FBI: 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in USA Last Year

us-mexico-border

The jihad is crossing the southern border: a majority of encounters in Arizona were with Islamist groups.

CounterJihad, Sept. 26, 2016:

Breitbart news has received a collection of leaked documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that show a massive number of terrorist encounters, especially in border states.  The documents are not classified, though they are marked sensitive.  7,712 terrorist encounters occurred from July 20, 2015 and the same date a year later — last year, in short.

Some of the documents pertain to the entire U.S., while others focus specifically on the state of Arizona.  The states with the highest encounters are all border states. Texas, California, and Arizona–all states with a shared border with Mexico–rank high in encounters…. Most significantly, the map shows that many of the encounters occurred near the border outside of ports-of-entry, indicating that persons were attempting to sneak into the U.S.

Page Six shows a pie chart indicating that the majority of encounters in Arizona were with Islamic known or suspected terrorists, both Sunni and Shi’a.

That last is surprising, as one would expect drug cartels to make up the majority of such encounters.  The leak comes at a time when the FBI’s crime reporting shows an increase in violent crime across the country.

The Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah has developed connections with the Latin American drug cartels because of its prominent role in heroin.  Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) controls the opium trade from the poppy fields in Afghanistan to the Levant, and they provide a great deal of opium to Hezbollah.  Hezbollah has a refining capacity in Lebanon that allows them to provide a substantial part of the world’s heroin.  They trade heroin to the Latin American drug cartels for other illegal money-making opportunities, forged documents, and access to the Americas.  Hezbollah’s operations produce between ten and twenty million dollars in revenue for its American operations, which are based out of a large Lebanese immigrant community in what is called the “Tri-border region,” an area between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina.

In addition to its money-making ventures, Hezbollah provides the cartels with military training.  As one of the world’s foremost guerrilla organizations, Hezbollah finds that its military trainers are sought after commodities.  They are able to parley those connections in order to perform operations in Mexico.  Their ability to infiltrate the United States, in order to conduct terrorist violence in service to Iran, is highlighted by these leaked FBI documents.

The role of Sunni groups is less fully understood, but it was a concern for the intelligence section of the United States military’s Southern Command according to another set of leaks earlier this year.

Sunni extremists are infiltrating the United States with the help of alien smugglers in South America and are crossing U.S. borders with ease, according to a U.S. South Command intelligence report.  The Command’s J-2 intelligence directorate reported recently in internal channels that “special interest aliens” are working with a known alien smuggling network in Latin America to reach the United States….  Army Col. Lisa A. Garcia, a Southcom spokeswoman, did not address the intelligence report directly but said Sunni terrorist infiltration is a security concern.

“Networks that specialize in smuggling individuals from regions of terrorist concern, mainly from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the Middle East, and East Africa, are indeed a concern for Southcom and other interagency security partners who support our country’s national security,” Garcia told theWashington Free Beacon….  “In 2015, we saw a total of 331,000 migrants enter the southwestern border between the U.S. and Mexico, of that we estimate more than 30,000 of those were from countries of terrorist concern,” she said….

[T]he Southcom intelligence report revealed that the threat of Islamist terror infiltration is no longer theoretical. “This makes the case for Trump’s wall,” said one American security official of the Southcom report. “These guys are doing whatever they want to get in the country.”

Here at CounterJihad, we reported on Southern Command’s commander, Admiral Kurt Tidd, and his testimony before Congress on the threat.  Tidd reported that a number of terrorists were transiting the region who had gone to Syria and fought for the Islamic State (ISIS) and other radical groups.  Their ability to return to Latin America was smooth, given that they actually had legal travel documents.

Whether they can then pass into the United States is an open question.  The leaked FBI documents only talk about actual law enforcement encounters with people on terrorist lists.  How many are infiltrating without encountering law enforcement?

Also see:

Securing that problematic border must be a component of a larger strategy that addresses many other failures and vulnerabilities of the immigration system.

If the U.S./Mexican border had been protected by the mythical “deflector shield” from the Starship Enterprise, the terror attacks of 9/11, the attack of the Boston Marathon by the Tsarnaev brothers, the terror attack at San Bernardino, and all of the other terror attacks America has suffered would not have been prevented.

Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted

pic_giant_096416_obama-hillary

Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 26, 2016:

‘How is this not classified?”

So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself  had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.

In fact, in any other case — i.e., in a case that involved any other unindicted co-conspirator — it would be the Justice Department itself introducing the Obama-Clinton e-mails into evidence.

As noted above, the FBI told Huma Abedin that the name she did not recognize in the e-mail with Clinton was an Obama alias. For the agents to do this ran afoul of investigative protocols. The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.

But of course, that’s only a problem if there is actually going to be a case.

In this instance, it was never going to happen. The president’s involvement guaranteed that . . . so why worry about letting Abedin in on the president’s involvement?

Abedin was startled by this revelation. No wonder: People in her lofty position know that direct presidential communications with high-ranking officials who have national-security and foreign-policy responsibilities are presumptively classified.

To convey this, and thus convey the legal significance of Obama’s involvement, I can’t much improve on what I told you back in February. When the Obama Justice Department prosecuted retired general David Petraeus, the former CIA director, for mishandling classified information, government attorneys emphasized that this top-secret intelligence included notes of Petraeus’s “discussions with the president of the United States of America.”

Petraeus pled guilty because he knew the case against him was a slam-dunk. He grasped that trying to defend himself by sputtering, Clinton-style, that “the notes were not marked classified” would not pass the laugh test. As I elaborated in the February column, when you’re a national-security official engaging in and making a written record of policy and strategy conversations with the president, the lack of classified markings on the documents you’ve created

[does] not alter the obvious fact that the information they contain [is] classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.

Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526. As I’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama issued this directive: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the damage to national security that disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.

Abedin knew, as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories. They were born classified. As I said in February, this fact would profoundly embarrass Obama if the e-mails were publicly disclosed.

Hundreds of times, despite Clinton’s indignant insistence that she never sent or received classified information, the State Department has had to concede that her e-mails must be redacted or withheld from public disclosure because they contain information that is patently classified. But this is not a concession the administration is willing to make regarding Obama’s e-mails.

That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton.

Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security. It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels.

This is also why the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton. In his public statements about Clinton, Obama has stressed that she is an exemplary public servant who would never intentionally harm the United States. In rationalizing their decision not to indict Clinton, Justice Department officials (in leaks to the Washington Post) and the FBI director (in his press conference and congressional testimony) similarly stressed the lack of proof that she intended to harm the United States.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, however, the operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States. It merely requires proof of gross negligence. This is entirely lawful and appropriate, since we’re talking about a law that can apply only to government officials who have a special duty to preserve secrecy and who have been schooled in the proper handling of classified information. Yet the Justice Department frivolously suggested that applying the law exactly the way it is written — something the Justice Department routinely tells judges they must do — would, in Clinton’s case, potentially raise constitutional problems.

Alas, the Justice Department and the FBI have to take that indefensible position here. Otherwise, Clinton would not be the only one in legal jeopardy.

I will end with what I said eight months ago:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Washington State Mall Shooter Captured: 20-Year Old Arcan Cetin; Authorities Begin Identifying Victims

arcan-cetin-in-custody-sized-770x415xt

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Sept. 24, 2016:

Last night I reported on a mall shooting in Burlington, Washington, about 65 miles north of Seattle. Washington State Patrol said at a 2:30am ET press conference that four female victims were killed inside the Macy’s at Cascade Mall. Earlier today they announced that a fifth victim had also died while the killer was still at large.

Then earlier this evening reports began to trickle out that the unknown suspect had been apprehended in Oak Harbor, Washington, about 30 miles away from Burlington.

Police have confirmed that the suspected killer is 20-year-old Arcan Cetin.

Read more

You Can Be Jason Falconer

Target practice at a shooting range in Marlboro, Md. (Reuters photo: Yuri Gripas)

Target practice at a shooting range in Marlboro, Md. (Reuters photo: Yuri Gripas)

You have control over whether you’re trained to protect yourself and those around you.

Natonal Review, by David French, Sept. 21, 2016:

The silver lining — the only silver lining — of the modern season of jihadist violence is the fact that each and every jihadist attack reveals that there are Americans of unusual courage. Sometimes, when they don’t have the means to protect themselves, even the most extreme acts of bravery don’t stop an attack. In San Bernardino, for example, three unnamed, unarmed men rushed the two heavily armed attackers but were cut down.

But in St. Cloud, Minn., the tables were turned. A jihadist on a knife rampage encountered a part-time, off-duty police officer, and the outcome was very, very different. The officer killed the terrorist and saved lives. But to call Jason Falconer a mere “part-time cop” is to do him a grave injustice. To use the proper sociological phrase, let’s just say that the dude is a boss.

Falconer is a former police chief and the current owner of Tactical Advantage, a gun range, gun shop, gunsmith, and training facility. He’s a personal-security trainer, an award-winning competitive shooter, and a three-gun shooter. To get a sense of three-gun, this Keanu Reeves video (yes, Keanu Reeves) is a fair representation:

In other words, Falconer wasn’t just in the right place at the right time, he was the right person. And here’s the key point: You can be the right person. You can be Jason Falconer. In most communities in this country, you can not only own and carry a weapon for personal defense, you can also receive comprehensive training. You have virtually no control over whether you’re at the right place at the right time, but you do have control over whether you’re the right person.

As I type this piece, my wife, Nancy, is getting ready for her latest class at Agape Tactical, a security firm in Franklin, Tenn. After a series of threats (isn’t 2016 wonderful?), she’s not only obtained her carry permit, she’s training extensively (and writing about it) and is finishing her “tactical level 2” course today. She’s training in firing on the move, drawing quickly from a holster, shooting even when grabbed from behind, shooting from her knees, shooting from the prone position, the difference between cover and concealment, and shooting while minimizing personal exposure.

It’s not enough to get a carry permit and fire away at a gun range every now and again. To be the right person — the kind of person who can and should react when lives are on the line — takes training and practice. And this training is available — better training, even, than many law-enforcement officers receive.

Lest anyone think this kind of training is a burden, or a sad concession to a broken and dangerous world, it is both challenging and enjoyable. The bonus is the people. Spend much time around the world of trainers and serious gun owners, and you’ll spend time with some of America’s best. American “gun culture” ultimately isn’t about weapons, it’s about the people. You’ll meet former (and current) cops, former soldiers, competitive shooters, and a whole host of others who’ve made a fundamental decision, to take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families. I’ve linked this before, but it’s too good not to link again. They choose to be the sheepdogs, not the sheep:

Just before she left for her class, Nancy said: “This is the first terrorist attack when I didn’t say to myself, ‘I should be doing more to protect myself and our family.’ I’m doing what I should do.” This has nothing to do with fear or panic. It has everything to do with responsibility and vigilance. It’s about living with humble confidence. None of us knows how we’ll react until the moment of crisis, but we can certainly prepare to react the right way.

Years ago, Jason Falconer made his decision — to protect. I don’t know how he feels today. Taking a human life is an act of extraordinary weight. Even when justified, some men struggle mightily with the aftermath. Others can drive forward, firm in the conviction that they fulfilled their purpose and grateful that they had the courage to rise to the moment. I pray that Falconer can be at peace, that he knows he did what he had to do.

Of course we can’t all be just like Falconer. After all, he shoots and trains shooters for a living. But we can make the same fundamental choice. We can choose to protect.

— David French is a staff writer for National Review and an attorney.

Also see:

Taliban Activist Who Met With Clinton in Pakistan Promotes Hatred of Jews

orya-n-hillary
Sometimes hatred looks a lot like envy.
CounterJihad, by Shireen Qudosi, Sept. 20, 2016:
In a little-known diplomatic mission to Pakistan, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with a vocal Taliban supporter Orya Maqbool Jan, who has been caught on video bashing Jews and calling for the death penalty against those who blaspheme Islam.
Jan was part of an exclusive party that accompanied Clinton on a tour of Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan, during her three day Pakistan trip as secretary of state in 2009.  Though his radical statements are largely unknown in the West, his positions are well-known in his part of the world. 
Clinton’s appearance with him both endorsed his radical Islamism, which is linked to this last weekend’s attacks in New York and New Jersey, and also undercut her own message of female empowerment.  Jan is an outspoken opponent of Western-style rights for women, and has been harshly critical of Western women and those Pakistani women who seem to endorse their views.

In an uncut short documentary produced by Hoggard Films covering Clinton in Pakistan shows Orya and Clinton side-by-side as Clinton talks to the world about fighting extremism. She’s also seen here with Jan (at 38 seconds):

In newly-discovered video (available below with full translation) recorded at a mosque in Norway, the Pakistani Deobandi cleric can be heard spinning conspiracy theories about Jews and calling for the death penalty against those who blaspheme against Islam. The vocal Taliban supporter told his listeners that Jews, “control the world’s wealth and media.” Going even farther, Jan claimed the Jews are Gog and Magog. In Islamic tradition, Gog and Magog (called Yajuj and Majuj) are tribes of apocalyptic chaos and destruction.

The Clinton Connection

Jan met with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on one of her trips to Pakistan in 2009. While there, she promised the audience U.S. taxpayer funds, saying, “we want to help you with jobs, economic development, infrastructure, access to education, providing support to healthcare and improving energy supply.”

Stateside, the trip was hailed as a success by a scripted media. TIME Magazine ran a Clinton-approved piece, originally titled “Hillary’s Moment: Clinton Faces the World.” The piece painted Hillary as “allowing herself to be hammered by tough questions,” in landscapeperpetually skeptical of American interests. It was an iconic moment for Clinton who questioned Pakistani intelligence’s quagmire on the location of Osama bin Laden. At least, it was aniconic moment for Americans. The rest of the world would see it differently.

Standing outside of Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Hillary Clinton gave a public statement on American resolve in the fight against radical Islam – while flanked by Orya Maqbool Jan, a notorious fundamentalist, a Taliban supporter, and a well-known oppressor of women’s rights. Jan believes:

According to Wikileaks release of Clinton emails, Jan’s presence alongside Clinton was organized by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Huma Abedin, a top aide of Clinton’s who travelled to Pakistan earlier to arrange details and welcome Clinton to her home country.

Clinton’s Credibility Problem

American taxpayers shelled out hard-earned money for a State Department-sanctioned trip halfway around the world.  Hillary Clinton used it to stand next to one of the most notorious supporters of Islamism in Pakistan – to then talk about combating extremism.

America has a credibility problem because it has a leadership problem. That leadership, under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was incompetent in screening for Islamists. The State Department could not be reached for a comment requesting clarification on why a known Taliban supporter would be allowed to stand by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while as she discusses taking a hard stance against extremists. Multiple requests for answers were ignored.

Also ignored are the minority voices in Pakistan that stand up to extremism – the very minority voices Clinton attempted to reach through the 2009 delegation to Pakistan and the launch oftechnology initiatives to boost intra-communication. Seeing Clinton speak about extremism while seeing Orya striding next to her – one of the most recognizable faces of oppression – is as clear signal to Pakistani critical thinkers that America (1) doesn’t understand the face of extremism and/or (2) America is disingenuous in their efforts to combat extremists. That is the real message Clinton got across.

And that is the message Americans at home are beginning to understand as well.

What is that mindset immigrants who do not assimilate bring with them when they cross the threshold to America?  Will it not be the same unrelenting Islamic supremacist culture?  The same is true for foreign dignitaries, media personalities, and refugees.  Clinton hasproven she does not understand the dangers of allowing this world view to pass into the West.

New York Bomb Suspect Radicalized Next Door to Orya Maqbool Jan

On Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 28-year-old U.S. citizen of Afghan origin, Ahmad Khan Rahami launched a jihadi attack in New Jersey and New York at injured 29 people. Rahami acted independently under the global insurgency instructions of former ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. However, Rahami is part of a greater mindset that stands in staunch opposition to Western values. Investigators are speculating Rahami was radicalized in Quetta, Pakistan, a known stronghold for Pakistani Taliban – and the same small territory where Orya Maqbool Jan is from.

Among the issues of immigration and assimilation, the most recent attack on U.S. soil raises a greater question of Clinton’s capability in leading the greatest war of the 21st century.

How can Hillary Clinton lead this war while giving press conferences attacking the immigrant connection when the last three attacks on U.S. soil have been directly immigrant related: San Bernardino, Orlando, and now New York?

How can Hillary Clinton advocate American values, American interests, or champion women’s rights when she’s standing along one of the most vehement advocates of Islamic extremism – Orya Maqbool Jan?

Orya Maqbool Jan’s Inciteful Rhetoric the Real Hate Speech

Despite Clinton’s claim to champion freedom, she’s in knee-deep affiliation with extremists and Islamists. Her campaign’s attempt to slander truth has hate speech is in vile opposition to hard facts. The truth is that real hate speech is what community leaders and media personalities like Orya Maqbool Jan freely spew at home and abroad, telling us that immigration isn’t just about refugees but about the immigration of foreign and hostile ideas through visiting visas and digital spheres.

“No law or belief – not even universal human rights – is higher than the principles of our Holy Book,” Orya Maqbool Jan tells his audience in his native Urdu. “The only constitution Muslims should have is the Quran.”

Even in Norway, Jan’s Pakistani audience is conditioned to accept outlandish and unfounded conclusions because they’ve already found themselves agreeing wholeheartedly with a very familiar lament in the Muslim world, Pan-Islamism. After the failures of Arab nationalism and the Middle East’s flirtations with Marxism-Leninism, Pakistani thinkers like Mohammed Iqbal championed a return to identity based on the shared consciousness and history of Islam. This identity would be trans-national; its most common recurring theme is that, without Islam as a unifying force, Muslims are divided and selfish, unable to work together to achieve the ummah’s goals successfully.

The tones of victimization Orya takes are very similar to post WWI Germany, which produced a population ripe for attaching itself to anything that will help give it an insulated identity. That attachment and division was a necessary precursor to what happens next: hatred, exclusion and extermination.

There’s just no way to take what is being said for face value, especially if reading the translation alone. Urdu is a very poetic and emotive language that a translation alone cannot fully deliver. These emotions carry the listener from empathy for the Jews; to grievances of how Muslims were robbed by events of the 20th century; to contempt for current world leaders; to, finally, a climate where the world is stacked against Muslims, and the only inevitable path for true believers is to fight. The supremacist undertones that are ripe throughout don’t come from nationalism, but from religious dedication to the infallibility of the Quran.

Religious scholars like Orya Maqbook Jan rely on the West’s ignorance in understanding Islamic ideology. They also trust that sermons like this won’t be spread with a facilitated understanding of how problematic and hateful they are. Yet there are Pakistanis like myself and LUBPAK editor Ali Abbas Taj (who shared this video) who are pulling back the curtain. So while Pakistan continues its grievances against America and exploits visits with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an opportunity to ‘tell the world,’ behind the curtain there is a very dark picture of a rising threat that is ready to go to war against the world.

The threat isn’t limited to Pakistan, where Jan is given enough of a platform to stand side by side with Hillary Clinton during a State Department visit. He’s also given a green light to travel to the West and fill mosques with sermons designed to activate Muslims living abroad. As crafted in his speech, he uses history and religious verses to shame Muslims who possess national and foreign identities, who have built lives overseas. And without directly saying so, he tells them to give up that identity and embrace a ‘purist’ interpretation of Islam in preparation for the coming war that will rage against the world and its Jews.

Also see:

How Rep. Louie Gohmert exposed House leadership’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ bill on the House floor

Bill Clark | AP Photo

Bill Clark | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, Sept. 21, 2016:

It’s a sad day when conservatives have to expend all of their political capital preventing Republicans from making the Islamic terror problem worse rather than uniting to fight the willful blindness of the Left. Unfortunately, that is exactly what some conservatives had to do on the House floor yesterday.

We already know what the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, as the body closest to the people, does NOT do. It does not use the power of the purse or oversight to fight for the people on any gravely consequential issue in a meaningful way, such as refugees, immigration enforcement, Obamacare, Iran, etc. But what does it do with all that time in Washington?

If you answered “sitting on the ball and running out the clock,” you have correctly accounted for everything Republicans do in a given week.

Late yesterday afternoon, Republicans voted on a whopping 35 suspension votes. There are another 14 to come today. Suspension votes were designed for legitimately non-controversial issues, such as the naming of post offices, whereby the bill is brought to a vote with no committee action. These bills are subject to limited debate and win passage so long as they garner a two-thirds majority. Instead of using this procedural move as an exception to passing legislation, Republicans have been using the suspension calendar as the main course of their agenda; pushing banal or often liberal bills through without scrutiny. The practice itself is offensive because most congressional offices don’t have the time to analyze so many off-topic bills on a variety of issues. Moreover, Republicans chastised the Pelosi Congress for spending most of their time on vanity issues instead of addressing the core problems with our economy and security.

Initially, House leadership planned to ram these bills through by voice vote. Doing so would not have required a recorded vote. While some of the bills covered the naming of post offices, others created new programs and should have required scrutiny and input from the membership. One bill, for example, mandated that all public bathrooms have change tables for babies. Another bill expanded Medicaid programs, even though we already spend $365 billion on this behemoth which does nothing for upward mobility, but rather perpetuates a need for its own existence. To protest this action, Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas (A, 96%), Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. (A, 91%), Justin Amash, R-Mich. (A, 96%), and several others stood on the floor throughout the day to demand roll call votes.

But one bill, which was rigorously protested by Gohmert, deserves a special mention. As part of House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul’s, R-Texas (F, 58%) obsession with throwing money at the jihad problem instead of addressing the willful blindness at a policy level, he sponsored a suspension bill (H.R. 5859) to create a new $195 million counterterrorism grant program. DHS already spends $1.6 billion on wasteful programs to train local law enforcement, but as we’ve noted before, much of those funds actually exacerbate the problem because they go towards “Countering Violent Extremism” programs. They literally empower the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups to train local law enforcement in Islamophobia instead of spotting jihadists.

Facing criticism for previous CVE bills, McCaul got smart and took out all references to CVE. Supporters of the bill claim that the money will go directly to law enforcement and does not involve CVE. The problem is that the bill still requires applicants to develop a plan to “work with community partners, ”which, in this sphere of work — especially under the current DHS —  is heavily influenced by groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Furthermore, why are Republicans acting like Democrats and throwing money at a policy problem? It’s like responding to a raging fire with a hose of coins instead of a hose full of water. It’s like Democrats spending $1.1 billion to fight Zika (when we already have unspent funds) and at the same time banning pesticides.

That we’ve brought in thousands of jihadists and that the FBI has allowed all of the recent terrorists to slip through their crosshairs is not the result of a lack of funding, it’s a result of willful blindness — the very willful blindness that is fostered by the groups that would be subcontracted under these programs. As Gohmert asked on the House floor, what is the purpose of throwing money at programs that train law enforcement to spot the Islamophobe instead of the jihadist?

Ironically, when McCaul called up the bill, he had Democrat Rep. Donald Payne Jr. D-N.J. (F, 16%) speak on the floor in favor of the bill because liberals support it. It’s an easy way not to talk about the real problem — CVE, the Muslim Brotherhood, mass migration and refugees, etc. In comes Louie Gohmert and claims time in opposition against “his own party” and absolutely demolishes the entire premise of the bill. It’s worth watching his full speech:

Gohmert made a simple demand: that if this bill is genuinely not about the CVE agenda, why not attach an amendment to prohibit any funding from being awarded to groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial?

The House will finish all of the roll call votes today (along with an additional 14 suspension votes) and will likely pass this bill with overwhelming support. Senate conservatives would be wise to put a hold on this bill and refuse to fast-track it to the Senate floor unless the limiting rider is placed in the bill.

In many respects, the activity on the House floor yesterday afternoon embodies the divide within the party. Mainline Republicans refuse to confront Democrats on important issues, spending most of their time with banal and liberal bills that offer the palest of pale pastel differences between the parties. Meanwhile, conservatives like Gohmert and Huelskamp fight the lonely battles for We the People.

The 3 flaws in Rep. McCaul’s plan to secure the homeland

Carolina K. Smith MD | Shutterstock

Carolina K. Smith MD | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz and Nate Madden, Sept. 21, 2016:

It’s impossible to craft a solution to a security threat when policy-makers refuse to identify the nature of the threat, its source, and its threat doctrine. Given that Democrats refuse to even recognize any correlation between any form of Islam and Jihad, their policies reflect a perfectly consistent and unvarnished willful blindness of the modern jihadist threat. In releasing the House GOP’s plan to combat Islamic terror, however, Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas. (F, 58%) exhibits the same systemic misdiagnosis of the problem, albeit one that is a step or two closer to the truth than the Democrats.

Yesterday, Chairman McCaul unveiled “A National Strategy to Win the War against Islamist Terror.” While the plan at least references Islamic terror as the key threat and very broadly and generally outlines worthy end-goals, the overarching outline has two fatal flaws.

  • It still refuses to name names when it comes to specific threats and;
  • The overall policy objectives, strategies, and suggestions, are overly general, almost vacuous, and obfuscate the true common sense path forward screaming out for much-needed attention from our political leaders.

This all stems from McCaul’s refusal to identify the specific threat of mass Sharia-adherent immigration, unreformed-Islam in general, and the fifth column that operates within this country to ensure that Muslim communities become disenchanted with America’s constitutional system of government.

The introduction sets the tone for the entire policy paper. McCaul asserts that “Islamist terrorists have perverted a major religion into a hateful worldview, and while most Muslims do not share their beliefs, their influence is spreading like wildfire.” While this definitely sounds more refreshing than the Democrat refusal to mention Islam at all, it is still a factually troubled statement because it completely divorces the problem from anything inherent in the practice of the religion itself by those who strictly adhere to Sharia. That is not a small group of people perverting a religion and it’s not isolated to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. While ISIS’s successful propaganda campaign has definitely fanned the flames and provided Sharia-adherents with a fulfillment of the caliphate, the problem existed long before 2013 and will continue after the caliphate collapses.

McCaul continues down this false narrative of divorcing “terrorists” (the scary network people abroad) from the general population of Sharia-supporting Muslims already living in America or those who seek to immigrate: “Terrorists are trying to send operatives to our shores and radicalize new ones in U.S. communities.”

Once again, McCaul believes that the threat is limited to potential infiltration of known terror networks into immigrant or native Muslim populations, completely disregarding the inherent threat of large populations of Sharia-adherents clustered together in the West. It’s as if McCaul can’t find Europe on a map.

Moreover, McCaul completely ignores the fact that civilization jihad is being waged on our shores, within the government, and within our political class by the Muslim Brotherhood to radicalize Muslim communities and marginalize reformists. They don’t need to send operatives to our shores when Hamas fundraisers are already here, obtaining security clearances and downright training our law enforcement in “counter terrorism.”

While this is not the bold Hillary/Obama form of willful blindness, it presents us with Bush 2.0, a woefully inadequate approach – especially after eight years of Obama’s malfeasance.

The willful blindness in identifying the threat and its doctrine manifests in many of the polices laid out by the report:

Immigration/Refugees

McCaul’s report speaks of the need for better “vetting” of immigrants. He even mentions researching an applicant’s social media posting to see if they have pledged support to a terror group. But foundationally, he has no inherent problem with the record-high immigration from the Middle East. While this approach is one step ahead of the Obama blindness, in which applicants have a right to “privacy” from DHS officials investigating their social media activity, it misses the point. This is not merely about vetting for known individual terrorists or those espousing support for terrorist networks. This is about those who subscribe to the ideology that cultivates the climate of homegrown terror in the family, neighborhood, and community.

Take the case of Somali immigration, for example. We have admitted well over 100,000 Somali refugees over the past two decades — in contravention to America’s national interests on any level. Dozens from the Minneapolis community have been charged with terrorism-related activities, and statements from the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota indicate that there is a culture that runs much deeper than those numbers suggest. Was this something we could have weeded out through “vetting” 15-25 years ago? Perhaps in a few cases. But for the most part, this is a cumulative problem inherent in mass migration from dangerous Islamic countries.

This is the enduring lesson from the jihadists of Boston, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, and the pair of Somali and Afghani immigrants who perpetrated attacks this past weekend. Typically, the parents will not engage in terrorism. Nonetheless, they cluster in communities that adhere to Sharia and are educated through Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. The attackers in each of these cases were the second generation; the children brought to America by their parents or born on American soil. McCaul’s plan to look myopically for connections or allegiance to a specific terror group might save a few more lives than under the Obama Administration, but it fails to identify the core of the problem and the enduring lessons from Europe.

Prison jihadism

To its credit, the report rightly warns that our prisons have become veritable jihadist breeding grounds, but it declines to name the biggest contributor to that reality. “As the number of convicted homegrown terrorists grows, so does the risk that our prisons will become wellsprings of fanaticism,” it reads. The report continues,

The federal government must examine non-governmental rehabilitation options for convicted terrorists to prevent more individuals from entering the prison system primed to spread their hateful ideology. The Bureau of Prisons should also take steps to combat prison radicalization, including proactively monitoring known extremists and putting measures in place to prevent them from inspiring fellow inmates to embrace terror.

One can only hope the federal government would be watching for groups with ties to organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. Or how about the Islamic Society of North America, which was found on a list of Chaplaincy Endorsers provided by the federal government earlier this year. However, without making that clear, we cannot expect the federal government to do just that.

Thirteen years ago, the FBI arrested Abdurahman Alamoudi,the man responsible for establishing the entire Muslim chaplaincy program within the Bureau of Prisons, for funding Al Qaeda. In 2003, Chuck Schumer railed against the Bush administration for doing nothing to investigate all the people Alamoudi appointed (more on this from Ben Weingarten’s article yesterday). What is McCaul doing to this very day to go after the Muslim Brotherhood in the chaplaincy?

Terrorist travel

Here, again, the report confronts us with a premise that, as a baseline, nobody can find much fault. However, in doing so, the report muddles the details. It rightly states that jihadists leaving the United States to visit high-risk countries is a massive security concern, but says very little substantively to directly confront the problem. Perhaps the worst part of the report is that it calls on the Obama administration — which did a phenomenal job of enlisting Muslim Brotherhood affiliates for its ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ program — to develop a plan to stop jihadists from re-entering the United States. It says nothing of the plans already before Congress, like the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would strip the citizenship of anyone who leaves to train with a foreign terror organization.

Instead, it says, “The White House should produce a strategy to combat terrorist travel and to prevent Americans from leaving to join terrorist organizations.” This is nothing short of laughable, given Obama’s track record.

Conclusion

McCaul is absolutely correct to observe that, fifteen years after 9/11, our counterterrorism policies have failed miserably. But they have failed because we didn’t accurately identify the threat confronting us, and that willful blindness did not begin with the Obama administration. Until political correctness is put aside and the threat is accurately identified, policymakers will continue missing the target with their solutions. This isn’t to say that it’s completely errant, however. Make no mistake, while McCaul’s proposals are far closer to the mark than anything we’ve seen from the Obama Administration thus far, they’re just far enough off of it to still be dangerous. And given McCaul’s prominent role in advising Donald Trump on homeland security, that should concern everyone who wants a bold change in direction.

London Counterterrorism Officer Quits Over Double Standard For Muslims

shutterstock_319837088

Political correctness causes London police to protect Muslim extremists within their ranks and discount reports of crimes they’ve committed, says former counterterrorism officer Javaria Saaed.

The Spectator, by M. G. Oprea, Sept. 19, 2016:

When Javaria Saaed, a member of the counterterrorism division at Scotland Yard, reported extremist behavior and comments from fellow Muslim officers, she expected her concerns to be taken seriously. Several Muslims in the London police force were expressing views consistent with extremist interpretations of Islam, something she assumed would interest her superiors. But she was wrong. She hadn’t counted on the double standard applied to Muslims in the West, or government officials’ intense fear of being labeled Islamaphobic.

According to Saeed, herself a practicing Muslim, a Muslim constable told her that female genital mutilation—a sickening practice that has been outlawed in Britain since 1985—ought to be legal. Another said women should report domestic violence to sharia courts instead of police (except in cases of extreme violence). Yet another Muslim officer said that what Pakistan needs is a “strict religious solution… like the Taliban” to resolve its security problems.

Political Correctness Creates Massive Injustices

Naturally concerned about these radical comments from law enforcement officials, Saeed reported them to her superiors. They told her she shouldn’t pursue any complaints about the beliefs or comments of these Muslim officers because it would hurt her “career progression and tarnish [her] reputation.”

In Saeed’s opinion, her superiors were afraid to punish Muslims in their departments out of fear of being called Islamaphobic or racist. Based on their comments about her career, it seems this fear runs up the chain of command. Eventually, Saeed resigned over what she saw as Scotland Yard’s “political correctness” and the “sickening views and behaviour of some Muslim officers.”

This isn’t the first time Britain has turned a blind eye to actions within the Muslim community for fear of accusations of bigotry. In the English city of Rotherham, city officials, police, and social workers looked the other way for decades while a child sex ring groomed and prostituted more than 1,400 young white girls and women. Why? Because the men running the ring were of Pakistani descent, and no one wanted to be accused of racism for prosecuting them. The horrifying story broke in 2014 and received tremendous attention, but recently it was revealed that the problem persists.

The situation with Scotland Yard, in addition to the Rotherham scandal, points to the double standard applied to Muslims in the West, who get away with behavior that would otherwise be considered offensive or inappropriate—or criminal.

Saeed claims Muslim officers working for London’s Metropolitan Police were often racist toward white officers. But few people take seriously the claim that a minority can be racist against a non-minority. What’s often called “reverse racism” is dismissed as being racist itself. The conversation, it would seem, is closed on this issue. Only whites can be racist. If minorities have negative views of whites, it must be because of their history of oppression.

The Double Standard for Muslims in the West

Saeed also reported that many of her fellow Muslim officers were sexist toward women. They called her a “bad Muslim” because she didn’t wear a head covering, a common practice for Muslim women that’s considered a sign of purity and propriety. She was also told that she was “better off at home looking after [her] husband.”

Compare this to how sensitive we are in the West to even the slightest whiff of sexism in the workplace. We’ve taken the real need to protect women from sexual harassment and turned it into a witch-hunt of sorts, so all a woman has to do is feel uncomfortable, with little producible proof or discrimination, and the man in question is assumed guilty. Yet a Muslim police officer can come out and tell a woman how to dress and that she ought not to be working at all, and face no consequences.

Imagine the outrage if Christians went around telling women they belong at home, not in the workplace. But a Muslim man’s view that a woman should live like a 1940s American housewife, something that today is anathema in the West, is just accepted as part of his culture?

Or take attitudes toward homosexuality. An American baker who won’t design a special-order cake for a gay wedding has his life turned upside down and is painted as the worst kind of bigot. Meanwhile, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid talking about homophobia in Islam in the wake of the Orlando shooting in a gay night club, which a Muslim carried out in the name of ISIS.

As Saeed herself pointed out, if a white officer had behaved as her Muslim co-workers had, he would have most definitely been fired. Instead, Scotland Yard gave the officer who made the comment about female genital mutilation “management action,” which usually means some type of training course. It’s no wonder Saeed describes some Muslim officers as feeling like they’re above the law. They essentially are.

Lately there’s been much talk about tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe and America, especially during the ongoing migrant crisis. Many in the West have decided the solution is to carve out special exceptions for Muslims and treat them with kid gloves.

This is wrong-headed and condescending. The best hope Europe and the United States has for peaceably co-existing with Muslims and inviting them to participate in our society is to hold them to the very same standards to which we hold everyone else. They deserve that much from us.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

NY Suspect’s Mosque Linked to Subversive Islamist Group

New Yorkers run away from the site of the bombing in the Chelsea meighborhood in Manhattan (Photo: CCTV footage)

New Yorkers run away from the site of the bombing in the Chelsea meighborhood in Manhattan (Photo: CCTV footage)

If we want to learn where Rahami got his seditious Islamist ideology, a good place to start is his mosque that is linked to ICNA, a seditious Islamist group.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Sept. 20, 2016:

A family friend of Ahmad Khan Rahami, the alleged perpetrator of the bombings in N.Y. and N.J., says Rahami attended the Muslim Community of New Jersey mosque and was there two weeks ago, but his overall attendance was “inconsistent.” The imam of the mosque is an official with an Islamist group named the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

The Muslim Community of New Jersey mosque, which has condemned Rahami’s terrorist attacks, lists its imam and religious affairs director as Asif Hirani.

Hirani is also an official with ICNA, serving as the program manager for its proselytizing campaign known as “WhyIslam” and an instructor for a branch of ICNA known as the Islamic Learning Foundation.

ICNA was derived from a Southeast Asian Islamist party called Jamaat-e-Islami. You can read our more comprehensive profile of ICNA here.

There is no indication that ICNA or Hirani support or approve of ISIS and Rahami’s bombings, but a 300-page teaching guide made by ICNA tells ICNA supporters that it is based on the work of some of the pioneers of the Islamist extremist movements, including Hamas financier Yousef Al-Qaradawi.

The Clarion Project wrote about the teaching guide in 2014. It is full of disturbing quotes about jihad, defeating the West, “reinstating the Caliphate system,” establishing theocratic sharia law, deceptioninfiltrating the political system and following an incremental strategy of gradualism towards these ends.

ICNA’s 2010 member’s handbook similarly outlines a five-tiered strategy towards achieving a “united Islamic state, governed by an elected khalifah (caliph) in accordance with the laws of Sharia (Islamic law).” The five tiers are individual, family, society, state and global, the last of which entails establishing alliances “towards the establishment of the Khilafah [caliphate].”

If you teach Muslims that Allah requires you to strive towards building an Islamic State, it is not surprising that they would want to join the Islamic State. If you tell Muslims that it is obligatory to resurrect the caliphate, with violent jihad as a permissible option, won’t they be enthralled by an organization that appears to achieve that?

ICNA does condemn ISIS but even its declaration against ISIS endorses its basic concepts, which is why the declaration’s signatories include theocratic jihadists. It isn’t a truly peaceful and democratic declaration like the one published by the Muslim Reform Movement.

As for Hirani himself, he does preach against Islamic extremism, using that exact terminology. In one sermon, he laments talking to a youth who asked his parents about whether ISIS is following the Quran and his father only said not to talk about the world’s most famous terrorist group.

Hirani urged a more proactive approach, saying:

“Usually when I see speakers speaking about these topics, whether they are religious people or secular people, Muslim or non-Muslim, they will exaggerate. They will exaggerate Islamic extremism and they will forget the Islamophobia or they will say the other side of the picture. Some people will mention Islamophobia-Islamophobia, but they will not condemn what’s going on in the name of Islam, [unintelligible], Islamic extremism.”

Of course statements like these are welcome—but ICNA’s affiliation with the Rahami’s mosque through Imam Hirani remains just as relevant. The threat isn’t limited to ISIS (a specific group) or suicide bombings (a particular tactic) but the broader Islamist ideology.

If we want to learn where Rahami got his seditious Islamist ideology, a good place to start is his mosque that is linked to a seditious Islamist group.

Forget the Economy—It’s the Jihad, Stupid!

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (R) and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (2-R) look over a mangled dumpster while touring the site of an explosion that occurred on Saturday night in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York, USA, September18, 2016. (Photo and caption: REUTERS/Justin Lane/Pool.)

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (R) and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (2-R) look over a mangled dumpster while touring the site of an explosion that occurred on Saturday night in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York, USA, September18, 2016. (Photo and caption: REUTERS/Justin Lane/Pool.)

PJ Media, by Roger L. Simon, Sept. 19, 2016:

In presidential elections,  traditionally it’s the economy, stupid.  But if there’s one thing that trumps the economy, it’s whether you live or die.  And as events play out in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota (not to mention Iran, Syria, Libya, etc., etc.), it seems more than ever that for 2016—it’s the jihad, stupid.

There’s little question the Obama administration has done an horrendous job dealing with Islamic terrorism.  The rise of ISIS is significantly on the president’s hands, not just because he inanely called the mega-terrorists a JV team, but because his failure to keep sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq gave the Islamic State the opportunity to grow and thrive.

The success of the Islamic State has given rise to a worldwide epidemic of so-called “lone wolves” who aren’t really alone, but local players (sometimes banded together) who take their inspiration from ISIS. They don’t care whether the Islamic State is controlling Mosul or even Raqqa. They care about jihad. And there seem to be more of them every day, in all corners of the world.

As I write this, five men have been taken into custody near the Verrazano Bridge. Are they jihadists?  I don’t know, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Meanwhile, after Saturday’s IED explosion on 23rd Street and the near tragedy at a Marine charity run in Seaside Park, New Jersey, more pipe bombs have been found near the train station in Elizabeth, New Jersey. (Are there pipe bombs everywhere now?)

By all rights Hillary Clinton, an obvious principal in the development of this ongoing disaster, should have no chance at the presidency in a rational world. But an extraordinarily biased and morally narcissistic media, unable to face their own inadequacies or change a narrative seemingly set in stone, apparently will do anything to see her elected.

Coming soon is an electoral showdown the likes of which we have never seen—and it will largely be over how our country handles the jihad. Do we want to live like this for the rest of our lives? Do we want ongoing terror attacks, large and small, to be the new normal for us, our children and our children’s children?

The time has come to take a serious look at Donald Trump’s “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants.  So far it is the only proposal that would have much of effect on the status quo. I haven’t seen a single other suggestion of much relevance, especially since there is little appetite for a full-scale war in the Middle East.  You can “see something, say something” until you’re blue in the face, but there’s no way everything can be caught.

Unfortunately, “extreme vetting” is, as we are constantly reminded by that same media, a form of discrimination against Muslims. The problem is, allowing a free flow of immigration, or anything close, is discrimination against everyone else.

I could fill the rest of this page and a half-dozen more with all the nationalities and religions that are not waging jihad. There is only one that is.

Until that ends, they must be stopped. We simply have no other choice. Otherwise we will be like Europe before we know it—and the European situation has become almost untenable.  We may already be untenable ourselves. The sad events in St. Cloud attest to the great resistance their Somali community has to assimilating. We cannot have more of this. We must shut it down before it overwhelms us.

To say that is not Islamophobia. It is reality.  We will actually benefit the Islamic world by closing our borders to their immigrants. Give them an escape-valve and they will remain forever as they are, adrift in the modern world, destroying each other.

If you want an actual definition of “Islamophobia,” this is the best one I’ve seen: “A word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.” Most of those cowards are in our media and the academy.  They are our adversaries in election 2016.  The battle is about to be joined.

Roger L. Simon is a prize-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media.  His most recent book is—I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already.

Impervious Hubris: How U.S. Intelligence Failures Led to ISIS

michael-scheuer-sized-770x415xcMEF, by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media
September 15, 2016

Over a decade after U.S. leadership declared a “war on terror,” all it has to show for it is the creation of the Islamic State—an Islamic body that has taken terror and atrocities to a whole new level.

How did this happen?

A key factor often overlooked is the intelligence community’s failures concerning what fuels the jihadis.

Consider Michael Scheuer, author of the 2004 national bestsellerImperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. Scheuer’s credentials as described in that book are impressive: “For the past seventeen years, my career has focused exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam… I have earned my keep and am able to speak with some authority and confidence about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, [and] the dangers they pose and symbolize for the Unites States…” Indeed, Scheuer also served as senior adviser for the Osama Bin Laden Department of the CIA and chief of the Sunni Militant Unit.

15 years after 9/11, all we have to show for the ‘war on terror’ is the creation of the Islamic State.

The fundamental thesis of his book was that al-Qaeda’s terrorism is a reaction to U.S. foreign policies: “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world,” wrote Scheuer.

As proof, he regularly quoted bin Laden’s messages to the West, which did in fact validate Scheuer’s assessment. He went on to compare bin Laden, that jihadi terrorist, to heroes like Robin Hood and even Saint Francis of Assisi, and concluded that al-Qaeda’s war revolves around “love”:

Bin Laden and most militant Islamists, therefore, can be said to be motivated by their love for Allah and their hatred for a few, specific, U.S. policies and actions they believe are damaging—and threatening to destroy—the things they love. Theirs is a war against a specific target, and for specific, limited purposes. While they will use whatever weapon comes to hand—including weapons of mass destruction—their goal is not to wipe out our secular democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al are not eternal warriors.

American liberals, academics, politically correct media, politicians, and government—in a word, the establishment—willingly embraced and regurgitated this Muslim grievance thesis which, while not original to Scheuer, certainly received a boost thanks to his book.

American academics, media, and politicians, have embraced the Muslim grievance thesis.

It was in this context that I sought to translate al-Qaeda’s Arabic writings that I discovered in 2004 while working at the Library of Congress. As opposed to the carefully crafted communiques al-Qaeda was sending to the West—which were presented without context and accepted hook, line, and sinker by many so-called “experts”—these arcane writings were directed to fellow Muslims. They made perfectly clear al-Qaeda’s ultimate motive in attacking the West: Islam’s commands for Muslims to hate and subjugate the non-Muslim, or “infidel.”

Here’s a sampling of what bin Laden was writing to fellow Muslims, even as he was duping Western analysts with talk of “grievances”:

As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone.” So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, portraying their violence as a product of “grievances”]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Bin Laden also asked and answered the pivotal question:

Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.

How does one square such clear assertions with Scheuer’s claims that “None of the reasons [for al-Qaeda’s antipathy] have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy”? I raised this question in a 2008 article criticizing Scheuer’s claims about al-Qaeda’s motivations.

In response, Scheuer lashed out in the comments section of the article (see my full response to himhere). Instead of acknowledging that al-Qaeda’s own words damned his thesis, the man who insisted Islamic terrorism was a product of “imperial hubris” exhibited a sort of impervious hubris—impervious to facts and reality, that is. He sarcastically wrote:

Mr. Ibrahim’s Al Qaeda Reader is an excellent example of what passes for solid analysis and intellectual honesty among Neo-conservatives…. In this highly selective collection, Mr. Ibrahim picks and chooses from the enormous corpus of writings, statements, and interviews by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to produce a slim volume which he claims will once and for all prove that Al Qaeda and its allies are bent on imposing a worldwide Caliphate to be governed by what the Necons are pleased to call Islamo-fascism… [T]he book deliberately misleads an America public…

For the record, my “slim volume” is 320 pages long. As for it being a “highly selective collection,” the book is actually the most balanced of its kind, as it presents al-Qaeda’s releases to the West and its exhortations to its Muslim followers. For example, whereas Bruce Lawrence’s Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (2005), complemented Scheuer’s grievance paradigm by only presenting al-Qaeda’s propaganda communiques to the West, The Al Qaeda Readerjuxtaposes both the terrorist group’s doctrinal writings to fellow Muslims (as quoted above) and its grievance claims to the West, giving the reader a more complete picture.

At any rate, now, a decade later, the “why do they hate us” question has been settled by those best positioned to settle it: the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda 2.0. In a recent article titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the Islamic State gives six reasons. Reason number one says it all:

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone'” (Al-Mumtahanah 4 [i.e., Koran 60:4, the same verse bin Laden quoted above]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option [“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims [per Koran 9:29].

It is only in reasons five and six that ISIS finally mentions “grievances” against Western foreign policies—only to quickly clarify:

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. […] The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis added].

It is this unrelenting hatred that many Westerners cannot comprehend; a hate that compels Muslim husbands to hate their non-Muslim wives and America’s “friends and allies,” such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to publish government sanctioned decrees openly proclaiming their hate for America, because it is not Islamic.

And it was always this hate that fueled al-Qaeda’s jihad—not grievances.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that in Scheuer’s response to me, he mocked the idea that the caliphate would be resurrected (which I had predicted) claiming that “the Islamists know that it is as unlikely to appear in their or their grandsons’ lifetimes as Christians know that a uniform world of turning-of-the-cheek or loving-thy-neighbor is at best light years over the horizon.” Likewise in Imperial Hubrishe wrote: “At this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad meant to conquer new lands for Islam and convert new peoples to the faith” (page 7).

Really? Tell that to the many non-Muslims and non-Sunnis—Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Shia—who have been enslaved, raped, slaughtered, burned and buried alive, as the caliphate expanded into their territories over the last couple of years.

Muslim hostility to the West is a product of Islamic teachings, not grievances.

All of this was enabled by the West’s embrace of the “grievance” theory, championed not created by the likes of Scheuer. It ran its course and was behind abysmal policies meant to pacify supposedly aggrieved Muslims—such as wholesale support for the “Arab Spring,” which saw the Obama administration turn its back on 30-year-long allies such as Egypt’s secular Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. The grievance theory is partially responsible for why, a decade after the U.S. started bringing “freedom and democracy” to this and that Muslim nation—Iraq, Egypt, Libya, ongoing in Syria—specifically by ousting secular dictators long experienced at suppressing jihadis, all that the most powerful and freedom loving nation in the world has to show for it is the creation of the Islamic State.

Even so, the impervious hubris continues. Instead of accepting the hard facts—Islamic hostility is a product of Islamic teachings—the Obama administration, including the CIA, continue invoking the “grievance” and related memes concerning ISIS. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clintonsaid that it’s important to be “showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view,” that is, empathize with their grievances?

Clinton said this at Georgetown University, which is fitting. For, you may ask, where is Michael Scheuer now—this man who didn’t have to wait till our “grandsons’ lifetimes” to see just how much he got wrong? He’s where all who excel at denying Islam has any connection to violence for the other: teaching a future generation of “terrorism experts” at Georgetown University.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Internet Group ICANN Boosted Member Who Transferred U.S. Technology to Iran

 (AP Photo/Tim Hales, File)

(AP Photo/Tim Hales, File)

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Sept.15, 2016:

The international organization the Obama administration is pushing to hand control over the internet to has provided official accreditation to people who have transferred technology to Iran, worked with North Korea, and ordered “murders-for-hire,” according to congressional testimony that raises questions about the organization’s practices.

Obama administration efforts to hand over control of America’s Internet to The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, an international coalition of 162 countries and entities, have sparked outrage on Capitol Hill, where critics allege the move would stifle the free flow of information.

Experts familiar with ICANN’s structure testified before Congress on Wednesday that the organization has failed to act in a transparent and accountable fashion, raising questions about how it would operate free from U.S. government oversight.

On multiple occasions, ICANN has provided official accreditation to people operating as an “arm of a criminal network,” including one person who pled guilty to transferring U.S. technology to Iran, according to testimony by John Horton, president and CEO of LegitScript, which works with international governments.

ICANN continues to provide legitimacy to these organizations despite mounting evidence they have engaged in illegal activity, according to Horton, who explained that these criminal sites “remain online because ICANN green-lighted the registrar’s refusal to investigate or take action.”

One of these outfits is ABSystems, a “rogue internet pharmacy network” that provided cover to its founder, Paul Le Roux, who has been dubbed the “most successful criminal mastermind you’ve never heard of.”

“In December 2013, Paul Le Roux pleaded guilty to crimes involving North Korean methamphetamine trafficking, the transfer of US technology to Iran, and several murders-for-hire,” according to Horton’s testimony, which was offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Mr. Le Roux, a Zimbabwean national … remains in US custody, pending sentencing.”

Le Roux financed his illegal endeavors “by operating as an ICANN-accredited domain name registrar, creating a rogue internet pharmacy network through his ability to register domain names unimpeded,” according to Horton.

Oversight failures on ICANN’s behalf led to Le Roux being accredited until at least 2013. However, “it wasn’t until 2016 that information about the link between Mr. Le Roux’s accreditation by ICANN as a registrar and his diversion of US technology to Iran, murders-for-hire, trafficking in North Korean methamphetamine, and arms smuggling [came] to light,” according to Horton.

Horton highlighted ICANN-accredited organizations across the globe that operate illegal black market pharmacies, including one that has been found to be operating as “part of a Russian cybercriminal network.”

These oversight failures just scratch the surface, according to Horton, who testified at a hearing led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who is leading an effort to stop the Obama administration from handing control of the Internet to ICANN.

Cruz is spearheading legislation that would block the Obama administration from spending any money on this effort. The bill is backed by at least 25 other senators.

One senior congressional source working on the matter told the Free Beacon that ICANN cannot be trusted to preserve internet freedom.

“Proponents of the transition want us to simply take their word that freedom on the Internet will be protected by ICANN, a multistakeholder organization consisting of 162 foreign countries, private corporations and other interests, because its bylaws prevent it from fleeing U.S. jurisdiction and are designed to prevent any one bad actor from gaining too much influence,” the source said.
“But bylaws can be changed, as was established during the hearing today,” the source explained. “Mr. Marby, CEO of ICANN himself, admitted ICANN is not subject to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Bylaws intended to prevent one bad actor from gaining influence can be changed to allow them greater influence. This is not the kind of organization the American people should feel confident in protecting their interests and protecting freedom on the Internet.”

***

15 Years Since 9/11, Is Al-Qaeda’s 20 Yr Plan Coming To Fruition?

9/11 from Brooklyn Bridge. (Photo: © Reuters)

9/11 from Brooklyn Bridge. (Photo: © Reuters)

How does the “War on Terror” look 15 years after the worst terrorist attack in American history? Al-Qaeda’s 20 year plan is scarily close to reality.

Clarion Project, by Elliot Friedland, Sept. 11, 2016:

Today marks 15 years since Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, murdering 2, 977 people. Since that day, in 2001, at least another 1,000 people have died from illnesses caused by exposure to debris from the failing towers.

Warning: This short clip shows the World Trade Center after it was hit:

A US-led NATO taskforce invaded Afghanistan shortly afterwards to remove the Taliban, and to find and capture Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is now dead, but Afghanistan is still at war. Al-Qaeda’s successor organization, the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL), has established a state of sorts across swathes of Syria and Iraq. Al-Qaeda itself is an active participant in Syria’s increasingly-complicated civil war.

Since the attack, efforts to defeat terrorism have been successful. Here are three things to bear in mind:

1-3With the collapse of the USSR, Islamism is the only ideological alternative to Western hegemony

Islamism is a comprehensive political system that offers a total ideological alternative to the mainstream Western consensus of democracies enforcing liberal values, backed by American hard power. Since international communism collapsed, those opposed to this system have been left without an ideological home.

This fact puts into perspective the close relationship between sections of the hard left, such as the UK’s Jeremy Corbyn or Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin, with totalitarian Islamists such as Hamas or insurgents fighting American forces in Iraq. Both Corbyn and Benjamin transitioned seamlessly from traditional left-wing and socialist/communist alignment to apologism for terrorist groups who were deemed to be oppressed, as part of a broader strategy of defiance against American and Western power.

In 2009, Corbyn called Hamas a force for “social good” and his “friends”, while Benjamin collected $600,000 in medical supplies and cash in 2004, to deliver to the families of terrorist insurgents fighting the US in Iraq.

Opposed to what they term “neo-liberalism” in principle, activists like these will seek out any allies opposed to it which, in the current era, means Islamist extremists, who have pretty much the only viable (if horrific) alternative ideology to Western neo-liberalism.

2-2Al-Qaeda Wanted to Provoke an Overreaction

As early as 2005, a book entitled This is How We See and Want Jihad was circulating showing Al-Qaeda’s twenty-year long game plan to defeat the West and establish an Islamic Caliphate. This was further illuminated by the groundbreaking work of Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussain. The plan has seven phases. The first phase, between 2000 and 2003, aimed to draw America into an intractable war against Muslims and thus “crown al-Qaeda as the leader of the nation.”

Later phases aimed to make the war intractable and thus gain support for Al-Qaeda while demoralizing the West, and toppling Arab regimes allied to America and Israel. The plan includes creating a jihadi army in Syria and Iraq, and drawing in funding and recruits from outside.

Once US power began to wane, after a decade of an expensive war of attrition, a Caliphate was to be declared at some point from 2013 to 2016. After 2016, the phase of “total war” would begin, waging attacks against Western targets around the world; the “beginning of the confrontation between faith and disbelief, which would begin in earnest after the establishment of the Islamic caliphate.”

Al-Qaeda and its successor the Islamic State seem remarkably on track with this plan, especially considering the turmoil engulfing the region. It is also very important to note that they see terrorism as a means of destabilizing the West to further the establishment of a Caliphate, rather than as an end in itself.

3-1Ideology is the Key to Victory

Bearing in mind the first two points, we see that Al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups see terrorism as a means to an end. To prevent another 9/11 from taking place, therefore, we have to tackle their end goal and show the world precisely how and why an Islamist caliphate is a bad idea.

When we can do that, young jihadis will not be motivated to sacrifice their lives in an attempt to establish this Caliphate, and idealistic activists will not make excuses for people fighting for these goals.

Such clarity is needed now more than ever because, 15 years after the tragic September 11th attacks, there is still no end in sight for the “War on Terror.”

Also see:

How Google’s Search Engines use faked results for social engineering

google_dont_evil_thumbDefending Free Speech Online, Sept.4, 2016:

What prompted me to write this is the result of a simple Google search for the word “Jihad”. Allow me to summarize the functionality of a Google search; how it is understood and intended to work.

While my knowledge comes from a variety of sources, it is in line with well-known public authority on the subject of Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Matt Cutts. He is an employee and (until recently) a spokesperson for both Google and its search engine, and now works for the Pentagon.

Google published an “overview” of how SEO works, but in a nutshell, Google searches for the freshest, most authoritative, easiest-to-display (desktop/laptop and mobile) content to serve its search engine users. It crawls, caches (grabs) content, calculates the speed of download, looks at textual content, counts words to find relevance, and compares how it looks on different sized devices. It not only analyzes what other sites link to it, but counts the number of these links and then determines their quality, meaning the degree to which the links in those sites are considered authoritative.

Further, there are algorithms in place that block the listing of “spammy” sites, although, spam would not be relevant here. And recently, they have claimed to boost sites using HTTPS to promote security and privacy (fox henhouse?).

There are a few exceptions with which I don’t think anyone would take issue: A search for a single word might bring up a dictionary or encyclopedia, but more often, they add Wikipedia to the list of results, especially if it is a particularly busy Wiki page that sees near-constant updates.

There is a way to beat these results and get to the top; by paying for it. The Google Adwords service, places these ads at the top, but very clearly identifies them with a little “Ad” icon.

google-search-of-jihadThis is not, however, what is happening with the search I mentioned earlier. From within the United States, when you search for the word “Jihad” in the Google search engine, the result is a list of 32 million results, the top four of which (in order) are as follows:

  1. A dictionary definition
  2. Wikipedia
  3. A link to “Islamic Supreme Council”
  4. A link to “Jihad Watch”

Understanding the previously explained exceptions, let’s ignore the definition and Wikipedia link and skip directly to results three and four.

As I do the server and site management, I know first hand why JihadWatch.org would be among the top results. Based on SEO best practices, the major and most pertinent reasons why this website would be given such a high ranking in such a competitive (32 million results) search are as follows:

  • jihadwatch.or-mobileRobert Spencer (an accomplished author and prolific blogger) adds a minimum of 10 posts of Jihad-related news stories, daily.
  • The search word “Jihad” is in the domain name, which always gives a massive boost.
  • An analysis (jihad site:jihadwatch.org) of how many times the word “Jihad” occurs on JihadWatch.org shows that it is mentioned in excess of 35,000 times. This provides a solid enough validation that the main focus of discussion is “Jihad” and, therefore, increases its ranking.
  • A search for just “jihadwatch.org” shows that it is mentioned on 631,000 other sites pages. This is the linking that I mentioned earlier used to determine the degree to which a site is consider authoritative and the number of references to JihadWatch.org are such that this further increases its ranking.
  • JihadWatch.org is currently the 10,488th most popular website in the US. This fluctuates, but not by much.
  • The site uses HTTPS and a responsive (mobile friendly) theme, so it looks great on any device.

So, JihadWatch.org, objectively and without bias meets the criteria for top ranking sites resulting from a search on the word “Jihad”.

But what about the site that outranked them and sits essentially at number one of sites that are neither the stock definition or Wikipedia link? This IslamicSupremeCouncil.org. I had actually never heard of them. So I made a few queries of people I know who have studied Islam. They had never heard of this group either. How, then, did they warrant such a high ranking that is (supposedly) based on unbiased criteria and algorithms?

Let’s look at the comparative statistics:

  • islamicsupremecouncil.org-mobileThe site is run by Sheik Kabbani, a Naqshbandi Sufi, it has additional posts added a couple of times a year, the latest news panel lists an event in 1996.
  • While “Jihad” is not in the domain name, “islamic” is. Perhaps Google has confused the two words. /sarc off
  • A count of the word “Jihad” (jihad site:islamicsupremecouncil.org) shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site a mere123 times, c
    ompared to the lesser-ranking jihadwatch.org that revealed a count of 35,000. As an aside, a search of the word “Sufi” results in 200 occurrences, which suggests the main focus of discussion is in fact Sufi and not Jihad.
  • A search for “islamicsupremecouncil.org” shows that it is mentioned on 79,000 other sites pages; this is approximately 12% of how authoritative of jihadwatch.org is considered by SEO best practices.
  • An Alexa popularity search shows that islamicsupremecouncil.org is the 307,832th most popular site in the US. (Reminder: Alexa search placed JihadwWatch.org as 10,488 in popularity.)
  • The site does not use HTTPS, and it is very mobile-unfriendly, as its technology is from a previous millennium. (I am not kidding. The source files reveal that they are using web standards from 1999.)

If you search the word “Sufi”, islamicsupremecouncil.org isn’t even listed in the first 10 pages of results.

Allow me to add another example. Another site which is an authority on Jihad in the US is cair.com. It is the domain for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and is constantly being updated and far more popular than islamicsupremecouncil.org 146,590th place. It is actually even more popular in that it has a vast network of sites (a search for jihad site:cair.com gives 342 results) is mentioned and linked a whopping 60 million times, it is mobile friendly, has HTTPS enabled, and yet it does not even appear within the top 10 pages of results in a Google search on “Jihad”.

So what’s up? How does the Islamic Supreme Council site get this boost? To answer that, we must consider the “why” and (more importantly) what the impact would be on the unknowing public of increasing the visibility (and perceived popularity) of sympathetic websites.

The two top Google dictionary definitions for the meaning of the word “Jihad” are differentiated (in order) as “the lesser Jihad” and “the greater Jihad”, respectively, as follows:

  1. (among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers.
  2. the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

To the Sunni and Shia, who comprise the vast majority of Muslims, the first of these is considered as the correct and most germane definition. They understand that when the word “Jihad” is used alone, it is meant as the violent kind; the world-conquering imposition of Sharia law (think blowing stuff up and beheading infidels) and they accept the greater Jihad as a false construct. (But that is another debate entirely. For more information, you can read about it at wikiislam.)

The Sufis, however, represent a very small minority of Muslims, if in fact they can even be considered true Muslims. It should be noted that, in general, they are neither accepted nor recognized by the majority of Muslims, and many Sufis themselves do not identify as truly Muslim. They are unique in that, as pacifists, they embrace the peaceful “Greater Jihad” (the internal struggle with sin) and are often violently targeted for their beliefs in Muslim majority countries where “Lesser Jihad” is the enforced doctrine.

The Impact on the Public

When someone in the US, perhaps wanting to educate themself on the subject, searches for “Jihad” and sees the Islamic Supreme Council as the top-ranked site, the perception is that this is the global, unbiased and authoritative view. If they click on that first, seemingly most popular link, their perception of Jihad will be skewed by the beliefs and doctrine of this peaceful group of people. These people who merely dabble on the edge of Islamic doctrine. These people who are themselves repeatedly targeted for their beliefs that are contrary to those of the majority of Muslims. These people who do not even come close to being any sort of credible or realistic representation of the larger and more prevalent subscribers (nay soldiers) of the “Lesser Jihad” (again, the violent kind).

“Don’t be evil.” is the corporate motto of Google. While this may not be in their official corporate philosophy, this type of slogan lulls the general populous into a trusting state. We buy it. We believe that they are maintaining objectivity and that the technology is all based on mathematics, statistics and algorithms and not manipulated by any sociopolitical agenda.

But that is not the case. There is, based on comparison of search results versus the criteria listed at the onset of this article, proof of social engineering. And it is not only Google who is guilty of this. Facebook has been at it also. Connections with the Obama administration, and now Clinton, are well documented.

My enemy’s enemy is not my necessarily my friend, but here is what Julian Assange has to say on the collusion between the The US administration and Google.

We have a deal with Iran. So why is it defending a nuclear site with anti-aircraft missiles?

2382670775Center for Security Policy, by Fred Fleitz, Sept. 2, 2016:

Iran’s state-controlled media announced on August 29 that Iran has deployed an advanced Russian surface-to-air missile defense system, the S-300, to protect its underground Fordow uranium enrichment facility from airstrikes.

The S-300 is the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft system that Moscow exports.  It has long been understood that Iran sought these missiles to protect its nuclear sites from airstrikes by the United States and Israel. 

So, if the Obama administration’s claims are true — that the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran halted the threat from Iran’s nuclear program — why is Iran increasing its defenses of this sensitive nuclear site?

There are two reasons. First, the nuclear agreement is a fraud. Second, Tehran is preparing to gut it.

In my new book “Obamabomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Fraud” I explain how the threat from Iran’s nuclear deal will actually grow while the nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) is in effect because Iran is permitted to continue to improve its capability to produce nuclear fuel by enriching uranium, developing advanced uranium centrifuges, and operating a heavy-water reactor. 

The verification provisions of the JCPOA are very weak and Iran has placed military facilities – where nuclear weapons work is likely to take place – off-limits to IAEA inspectors.

The agreement also ended IAEA investigations of Iran’s past nuclear weapons work even though a December 2015 IAEA report said this activity continued at least until 2009.

There have been recent signs of Iranian cheating on the nuclear deal. For example, a June 2016 German intelligence report said there were intensive efforts by Iran to covertly acquire nuclear technology in Germany in 2015 and that this activity probably is continuing. 

In addition, Iranian firms that had been sanctioned for illicit nuclear and missile procurement but were relieved of these sanctions by the JCPOA “are now very active in procuring goods in China,” according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security. 

The Institute also reported in a July 2016 memo an attempt by Iran to covertly acquire tons of high-strength carbon fiber, a substance used to make uranium centrifuge parts.  Under the JCPOA, purchases of high-strength carbon fiber by Iran must be approved by the parties to the agreement. 

There also have been a series of incidents – including recent harassment of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf by Iranian ships – that contradict predictions made by Obama officials in July 2015 that the nuclear deal would improve Iranian behavior and U.S.-Iran relations.

The acquisition and deployment of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to defend the Fordow facility is the latest evidence that Iran does not plan to abide by the JCPOA.

The Fordow facility was secretly constructed under a mountain near the city of Qom in violation of Iran’s nuclear treaty obligations.  U.S., UK and French leaders announced its existence in September 2009. 

Designed to be a heavily-protected plant to enrich uranium, there is no doubt that the purpose of this facility is to produce nuclear weapons fuel.  President Obama said in December 2013 that Iran did not need the Fordow facility to have a peaceful nuclear program. However, Iran was permitted to continue to operate this facility under the JCPOA, although half of its 2,710 centrifuges were put into storage and its remaining centrifuges are limited to enriching materials other than uranium for use as medical isotopes for 15 years.  Iran could reverse these measures in a few months and resume enrichment.

If Iran has truly agreed not to enrich uranium at Fordow for 15 years, there obviously was no reason to deploy advanced anti-aircraft missiles at this site now unless it was planning on violating the JCPOA in the near future.

Fordow was already a difficult target for U.S. and Israeli airstrikes and would probably take multiple strikes by America’s largest bunker buster bomb – the 15-ton GBU-57 MOP (massive ordnance penetrator) – to destroy.  Only the B-2 stealth bomber and the aging B-52 can carry the MOP.

Stealth U.S. aircraft such as the B-2, F-22 Raptor, and F-35 reportedly can evade the S-300 but they could be vulnerable if Iran deployed enough S-300 systems. 

There has been talk of Israel destroying Fordow with bunker buster bombs by repeatedly bombing a single point at this facility. Although Israel does not have the MOP nor a bomber capable of carrying this weapon, it does have the 5-ton GBU-28 bunker buster bomb which can be carried by its F-15E fighters.  However, the S-300 poses a serious threat to fourth-generation fighters like the F-15.  Israel will be able to evade the S-300 when it receives its first fifth-generation F-35s in December 2016 but the F-35 cannot carry the GBU-28 bunker buster.  Bunker busters for the F-35 are under development but are many years away from deployment.

I believe these factors indicate Iranian leaders are contemplating violating or terminating the JCPOA in the short to medium term by resuming uranium enrichment at Fordow and want to prevent Israel from responding with airstrikes and discourage the United States from doing so.

When would Iran do this? Certainly not before Barack Obama leaves office because Tehran is using the Obama administration’s desperation to protect the president’s legacy nuclear deal to exact more concession from the United States. 

Iranian leaders probably will view a Hillary Clinton presidency as a third Obama term and may move quickly to terminate the JCPOA and resume uranium enrichment at Fordow shortly after her inauguration.

If he wins the election, Donald Trump’s tough terms to renegotiate the JCPOA probably will lead to its termination. 

Although Iran would not fear a U.S. military response if it resumed enrichment at Fordow under President Obama or under a Hillary Clinton presidency, this would not be the case under a President Trump. 

In all likelihood, regardless of the deployment of the S-300s, Iranian leaders probably fear Trump would order airstrikes to destroy Fordow and other Iranian nuclear facilities if it violated the JCPOA and possibly if it refused to agree to a much stronger nuclear agreement. 

Without a crystal ball, there is no way to predict for certain what will happen with the Iranian nuclear deal under a Clinton or Trump presidency.  However, in light of the deployment of the S-300s, the weakness of the JCPOA, and Iran’s increasingly belligerent behavior over the last year, we can say with certainty that President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran is an enormous fraud that will lead to huge security challenges for his successor.