the IS caliphate looks to draw nearer, U.S. officials are increasingly cautious, saying the group will remain a dynamic and formidable threat for some time to come.

“We all know there will be a terrorist diaspora out of the caliphate,” FBI Director James Comey told the House Homeland Security Committee on Thursday.

“Those thousands of fighters are going to go someplace,” he said. “Our job is to spot them and stop them before they come to the United States to harm innocent people.”

As many as 40,000 foreign fighters from more than 120 countries are believed to have flocked to the conflict in Syria, with a majority of them joining IS while the group grew and saw its fortunes rise as it advanced across Iraq.

Now, Comey and others worry the terror group is in a prime position to take advantage of the flow home.

“ISIL’s external operations has been building and entrenching during the past two years,” according to National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen. ISIL is an acronym for Islamic State.

“We don’t think that battlefield reverses alone in Iraq will be sufficient to degrade that terrorism capability,” he said. “Over time we will degrade their capability … but there may be a significant lag.”

Forged documents

Adding to the concerns is the terror group’s use of forged documents to get its operatives into Europe, where some became key players in the terror attacks that rocked Paris and Brussels.

“We know it’s a part of ISIL’s tradecraft,” Comey said.

U.S. Homeland Security officials say they have bolstered the department’s abilities to detect fraudulent travel documents, though the risk remains that an IS operative could find a way to sneak into the U.S.

Concerns also persist about the challenges facing some U.S. allies, especially in Europe where, despite ongoing crackdowns, intelligence officials fear IS has become “deeply rooted,” using perhaps hundreds of jihadists who returned from Syria and Iraq to mold thousands of would-be foreign fighters into guerilla units.

“The Europeans have made progress since the horrific attacks in Paris and Belgium, but clearly more progress has to be made,” CIA Director John Brennan said Wednesday during an appearance at the Brookings Institution.

“Some of the countries themselves, their internal and external services, will not talk with one another; they’re not knitted together,” he said.

Just getting intelligence on IS is proving to be problematic.

“ISIL is a savvy, experienced adversary that knows how we collect intelligence,” Rasmussen said Thursday. “I would describe our efforts to gain an understanding of ISIL intentions and strategy and direction as being a harder target right now than what we faced with al-Qaida.”

Social media

One area where officials say they have made good progress is in efforts to prevent U.S. citizens from traveling to join IS. But even there, concerns persist as officials worry some may be heeding the terror group’s call to stay home and find ways to carry out attacks where they live.

The threat of attacks inspired by IS messaging on social media is also increasing.

FBI officials have said they are currently investigating about 1,000 such cases, but face difficulties as many of the would-be terrorists are not actively communicating with other sympathizers or operatives.

“The prospect of homegrown violent extremism — another San Bernardino, another Orlando — is number one on my list,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers Thursday when asked what keeps him up at night.

“We are not winning the war against Islamist terror,” House Homeland Chair Rep. Michael McCaul said Thursday.

“Each day we stick with half measures, ISIS is able to dig in further and advance a murderous agenda,” he said, using another acronym for the terror group. “Overall they are not on the run, they are on the rise.”

Jeff works out of VOA’s Washington headquarters and is national security correspondent. You can follow Jeff on Twitter at @jseldin or on Google Plus.

It’s Time to Designate Black Lives Matter a Terrorist Organization

ghFront Page Magazine, by Frontpage Editors, July 11, 2016:

At a Black Lives Matter (BLM) rally in Dallas yesterday, demonstrators protested the recent shootings of two African American men by white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana. “Enough is enough!” the marchers shouted while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, as we now know, an assassin opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at the rally. Four policemen and one transit officer were killed, and six additional police were wounded.

No analysis of this atrocity would be complete without noting the now-indisputable fact that every word uttered by BLM and its mouthpieces is an unadulterated lie. The entire self-identified purpose of this movement—which is to demand “an immediate end to police brutality and [to] the murder of Black people and all oppressed people”—is rendered utterly fictitious by a single statement of fact: Of all suspects who are killed by police in the US each year, 41.7% are white, 20.3% are Hispanic, and 31.7% are black—even as blacks account for 38.5% of all arrests for violent crimes, which are the types of crimes most likely to trigger a confrontation with police that could result in a fatality.

These numbers do not in any way suggest a lack of restraint by police in their dealings with black suspects. They suggest precisely the opposite. And that’s the dirty little secret. Evidence of systemic racism in police shootings simply doesn’t exist. Anywhere.

The premise underlying BLM’s whole mission is a lie.

And, of course, justice for brutal and unnecessary loss of black life was never the real agenda of BLM anyway. This fact is painfully evidenced by the vast and ever-accumulating body count of black murders committed predominately by other blacks — every incident of which is met with silence by BLM’s race agitators. Rather, BLM was always a hate group animated not by a desire to save lives, but to take them. Its message is one of hate; for white people, for black people who did not follow its radical agenda, and for the entire nation.

Last night the BLM joined the ranks of major terrorist organizations.

A suspect in the attack last night had made it clear to a negotiator that, inspired to anger to anger by the BLM movement, he wanted to kill “white people” and especially “white officers.”

That’s what racism looks like. That’s what terrorism looks like.

What happened in Dallas was inevitable. It was not an isolated incident. Just ask the families of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, murdered by BLM supporter Ismaaiyl Brinsley over a BLM cause.

The assassination of the two NYPD officers bore a striking resemblance to the Dallas attack. Had the media and their Democratic allies backed away from their unthinking support of BLM, Dallas need not have happened. Instead the media continued pushing its drumbeat of lies.

Yet BLM case after BLM case collapsed. The Freddie Gray hoax, which wrecked a city, proved hollow, just as the Michael Brown case had. And yet every Democrat, from Obama on down, did not waver.

Dallas is the defining line. The targeted murder of five police officers is a clear terror attack.

And the cause was the incitement by BLM and its media and political allies against police officers. BLM and its media propagandists have spent years portraying cops as killers out to exterminate the black community. What happened in Dallas was a direct result of that exterminationist rhetoric.

BLM’s message is that the country and its police officers are out to commit “genocide” against “brown bodies,” that the nation is illegitimate and that police officers are racist killers. Instead of being shunned, this rhetoric was rewarded, as when literary darling Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote that police officers “were not human to me.” For his hate speech, Coates received a MacArthur Genius Grant.

Some agreed with Coates. They saw police officers as less than human and killed them.

We cannot forget the origins of the Dallas attack in such rhetoric or BLM protesters chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.” If we forget, then the next BLM terrorist attack will be our responsibility.

And while we can respect the rights of even hate groups to operate, we cannot tolerate terrorist organizations. It’s time to shut down BLM before the next shooting happens.

The National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund has recorded a very significant spike in police officer deaths. Last June, Chief Brown responded to the shooting attack at DPD headquarters by saying, “Go to a restaurant with us one time. Go eat lunch with us. We’re never going to sit with our back to the door.”

But it’s impossible to stop everyone who wants to kill a police officer. And it’s time we turned our attention to those who are behind the attacks.

The media is still repeating the same lies that we heard in Ferguson or Baltimore about “peaceful protests” suddenly turning violent. But those lies won’t fly anymore. The protests were never peaceful. When they become openly violent, it’s not a radical shift but an implementation of their core message.

BLM is a terrorist movement, and it should be designated as such by the U.S. government. It started out as the KKK. Now it’s evolving into Al Qaeda with an ideological core that promotes the idea of a total war while “lone wolves” do its dirty work. It’s time to hold it — and its supporters — accountable. It’s up to us to see that Dallas never happens again.

***

Also see:

Released Gitmo Detainee Goes Missing in Latin America

rw

Front Page Magazine, by Michael Cutler, July 7, 2016:

The Obama administration has played politics with virtually every issue, including issues that endanger national security and the safety and well-being of Americans.

Through the issuance of executive orders on immigration that make a mockery of our nation’s borders and immigration laws and that contradict commonsense and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission millions of illegal aliens whose true identities cannot be determined now live in towns and cities across the United States.

Nearly every terror attack carried out in the United States has a connection to a failure of the immigration system.  Most of the terrorists who have been identified were admitted into the United States, proving that our immigration system lacks integrity.  But failures of the immigration system also include failures to physically secure our nation’s northern and southern borders.

Our borders have become little more than “speed bumps” to smugglers with record quantities of narcotics, including heroin, flowing freely into the United States, along with transnational criminals and gang members.

The immigration policy of “Catch and Release” that has turned hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have been convicted of committing serious crimes loose on towns and cities across the United States has been the focus of a series of Congressional hearings, yet nothing has convinced the administration to stop this lunacy.

Catch and Release is not, however, limited to the way that illegal aliens are apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents are released, with the vast majority failing to appear for immigration hearings.  In order to keep his promise to close the U.S. facility at Guantanamo, Mr. Obama has ordered ordered terror suspects to be released from custody at Guantanamo.  Some have returned to the battlefield where they threaten innocent civilians as well as members of the armed forces of a number of nations including the United States.

It has been reported that 80 radical Islamist terrorists remain in custody in Guantanamo.  They must not be released from that important U.S. facility.

Undoubtedly many of these former detainees would love nothing better than make their way to the United States to launch deadly terror attacks inside our borders.  ISIS has made it clear that the United States is their prime target.

On July 5, 2016, Fox News reported, “Mystery surrounds whereabouts of former Gitmo detainee in South America.”

The detainee that the report refers to is Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a Syrian native.  In 2014 he was freed from custody and sent to Uruguay, a destination country for five other released detainees.  Now it has been disclosed that he has gone missing.  There are contradictory reports as to whether or not he may have entered Brazil legally, or illegally.

The latest reports indicate that he may have used a false passport — a threat noted by the 9/11 Commission that stated that in the hands of a terrorist a passport is a weapon.

What the news reports failed to discuss is the fact that the Tri-Border Region of Brazil, where Brazil borders on Argentina and Paraguay, is a hot-bed for radical Islamist terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and likely for al-Qaeda and ISIS.

This is not a new development.  The Federal Research Division of the United States Library of Congress prepared a report in July 2003 about this deadly part of the world that was updated in December 2010.  The title of that report is, “Terrorist And Organized Crime Groups In The Tri-Border Area (TBA) Of Sourh America.”

The report was critical about corruption of the government of Brazil and noted that transnational criminal organizations from across the world have set up shop in that section of Brazil.

Read more

***

Video: Robert Spencer on the Muslim Brotherhood’s persecution of Christians

RS060916bJihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, July 6, 2016:

In this new video, I explain why a prominent Coptic Christian organization supports the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

Muslim Nations Defend Palestinian Terror During UN Terrorism Review After U.S. Citizen Murdered Near Hebron

OIC-at-UN.sized-770x415xbPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 3, 2016:

Thirteen-year-old Hillel Ariel, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist last week while sleeping in her bed in her home near Hebron.

The day after her murder the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the group representing all 57 Muslim-majority nations, tried to insert justifications for Palestinian terror during a United Nations review of its counter-terrorism strategy.

Stephanie Granot of The Jewish Press reports:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), attempted to introduce language condoning terrorism under certain conditions into a draft of a UN Counter-Terrorism Resolution. The official document is expected to be finalized on Tuesday when the General Assembly concludes a bi-annual Review of its UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.The OIC, an organization of 57 member-states that considers itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world”, has Permanent Delegations to the United Nations as well as to the European Union. Several days prior to the start of the Review, OIC Representative Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi (Saudi Arabia) sought to insert the following clause to the draft of the resolution: “Terrorism in the name of self-determination and national liberation does not constitute terrorism.”

Shortly after Rep. Al-Mouallimi addressed the General Assembly, Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador David Roet delivered an impassioned and powerful speech…

Subsequent to Ambassador Roet’s speech, some significant diplomatic maneuvering by the Israel’s Mission to the UN, and a steadfast refusal on Israel’s part to allow member-states to compromise draft language for the sake of a unanimous consensus, the clause was ultimately not included in the final draft of the review, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review”.

As the article notes, the OIC, which is the second largest inter-governmental body in the world behind the United Nations, has a permanent delegation at the UN.

In May, just a month before the Orlando terror attack targeting a gay nightclub that killed 49, the OIC blocked LGBT groups from attending a UN conference on AIDS held days before the attack.

The defense of Palestinian terrorism is a recurring topic of the OIC.

In April 2002, in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, the OIC adopted a declaration on international terrorism. But during the debate the OIC could not agree on a definition of terrorism, but did reject “any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.”

The OIC’s Islamic Fiqh Council published a January 2003 resolution explicitly endorsing Palestinian terror attacks, saying suicide attacks are a legitimate form of jihad:

3- The Islamic Fiqh Council asserts that jihad and martyr operations done to defend the Islamic creed, dignity, freedom and the sovereignty of states is not considered terrorism but a basic form of necessary defense for legitimate rights. Thus the oppressed peoples who are subjected to occupation have the right to seek their freedom via all means possible.4- The Islamic Fiqh Council stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with terrorism or suicide. Those operations become obligatory when they become the only way to stop the aggression of the enemy, defeat it, and grievously damage its power.

5- It is not allowed to use terms such as “jihad”, “terrorism”, and “violence”, which have become frequently used by today’s mass media as scientific terms, to mean other connotations beyond their basic well known meanings.

In between its unashamed defense of terrorism, the OIC has taken up the cause of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of combating “Islamophobia.”

As I noted last year here at PJ Media, the OIC remarkably called for more free speech limits immediately following the terror attack on the Paris offices of French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo. After reporting that, the OIC’s representative to the UN, Ufuk Gokcen, blocked me on Twitter.

I also reported exclusively that the OIC had funneled $325,000 to Georgetown University through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front group to push its “Islamophobia” agenda.

Through the OIC’s 2005 10-Year Plan of Action and supporting implementation plan, they stated their intent to push for the international criminalization of criticism of Islam.

Hillary Clinton enthusiastically backed the OIC’s push for criminalizing “Islamophobia,” with the U.S. co-sponsoring UNHRC Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan on behalf of the OIC which calls for free speech restrictions in the name of banning “defamation of religion.”

At a July 2011 meeting with the OIC in Istanbul, she reaffirmed her commitment to Resolution 16/18, vowingto use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Clinton hosted the OIC in a three-day closed-door conference in Washington, D.C., in December 2011. The official OIC media center characterized the meetings with Clinton as an effort to enact its “defamation of religion” agenda spelled out in the OIC’s annual Islamophobia Observatory.

No word if now-Democratic Party presidential candidate Clinton endorses the attempts by the OIC to justify Palestinian terrorism.

UTT Testifies About Jihadi Threat at Senate Hearing

Screen-Shot-2016-06-29-at-12.48.12-AMUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 29. 2016:

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday before a U.S. Senate hearing on the use of the term “Radical Islam” in discussing the terrorism threat to the United States.

Mr. Gaubatz set the stage with laying out the threat America faces from the Global Islamic Movement:

“UTT is the only organization in America which trains law enforcement, intelligence professionals, military, and leaders on the threat from the Global Islamic Movement, the doctrine of jihadi groups, and how to identify, investigate, and dismantle them.  At UTT, we hold the firm belief that in order to defeat the Global Jihad, we must understand the enemy. US military war fighting doctrine, specifically the , ‘Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield Manual’, states war-planners must begin all analysis of the enemy threat with (1) who the enemy says they are, and (2) why they are fighting us.  That becomes the basis for determining the enemy threat doctrine, which, in the case of jihadis, is sharia – Islamic law. Universally, the enemy – jihadis – whether they are ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood, all state they are Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under sharia.”

After detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s dangerous doctrine, Mr. Gaubatz related his personal experiences working undercover at Hamas offices in the U.S. (CAIR):

“During my time conducting undercover research as an intern with Hamas, both at CAIR MD/VA in Herndon, VA, and CAIR National in Washington DC, I preserved documents that revealed Hamas doing business as CAIR:

  *Conspired to cover-up fraud committed by one of their attorneys
  *Discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates
  *Placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices
  *Conspired to influence congress, specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees
  *Impact congressional districts, tasking each Hamas Chapter with influencing at least two legislators
  *Ordered books from the Saudi embassy on the virtue of jihad and martyrdom
  *Worked with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect

“The current administration and the US national security apparatus continues to use leaders of Muslim Brotherhood groups like ISNA, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), CAIR, and others to provide direct input into American foreign policy and domestic counter-terrorism strategies.”

With a strong finish, Mr. Gaubatz made clear the dire threat America faces if we do not reverse course immediately and address the enemy.

“According to our enemy – the Global Islamic Movement, made up of many groups including Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligi Jamaat, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hizbollah, many nation states including Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others – they all seek to impose sharia on the planet. It is also the blueprint from which they create their war-fighting strategies. From a U.S. war-fighting perspective, that naturally makes sharia the enemy threat doctrine and adherents to sharia a direct threat to the Republic. Until American leaders and national security professionals identify the threat and formulate policies and strategies that address adherents to this ideology we will continue on our current path of defeat and eventually lose this war here at home as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr. Gaubatz’s remarks can be seen HERE from 00:55:03-01:02:18

***

If you scroll down to “user created clips” you can view Chris Gaubatz’s testimony

ISIS calls for attacks in Berlin and Brussels to ‘paralyse’ Europe in wake of Brexit chaos

isis brexit

Mirror, June 24, 2016:

A jihadi Telegram channel expressed joy for the economic impact and fracturing of the EU following the British referendum.

Islamic State has expressed its delight for the expected negative economic impact on the United Kingdom and the European Union following the British referendum – and called for attacks in Berlin and Brussels to “paralyse” Europe.

A jihadi Telegram – an encrypted messaging service popular with militants – praised the economic chaos that came in the wake of the EU Referendum and urged followers to strike at the heart of mainland Europe, according to terror threat monitor Site.

UK military chiefs have warned there is a “serious and direct threat to holiday resorts across Europe'”from groups like ISIS.

The Foreign Office (FCO) says “there is considered to be a heightened threat of terrorist attack globally against UK interests and British nationals from groups or individuals motivated by the conflict in Iraq and Syria”.

Belgian authorities say the plot required “immediate intervention” after they arrested 12 people in Brussels.

The Belgian’s team – nicknamed the Red Devils – are due to play the Republic of Ireland in Bordeaux at 2pm this afternoon.

It is believed the attack was due to take place in the Belgium capital while fans watched the match on TV.

Farouk Özgünes, from Flemish public broadcaster VTM said: “The suspects were planning to carry out attacks while the Red Devils were playing a match at the European Championships this weekend.

Read more

Also see:

The Failure to Define the Enemy and Victory Enhances the Threat

ISIS-Trucks1

Providence Magazine, by Kyle Shideler | June 24, 2016

The jihadist terror attack in Orlando that killed 49 people relaunched two major policy debates regarding the U.S. response to the challenge of Islamic State. The first was represented by President Obama’s claims of the successful prosecution of the war against an increasingly weakened Islamic State, a position seemingly contradicted by Director of National Intelligence John Brennan.

The second was the ongoing debate over the Obama Administration’s marked refusal to describe terror attacks using the Islamic terminology. This debate reached a fever pitch as the Department of Justice went so far as to censor a transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call only to be forced to reverse themselves after widespread condemnation.

Interesting insight into both these policy questions can be gained through an examination of a recent statement by Islamic State Spokesman Abu Mohamed al-Adnani.

Adanai issued a public declaration in late May of this year entitled, “That They Live By Proof”, issuing a call for attacks against the West, a call evidently answered by Orlando shooter Omar Mateen.

Adnani used the declaration to examine claims that the western-backed coalition is defeating the Islamic State. After a discussion of early Western declarations of victory in battle against Islamic State’s predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq only for the group to revive itself as the Islamic State, Adnani notes:

True defeat is the loss of willpower and desire to fight. America will be victorious and the mujahidin will be defeated in only one situation. We would be defeated and you victorious only if you were able to re-move the Quran from the Muslims’ hearts [emphasis added].

Adnani’s comments are not mere gusto, and they are not simply attempts to justify perceived failures, as was widely assumed at the time.

Adnani is revealing where the Islamic State’s “center of gravity” is. The Department of Defense’s Joint Publication 1-02 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines center of gravity as “The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.”

U.S. Army Counterinsurgency doctrine notes that understanding the enemy’s center of gravity is a crucial step to achieving victory.

For Adnani, this center of gravity is a faith that necessitates fighting until Islamic law is implemented and nonbelievers and hypocrites (that is, Muslims who do not adhere to Islamic law) are defeated, and he includes multiple quranic citations for evidence of his position.

If the enemy expresses its center of gravity in faith terms, and military success relies on understanding the enemy’s center of gravity and appropriately targeting it, then the question of whether the U.S. is defeating Islamic State, and the question of whether the U.S. should utilize the doctrinal terms used by the enemy are not in fact two policy questions at all, but rather a singular question.

In the 2006/2007 edition of the U.S. Army War College strategy journal Parameters, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Myers authored a book review of The Quranic Concept of War by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K Malik. Written in 1979, The Quranic Concept of War is a military strategy tract endorsed by Pakistan’s former President Zia al-Haq. Myer notes that Malik locates the center of gravity:

[I]n war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war.

Malik’s views, from 1979, can be seen as essentially analogous to those expressed by Adnani. Malik sees the Quranic model of warfare in the preparation, execution and consolidation of terror in order to dislocate enemy faith, to achieve victory:

“The quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy…in war, our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, or our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts [emphasis in the original].

This view appears consistent among jihadist organizations and is reflected in Abu Bakr Naji’s Management of Savagery, an Al Qaeda strategy manual from 2004 held in high esteem by Islamic State. Regarding waging jihad, Naji writes:

If we are not violent in our jihad and if softness seizes us, that will be a major factor in the loss of the element of strength… the Umma which is able to protect the positions it has won and it is the Umma which boldly faces horrors and has the firmness of mountains.

Naji proposed the careful and deliberate use of “savagery” in order to best undermine the enemy, which in turn strengthens the jihadist side.

Malik’s concept of war as being principally spiritual cum ideological warfare is reflected also in the writings of the Muslim Brotherhood jurist, Yusuf Al Qaradawi who notes, inIslamic Education and Hassan Al Banna:

They know well that the basic strength is the force of faith and belief, followed by the strength of unity and collectiveness and after both these, comes military strength [emphasis added].

Qaradawi himself noted that Islamic State Caliph AbuBakr Al Baghdadi was a former Muslim Brother, and so it comes as no surprise the two organizations share similar views in this regard.

Another Muslim Brotherhood thinker, Louay Safi, confirmed the centrality of faith as the principle focus of Islamic warfighting in his work, Peace and the Limits of War in 2001:

But when their organization and equipment are weak, and their morale falls short of the optimal situation, they are obligated to tackle no more than odds of two to one [emphasis added].

Interestingly, Safi served as a Department of Defense advisor where he argued against an understanding of the enemy in Islamic warfare terms.

Given the importance jihad theorists place on questions of faith and terror, one might hope U.S. national security officials would study these views carefully. But while Malik’s work on Quranic warfare has been discussed by a select group of counterterrorism thinkers since 2005, it has been largely ignored by decision-makers.

As a result, U.S. Special Envoy for the Islamic State campaign Brett McGurk took the opportunity to treat the Adnani declaration as a sign U.S. strategy was winning.

But if one was to examine the question from the Malik perspective however, there is no reasonable way to conclude that the U.S. and its western allies are winning.

Following the Islamic State-inspired San Bernardino shootings, a New York Times/CBS News Poll found that Americans were more fearful of terrorism than any time since 9/11. A Washington Post/ABC News Poll following the Paris attacks found similar results.

While terror is rising, faith is down. A 2012 Gallup poll noted that just 44% have “a lot of faith” in the church or “organized religion”, an all-time low. Faith is dropping in other American institutions as well. In November 2015 a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found an eleven percent increase in those who said America’s “best days are behind us”. A 2015 Gallup poll noted remarkable drops in American faith for every sizeable societal institution except the U.S. military.

While we are militarily capable of ousting Islamic State from territory, until we are prepared to understand the enemy’s center of gravity, the realm of faith, we will continue to have policy makers debate how to talk about the enemy and how to define victory, while the jihadist threat metastasizes.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of The Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

Neighbors Launch Drive to Close Orlando Terrorist’s Mosque, as FBI Investigates Third Terror Suspect at Islamic Center

Islamic-Center-Fort-Pierce_1465822026443_7120923_ver1.0_640_360

If they’re successful in shuttering the mosque, organizers say they’d like to erect a memorial site “to honor all the lives that have been lost.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, June 23, 2016:

As FBI agents investigate a third male suspect at the nightclub terrorist’s mosque in Florida, neighbors complain the small Islamic center has become a hotbed for terrorist activity and have launched a petition drive to shut it down.

Many local residents say they feel afraid for their safety living near a mosque that has graduated two deadly terrorists in the past two years, and where federal investigators are now actively questioning additional worshipers in connection with long-time member Omar Mateen’s June 12 massacre in Orlando.

Close the Mosque organizers are planning to hold a large protest rally outside the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, but have run into difficulties obtaining permits from county government officials. Their movement has attracted more than 400 supporters. If they’re successful in shuttering the mosque, organizers say they’d like to erect a memorial site “to honor all the lives that have been lost.”

“The mosque leaders in Fort Pierce are complaining and scared for their lives after two killers came out of there,” wrote a local resident posting on the “Close the Mosque” Facebook page as Anthony Profeta. “Well, I got news for you: I’m scared your[sic] going to kill my kids, so pack up your things, close that mosque and leave town … your[sic] training future killers.”

Added Fort Pierce resident Joel Matt: “Time to shut that place down until further investigation is done.”

“Bulldozer that place,” another local remarked.

On Friday, two FBI agents met with an unidentified member of the Islamic center, a fellow worshiper of Mateen, for more than a half hour before Friday prayers started. I’m told investigators plan to interview more members of the mosque this week. Agents are following up on a lead from a gun store operator, who told authorities he overheard Mateen, an Afghan-American, speaking to a possible co-conspirator “in a foreign language” several weeks ago when Mateen came into his gun shop looking to buy body armor and bulk ammo.

About two years ago, agents paid leaders at the same Islamic center a visit to investigate the mosque’s ties to another worshiper, Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, who is believed to be the first American suicide bomber in Syria. Mateen prayed alongside Abu-Salha, who left his car in the mosque parking lot before flying to Syria.

The renewed focus on the mosque as a terrorism hub has neighbors spooked.

“How many people that attend your mosque are going to become radicalized before we have to ask what the f*** are you teaching in there?” a local resident identifying himself as Brad Mulcahy posted on the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce’s Facebook page.

Mateen, who was shot dead by police after shooting an unprecedented 102 innocent people, killing 49, at the gay Pulse club in Orlando, regularly attended the Islamic center for more than a dozen years, praying there up to four times a week. In fact, Mateen prayed at the mosque the night before his terrorist attack.

His three sisters worked at the mosque, located on Midway Road, and property records show two of them own homes on the same street. His father, a Taliban-supporting immigrant from Afghanistan, sat on the mosque’s board of directors and once served as its vice president, as CounterJihad.com first reported last week.

Mosque leaders deny that Mateen, who pledged allegiance to ISIS, was radicalized at the Islamic center; and they maintain that they did not interact with him and were unaware of any extremist religious or political views that he held.

The president and imam of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Dr. Syed Shafeeq Rahman, said it is merely “a coincidence” that two deadly terrorists prayed at his mosque.

“This is a coincidence,” he said. “There is no teaching given about extremism in this mosque.”

He claims the mosque has received death threats and has had to hire private security after the St. Lucie County sheriff’s office declined to provide a security detail. St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara said his agency is limited by staffing and other security contracts.

The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce was founded in the 1990s to accommodate a growing number of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who settled in the area famous for its orange groves in the 1970s after Democrat-sponsored federal legislation opened up U.S. immigration to such regions.

The Midway Road mosque was converted from an old Christian church. A sister mosque — The Islamic Center of Muslim Friends of Florida — operates in an abandoned building with no signage a little more than a mile away.

Thanks to immigration, the Muslim population has exploded across the state of Florida, allowing some of the 9/11 hijackers to blend in in nearby cities and take flight lessons before the 2001 attacks. Many terrorist cells remain secreted throughout the state, terrorism experts say.

“There are a lot of cells here in Florida, trust me,” former CIA case officer Bob Baer warned.

GOP Leaders Stall Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Act

ryan

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 23, 2016:

Eighty members of Congress, including two Democrats, now support the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, with one more congressman and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee signing up since the last update. There’s only one problem: The Republican leadership is stalling it, even though the House version passed the Judiciary Committee.

The two new cosponsors are Senator David Perdue (R-GA) and Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA). The former is especially significant because he is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where it is held up. A list of cosponsors and opponents is available at the bottom of this article.

Terrorism expert Patrick Poole writes that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker (R-TN), has not even held hearings on the bill, much less arranged for it to be voted on. Corker is reportedly being vetted as a potential running mate for Donald Trump.

The story is even more discouraging in the House, where support for the bill was proven when it passed the Judiciary Committee. Yet, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have not given any public indication that he’ll have the House vote on it.

“There really is no good reason why GOP leadership should continue blocking these bills from coming to the floor. Our closest allies, namely Egypt, Israel and Jordan, are taking action against the Muslim Brotherhood. As the Brotherhood rank-and-file in Egypt escalate terror attacks, and Brotherhood militias openly ally with Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and other affiliates across the Middle East become more militant, we should not be giving them aid and refuge while our allies actively fight them,” Poole told Clarion Project.

Four organizations representing persecuted Christians are also pushing for the bill. A prominent Kurdish Muslim activist is also supporting the bill.

You can make a difference in less than one minute. Ask your representative to take a stand by using our easy online form.

Numerous congressional staff members have told us about how much of an impact our readers are having on Capitol Hill—many arehearing you, but the voices must be persistent and louder.

Even if the act does not pass, this is a unique opportunity to find out which members of Congress pay attention to this issue, and where they stand on the Muslim Brotherhood and its U.S.-based affiliates. 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).

Read more

Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported

Tsarnaev brothersClarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 23, 2016:

New data from the Senate Judiciary Committee reveals that 40 refugees have been arrested on terrorism-related charges since 9/11; a number far higher than the State Department’s previous estimate of a dozen.

Clarion Project reported in November 2015 that a little-noticed poll showed that 13% of Syrian refugees express favorable feelings towards the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). The Obama Administration plans to resettle between 8,000 and 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year. It is about half way towards that goal, having resettled about 4,000.

The new congressional numbers show that 580 individuals have been convicted on terrorism-related charges since 9/11, with 131 convictions happening since early 2014 when ISIS burst onto the scene.

Of the 580, at least 40 are refugees (a little less than 7 percent of the total) and 380 are foreign-born (65.5% of the total). The top countries of origin are Pakistan (by far), followed far behind by Somalia, Yemen, Colombia and Iraq.

The convicts are most commonly associated with Al-Qaeda or one of its branches. The second most common allegiance is to Hezbollah, followed by the Colombian FARC narco-terrorist group; Hamas; Lashker-a-Taiba; the Taliban (if you combine the Afghan and Pakistani branches); the Tamil Tigers; the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia; ISIS and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The obvious conclusion from the fresh data is that counter-terrorism efforts should be laser-focused on immigration and screening policies, particularly in regards to Muslim countries that are terror hotbeds, since over 65% of cases involved foreigners who came to the United States.

That number doesn’t include convicts whose parents came into the U.S. and may have brought ideas that helped radicalize their children. A clear example is Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s father, who has praised the Taliban and is now known to have served as an official in a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organization in 1997.

The Washington Post has also addressed some misconceptions and semantics games when it comes to the security issues surrounding the estimated 800,000 refugees who have come into America since 9/11. Counts of terror-linked refugees may not include asylum-seekers and their families who are in the U.S. but have not yet acquired the refugee label.

The Post mentions that the Tsarnaev brothers who committed the Boston bombings were in the U.S. because their father is an asylum-seeker and they are not included in the counts.

In addition, the aforementioned numbers do not include information about those arrested but not convicted and those under investigation. A senior FBI official said in 2013 that there are dozens of counter-terrorism investigations into refugee suspects. That was before the dramatic spike in radicalization sparked by the success of ISIS and its declaration of a caliphate.

As Clarion explained, the U.S. can benefit from accepting some properly-vetted Muslim refugees, including those from Syria. A ban on all Muslim immigration isn’t feasible (putting aside the moral question), but a vetting process aimed at detecting Islamists is. Such ideological vetting can help genuine moderate Muslims by identifying them and possibly expediting their processing.

Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney had great success in detecting extremists by tracking associations with Islamist movements and institutions until the overlapping extremism of political correctness and Islamism stopped him from continuing. Almost every time someone is arrested on terror-related charges, we hear about previous signs of extremism such as attending a radical mosque or a social media posting.

The new data shows that the majority of terrorist convicts come from foreign countries, and a small but worrisome percentage are refugees. It isn’t Islamophobic or bigoted to recognize the intersection between national security and immigration and make proper adjustments to reflect reality.

***

NEW INFO: Cruz, Sessions Warn Obama of Refugee Terror Threat (insider.foxnews.com)

terror statistics

Also see:

America has suffered a terror attack every year under Obama

Photo: AP

Photo: AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, June 16, 016:

America has now averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year on President Obama’s watch, yet he still insists the threat from radical Islam is overblown and that he’s successfully protecting the nation.

If only hubris could be weaponized!

In the wake of Omar Mateen’s Orlando massacre, Obama whined about growing criticism of his terror-fighting strategy. But boy, does he deserve it. His record on terrorism is terrible, and Hillary Clinton should have a tough time defending it.

Here we are in the eighth year of his presidency, and the nation has now suffered eight significant attacks by Islamist terrorists on US soil or diplomatic property — an average of one attack a year since Obama’s been in office, with each new attack seemingly worse than the last.

And there’s six long months left to go.

Obama said Orlando “marks the most deadly shooting in American history.” Actually, it was the second-worst act of Islamic terrorism in American history, replacing in six short months the San Bernardino massacre as the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

Here are the previous seven:

December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy weapons.

July 2015:
Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it terrorism.

May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a security guard before police took them down.

April 2013:
Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17 people lost limbs from the shrapnel.

September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video.

November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it “workplace violence,” even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops.

June 2009:
Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

So there you have it — an average of one serious terror strike against the United States every year on Obama’s watch. And we’re not even counting the underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, Fed Ex bombs and other near-misses.

History will not be kind to this president’s record.

When he came into office, Obama vowed to defeat terrorism using “all elements of our power”: “My single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

But it soon became clear he wasn’t serious.

In June 2009, Obama traveled to Cairo to apologize to Muslims the world over for America’s war on terror. Then he canceled the war and released as many terrorists as he could from Gitmo, while ordering the FBI and Homeland Security to delete “jihad” and other Islamic references from their counterterrorism manuals and fire all trainers who linked terrorism to Islam, blinding investigators to the threat from homegrown jihadists like Mateen.

Obama also stopped a major investigation of terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood front groups and radical mosques, while opening the floodgates to Muslim immigrants, importing more than 400,000 of them, many from terrorist hot spots Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Attack after attack, the president has ridiculously maintained that global warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. Americans are fed up. Even before San Bernardino and Orlando, polls showed Obama was widely viewed as soft on Islamist terrorists. He has an absolutely awful record keeping us safe from terrorism.

And this is the security mantle Hillary is so proud to inherit? Good luck with that.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” and “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”