Aliens Guaranteed Entry Into the U.S.?


Trump’s executive order on immigration and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Front Page Magazine, by Michael Cutler, February 1, 2017:

Irresponsible incendiary rhetoric spewed by politicians and members of the media, in reaction to the executive order signed by President Trump to temporarily suspend the entry into the U.S. of aliens from a limited number of countries that are associated with terrorism, whether they had been issued visas, has fired up throngs of demonstrators in New York City and elsewhere.

President Trump began his executive order bynoting how failures of the immigration system enabled terrorists to carry out the murder of 3,000 innocent people in the United States on 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission was crystal clear about the ways that failures of the immigration system enabled not only the 9/11 terrorists, but others, to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparation.  We have seen similar attacks in the years since as I noted in my article, “Reflections On 9/11’S Vulernabilities.”

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” began with this first paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

That report should be required reading for all journalists and politicians.

Trump’s action is not without precedent.

The Obama Administration Stopped Processing Iraq Refugee Requests For 6 Months In 2011.

In 1980 then-President Jimmy Carter banned citizens of Iran from entering the United States as the Washington Post reported on April 9, 1980, “Carter’s Visa Crackdown Won’t Hurt Immediately.”

On February 24, 1998, just two days shy of the fifth anniversary of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, “Foreign terrorists in America : five years after the World Trade Center.”

At that hearing Senator Dianne Feinstein hammered failures of the immigration system more than three years before the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Her testimony included this statement:

I am also concerned that we need to strengthen further our immigration laws and procedures to counter foreign terrorist operations. I have grave reservations regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

In FY 2013 it was estimated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that more than 200,000 aliens were denied entry into the United States at ports of entry.

On January 26, 2015, CRS issue a report, “Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Ports of Entry” that began with this paragraph:

About 362 million travelers (citizens and non-citizens) entered the United States in FY2013, including about 102 million air passengers and crew, 18 million sea passengers and crew, and 242 million land travelers. At the same time about 205,000 aliens were denied admission at ports of entry (POEs); and about 24,000 persons were arrested at POEs on criminal warrants.

I have long been concerned about Politics, the Media and False Perceptions About Immigration.  Today, however, given the media’s hostility to President Trump, the true significance of immigration law enforcement has been utterly obfuscated.

What has been blithely ignored is the fundamental fact that an alien who is granted a visa to enter the United States is not guaranteed admission into the United States.

The State Department has the authority to issue visas to aliens seeking entry into the United States, however, the State Department has no authority to admit aliens into the United States.

That authority is vested with the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Inspectors.

For aliens who require visas to enter the United States, the visa should be thought of as a “ticket” that gets them to the inspection facility at a port of entry into the United States so that they can be inspected by a CBP inspector who determines whether to admit that alien.

That decision is based on the overarching principle aliens are to be barred from entering the United States if their presence would pose a threat to national security, public safety and/or the overall wellbeing of America and Americans.

Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens enumerates the categories of aliens who are deemed “inadmissable.”

I’m intimately familiar with this issue.  For the first four years of my thirty year career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) I was an Immigration Inspector assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.  I can tell you from personal experiences, the challenges are daunting. With just a quick interview, they must attempt to not only determine if an alien’s passport and documents are authentic and unaltered by also determine if that aliens has a criminal history or an affiliation with a criminal or terrorist organization by accessing databases.

The inspector must also attempt to determine if an alien seeking entry is likely to violate the immigration laws.  This presents a daunting challenge and as a consequence, it is estimated that more than 500,000 non-immigrant aliens violate the terms of their admission each year.

Aliens who have been issued a visa but appears nevertheless, to be inadmissible, is given the choice of withdrawing his/her application for admission and returning to the country from which they came or opt for a hearing before an Immigration Judge.

Depending on the determination of risk of flight, that alien may be permitted to leave the airport and is then provided with a notice as to when and where to appear for an immigration hearing, or may be taken into custody, when it is believed that the alien presents a significant risk of flight or poses an apparent threat to public safety or national security.

The significance of our immigration laws and the importance of the inspections process conducted at ports of entry was my focus on March 20, 2013 when I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing on the topic,  “Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values.”

In addition to Border Patrol agents and support personnel the CBP employs more than 20,000 CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors who are assigned to the 325 ports of entry located along America’s land border ports, seaports and international airports.  (This goes back to my often noted point that the United States does not have just four border states – those states that lie along the U.S./Mexican border, but has 50 border states.)

The mission of CBP is, indeed, one of great importance.  That agency’s Mission Statement includes this excerpt:

About CBP

With more than 60,000 employees, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, is one of the world’s largest law enforcement organizations and is charged with keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. while facilitating lawful international travel and trade.

As the United States’ first unified border entity, CBP takes a comprehensive approach to border management and control, combining customs, immigration, border security, and agricultural protection into one coordinated and supportive activity.

The men and women of CBP are responsible for enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws and regulations. On a typical day, CBP welcomes nearly one million visitors, screens more than 67,000 cargo containers, arrests more than 1,100 individuals, and seizes nearly 6 tons of illicit drugs. Annually, CBP facilitates an average of more than $3 trillion in legitimate trade while enforcing U.S. trade laws.

While U.S. citizens may never be prevented from entering the United States, aliens have the burden of providing proof, to the satisfaction of the CBP inspector, that they will not violate the terms of the admission that are determined by the category for visa that they have been issued.

There are two categories of aliens: immigrants and non-immigrants.  Yet politicians incite the demonstrators by referring to all foreign nationals as “immigrants” thereby intentionally ignoring this important distinction.

Non-immigrants are aliens who have not abandoned their domiciles in their home countries and seek entry into the United States for a temporary period of time.  Examples of such non-immigrants include tourists, foreign students, foreign journalists and aliens with temporary work visas.

Immigrants are aliens who have been issued immigrant visas are lawfully admitted for permanent residence and are issued Alien Registration Receipt Cards and are the pathway to citizenship.

President Trump is acting responsibly and decisively to protect America, Americans and indeed, all present in the United States. The open-borders immigration anarchists are in a frenzy having become accustomed to the suicidal open borders policies of the Obama administration.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is

Fighting the War on Terror with Immigration Sanity

Long_border_fence-450x300Frontpage, February 17, 2015 by Michael Cutler:

Ever since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 many of our leaders justified sending troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by saying that we must fight them (the terrorists) “over there” or we would have to fight them “over here.”

Now that the president is asking Congress for resources to combat ISIS overseas to defend the United States against the rapidly escalating threat posed by that extremely violent terrorist organization it is vital that a serious effort be mounted to devise an all-encompassing strategy to achieve total victory.

Of course the United States must act and act effectively and decisively in bringing the battle to our enemies on their turf.  Going on the offensive overseas is essential.  That is the mission of our military.

But it is time for a serious reality check on what really needs to be done to win this battle and protect America and Americans from the defensive perspective as well.

On that horrific day in September more than 13 years ago, America’s enemies turned lower Manhattan, a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon into a deadly battlefield.  On that day, all of the casualties were inflicted “over here” by aliens who had gamed the visa process and/or immigration benefits program.  If the immigration system had worked effectively, most of those aliens who participated in those attacks should not have been able to enter the United States, let alone receive immigration benefits, including being granted political asylum or acquiring lawful status under the 1986 Amnesty program.

For all of the rhetoric about fighting al-Qaeda overseas, the Patriot Act and stringent security measures implemented at airports and other critical facilities made it clear that the battle was and is being fought within the borders of the United States.  The component of the “War on Terror” involving our borders brings us to the realm of effective immigration law enforcement.

While most politicians and others simply want to address the issue of border security along the U.S. Mexican border, the reality is that the legislative approach attempted by the House of Representatives would not succeed.  My disgust with that legislative disaster was the focus of my February 5, 2015 FrontPage Magazine article, “The ‘Secure Our Border First Act’ Deception” (tag line: Why it’s no solution to the immigration crisis).

The goal where immigration is concerned is multifaceted to actually succeed in protecting America and Americans.

We need to secure our borders against those aliens who would evade the inspections process by running our northern as well as our southern borders.  We need to tighten up surveillance of all ships entering our harbors to prevent stowaways from surreptitiously gaining entry into the United States and need to make certain that the Coastguard has the resources it needs to identify all ships approaching our coastline and interdict them.

We need to end the Visa Waiver Program and provide more resources to the inspections process conducted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) at ports of entry.

However, it is inevitable that no matter how much we will try, aliens will evade the Border Patrol and the Coastguard.  Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States will violate the terms of their admission.  The solution to these issues is to greatly increase the number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to locate and arrest those aliens who slip through the defenses I noted above.

By effectively enforcing our immigration laws, opportunities will be created to cultivate informants and cooperating witnesses to enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to more readily identify emerging threats before attacks are carried out.  This aspect of the significance of effective immigration law enforcement was the subject of  my November 10, 2014 commentary for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Lack of Intelligence in Failures to Enforce Immigration Laws.”

Finally, the process by which aliens are granted immigration benefits ranging from being granted political asylum to providing lawful immigrant status and the conferring of United States citizenship upon aliens via the naturalization process must have eaningful integrity.  This is essential to deprive terrorist “sleepers” the ability to embed themselves in communities around the United States as they await instructions to carry out an attack within our borders.

Again, this requires that many more ICE agents be hired and assigned to combatting immigration fraud — a serious vulnerability identified by the 9/11 Commission.

Terrorism has been defined as “asymmetrical warfare.”  America’s enemies, the radical Islamist terrorist groups, ISIS, al-Qaeda and others know that they can not win a conventional military battle with the U.S. armed forces.  Their goal is to get behind their enemy’s lines and inflict casualties among the civilian population to instill fear and terror.  For these terrorists, the “enemy lines” are the borders of the United States.

During the Second World War, when soldiers sought to go behind enemy lines they often boarded military aircraft that, under the cover of darkness, flew over the country they wanted to attack and parachuted behind the enemy lines to carry out reconnaissance missions and sabotage their enemy’s critical facilities.

Sometimes, under the cover of darkness, enemy combatants boarded submarines and other ships and stealthily approach the enemy’s coastline to send commandos ashore to carry out their deadly missions.

Read more


saudi bushBreitbart, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Feb. 8, 2015:

Many expect a smoking gun to be found in the 28 still-classified pages of the official 9/11 Commission Report, evidence linking Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda. The truth about the Kingdom’s links to the Global Jihadi Movement is historic and already established.

Again this week, there were calls to declassify the missing sections of the 9/11 Commission report. This time, the pressure comes from relatives of the 9/11 victims, who have brought a court case alleging that a charity linked to the government of Saudi Arabia was funneling funds to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The revelation of official statements made last year by the so-called “20th hijacker,” Zacarias Moussaoui have given the accusations more credence. You can read the transcripts of his depositions here, here, here, and here.

Over the years, Moussaoui has made serial claims about Al Qaeda’s international links and plots beyond the 9/11 attacks, including a plan to down Air Force One with a Stinger missile. Now, he accuses members of the Saudi royalty of being financiers of Osama bin Laden and his organization. Unsurprisingly, the official response from the Saudi government has been swift and dismissive, with the embassy in Washington, D.C. stating that “Moussaoui is a deranged criminal” and that “His words have no credibility.”

Those who expect some kind of resolution or spectacular revelation will likely be disappointed even if the redacted portions of the Commission report are released. As has been documented, a wide range of Moussaoui’s stories in the past have been demonstrated to be not only questionable but even impossible. It should be remembered that back in 2006 he was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Even if he no longer suffers from mental illness, his latest statements may be just another pedestrian case of a “lifer” bargaining testimony for concessions.

The truth about the Kingdom’s connections to the international jihadist movement are in fact much older and well documented.

To begin with, the Kingdom was actually created out of the pact made between Mohammad bin Saud and the fundamentalist religious leader Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the puritanical version of Sunni Islam know as Wahhabism. Subsequently, the nation that resulted was one defined in stark contrast to enlightened modern monarchies such as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan or secular Muslim republics such as Ataturk’s Turkey. But the definitive connection between the House of Saud and the Global Jihadist Movement can be traced back to 1979. In a year that would see the Soviets invade Afghanistan and catalyze a Holy War against themselves, and a theocratic revolution erupt in Iran, 500 jihadi terrorists stormed the holiest site in Islam, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Their leader, Juhayman al Otaybi, launched the assault because of his belief that Islam had lost its way, that Muslims were weak because they had become unfaithful, and their leaders, starting with King Khalid bin Abdulaziz Al Saud had become un-Islamic.

Eventually, the siege was broken with the help of French counterterrorism operators that had been smuggling into the Kingdom and “converted” to Islam so they could enter Mecca. However, when the king found out that Saudi clerics, members of the learned ulema, had endorsed this holy war against him and his royal house, the king made a deal with the jihadist clerics. In exchange for Saudi Arabia being kept free from jihadist ideologically internally, his regime would support the export and dissemination of Jihadism outside of Saudi Arabia, to non-Muslim lands. For chapter and verse see the excellent book The Siege of Mecca. As a result, for several decades, the Saudi government facilitated the growth internationally of jihadist ideology, be it through Arab Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, or the Balkans, or elsewhere, until the First Gulf War. When the then-king invited “infidel” US troops to station themselves on the Arabian peninsula, Osama bin Laden added the House of Saud onto his target list, despite being born a Saudi Arabian and his father being very close to the royal family. For bin Laden, the House of Saud had become false Muslims, just as in the eyes of the original Meccan raiders on 1979. This has all been well-documented, most especially in Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Looming Tower. When we sent troops to the land of Mecca and Medina, Al Qaeda reinvented itself as an organization that would not only kill infidels, but also apostate or “false” Muslims, including a campaign after 9/11 that targeted the Saudi security services and government officials.

In recent years, especially with the rise of The Islamic State, Saudi Arabia has fundamentally reassessed its attitude to the Global Jihadist Movement. That does not mean, of course, that all its princes or government officials are whole-heartedly on the side of America and her allies, but it does mean that events such as the recent immolation of the Jordanian pilot Muadh al Kasasbeh have a much greater significance for the Islamic governments of the region.

Sebastian Gorka PhD. is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. You can follow him of Twitter at @SebGorka.

The Missing Pages of the 9/11 Report

William Kratzke/AP; Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast

William Kratzke/AP; Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast

Daily Beast, by Eleanor Clift, Jan. 12, 2015:

The lead author of the Senate’s report on 9/11 says it’s time to reveal what’s in the 28 pages that were redacted from it, which he says will embarrass the Saudis.
A story that might otherwise have slipped away in a morass of conspiracy theories gained new life Wednesday when former Sen. Bob Graham headlined a press conference on Capitol Hill to press for the release of 28 pages redacted from a Senate report on the 9/11 attacks. And according to Graham, the lead author of the report, the pages “point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as the principal financier” of the 9/11 hijackers.

“This may seem stale to some but it’s as current as the headlines we see today,” Graham said, referring to the terrorist attack on a satirical newspaper in Paris. The pages are being kept under wraps out of concern their disclosure would hurt U.S. national security. But as chairman of the Senate Select Committee that issued the report in 2002, Graham argues the opposite is true, and that the real “threat to national security is non-disclosure.”

Graham said the redacted pages characterize the support network that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, and if that network goes unchallenged, it will only flourish. He said that keeping the pages classified is part of “a general pattern of coverup” that for 12 years has kept the American people in the dark. It is “highly improbable” the 19 hijackers acted alone, he said, yet the U.S. government’s position is “to protect the government most responsible for that network of support.”

The Saudis know what they did, Graham continued, and the U.S. knows what they did, and when the U.S. government takes a position of passivity, or actively shuts down inquiry, that sends a message to the Saudis. “They have continued, maybe accelerated their support for the most extreme form of Islam,” he said, arguing that both al Qaeda and ISIS are “a creation of Saudi Arabia.”

Standing with Graham were Republican Rep. Walter Jones and Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch, co-sponsors of House Resolution 428, which says declassification of the 28 pages is necessary to provide the American public with the full truth surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The two lawmakers echoed Graham’s assertion that national security would not be harmed, and point out that on two separate occasions President Obama has told 9/11 families that he wants to see the pages declassified. Jones and Lynch wrote a letter to Obama in April urging him to take action, and have been told by the White House that a response is in the works.

The purpose of the Wednesday press conference was to put pressure on the White House by building bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Any member with a security clearance is able to read the redacted chapter in a closed room, albeit under supervision and with no note taking and no staff.  It’s a cumbersome process, and most members haven’t bothered. The relatively few who have read the pages come away with varying levels of shock and surprise. Lynch said he was so blown away that the information was being kept from the public that he told the two room monitors he would be filing legislation. HR 428 had 27 co-sponsors in the last Congress.

Among the attendees at the press conference was Jack Quinn, formerly a top lawyer in the Clinton White House, who is representing 9/11 families in their effort to gain compensation from the Saudi government. If the redacted pages document complicity in the attacks by the Saudi government, or religious and charitable institutions related to the kingdom, which is relevant to a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York where the Saudis are the defendants. Quinn, who is one of several lawyers involved with the case, previously represented families in the Lockerbie crash in their suit against the Libyan government.

Read more

U.S. Links Iran to Both Al-Qaeda and Taliban Terrorists

Iran Ayatollah Khamenei in front of a picture of the leader of the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Iran Ayatollah Khamenei in front of a picture of the leader of the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

By Ryan Mauro:

The U.S. Treasury Department is again linking the Iranian regime to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. On August 21-22, it sanctioned several terrorists and disclosed their Iranian ties. Yet again, it is confirmed that Shiite and Sunni terrorists are willing to cooperate against common enemies.

An August 22 press release announces the sanctioning of Abdul Mohsen Abdullah Ibrahim al-Sharikh, described as an Al-Qaeda facilitator and strategist in Syria. He is also a senior leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, and very active in social media.

The Obama Administration explains that he also played a leading role in Al-Qaeda’s pipeline in Iran that operates with the consent of the regime:

“Prior to his work in Syria with [Jabhat al-Nusra], al-Sharikh served in early 2013 as chief of al-Qaida’s Iran-based extremist and financial facilitation network before the return of already designated al-Qaida facilitator Yasin al-Suri to the position. Al-Sharikh has also previously served al-Qaida as a key financial facilitator in Pakistan.”

A press release from a day prior announced that the Treasury Department was sanctioning the Basir Zarjmil Hawala based in Chaman of Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province. Hawala networks are underground money transfer systems in the Muslim world.

The U.S. government says the Basir Zarjmil Hawala became the “principal money exchanger” for Taliban leaders in Pakistan in 2012. It provides a list of branch offices, with one being in Iran. Given the tyrannical nature of the Iranian regime and suspicion of Sunni terrorists, it is inconceivable that the regime is unaware of this major operation. Other offices are in Afghanistan and Dubai.

The Clarion Project’s fact sheet on Iranian sponsorship of terrorism details how the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations have all asserted that the Iranian regime supports Al-Qaeda, despite their intense ideological divisions.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Iran and Al-Qaeda began collaborating in late 1991 or early 1992. Al-Qaeda operatives began receiving training, particularly in explosives, inside Iran and Lebanon.

The report leaves open the possibility that Al-Qaeda worked with Iran in carrying out the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996. The attack killed 19 U.S. soldiers. The Iranians wanted to expand the relationship after Al-Qaeda’s bombing of theUSS Cole in Yemen in 2000, but Osama Bin Laden was worried about losing Saudi supporters.

“The relationship between al-Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shi’a divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations,” the 9/11 Commission concluded.


Iran is offering to help the U.S. defeat the Islamic State (formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq) if sanctions are lifted on its nuclear program. The Iranian regime is acting like a firefighter that sets blazes so it can come to the rescue.

The Shiite Iranian regime and the Sunni terrorists of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State may kill and condemn each other, but they are far closer to each other than they are to us. The history of the relationship shows that they will work together against us, even as they fight tooth-and-nail in Syria and Iraq.

At the end of the day, Islamist terrorists will always choose each other over us. We ignore that demonstrated behavior at our own cost.

Read more at Clarion Project

Clinton Admits He Passed on Killing Bin Laden

clinton-450x337by :

In a memorably explosive 2006 interview with Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton went off on a finger-wagging “tear,” as Wallace put it, when questioned about whether he had done enough during his terms in office to get Osama bin Laden. “I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since,” growled a furious Clinton. Now a recently-released audiotape confirms that Clinton did indeed have at least one clear opportunity to kill the world’s most wanted man in 1998 – and passed on it, allowing bin Laden to live to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.

Last week Australian Michael Kroger, the former head of the Liberal Party in the state of Victoria, unveiled on Australia’s Sky News a never-before-released audio of Clinton speaking to a group of businessmen in Melbourne on September 10, 2001, recorded a mere ten hours before the first plane hit the World Trade Center. In that recording, made with the former president’s knowledge according to Kroger, Clinton responded thusly in response to a question about international terrorism:

And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.

Questioned by Fox News about the Clinton recording, Michael Scheuer, chief of the bin Laden unit from 1995 to 1999, replied that Clinton was a “disgrace” and a “monumental liar” for claiming that he didn’t kill bin Laden because of the collateral damage. He asserted that only Taliban and bin Laden and his crew would’ve died if Clinton had given the go-ahead for a missile strike on the region in December of 1998. But Clinton didn’t act, said Scheuer, because he’s a “coward morally” and because he’s “more concerned, like Obama, with what the world thinks about him.”

Read more at Front Page

9/11 Museum Film’s Critic Says Jews Killed Jesus

How Many Americans Has Obama Killed?

two-senators-were-asked-whether-obama-should-be-impeached-over-benghazi-450x337By Daniel Greenfield:

Three days after the tenth anniversary of September 11, left-wing activist Spencer Ackerman struck a blow for Muslim terrorism by denouncing FBI training materials as Islamophobic.

The training materials dealt with such topics as the doctrinal basis for Jihad and the origins of terrorism in Islamic law. The story spread into the mainstream media, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, whose leaders had endorsed terrorist groups and helped raise money for terrorists, began pressuring the FBI to recant the threat of Islamic terrorism.

In February of 2012, Amine El Khalifi was arrested for plotting to carry out a suicide bombing in the US Capitol building. Before he began his mission, he visited the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, whose former Imam was Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al Awlaki and whose parishioners included Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan. At his sentencing, El Khalifi said, “I just want to say that I love Allah.”

But that did not stop the FBI from announcing a few days later that it had completed purging references to Islamic terrorism from its training materials. A month earlier, Tamerlan Tsarnaev had begun his trip to Russia and by the time he returned, the training materials meant to prepare agents for the reality of the terrorist plot that he and his brother would carry out had been buried out of sight.

Where El Khalifi had failed in Washington, the Tsarnaev brothers would succeed in Boston.

The counterterrorism information purge had been completed by the time the lead Boston bomber returned to America, but it had begun earlier under Obama.

The 9/11 Commission Report had freely used terms like “Jihad,” “Takfir” and “Islam” to define the nature and motivations of the enemy. But the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy did not mention them. Neither did the FBI counterterrorism lexicon. They had been replaced by “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism is generic. Predicting an attack requires specifics. Investigators cannot stop undefined crimes or arrest undefined suspects. The less information they have to work with, the more likely the terrorists are to succeed.

Islam is the crucial link between disparate terrorist groups from Dagestan to Thailand, from Mali to Afghanistan, from Israel to Nigeria and from the United States to Chechnya. Without the Islam factor, there was no reason to suspect that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a threat to anyone except the Russians.

The old FBI training materials had explained what Chechen, Pakistani, Egyptian and Nigerian terrorists had in common. In the new ones there was a great empty space in which facts died and lives were lost.

Read more at Front Page


Three Convicted in Massive British Terror Plot


Irfan Khalid, Ashik Ali and Irfan Naseer

Irfan Khalid, Ashik Ali and Irfan Naseer

IPT – by John Rossomando:

A court in Birmingham, England has convicted three men of plotting to carry out a suicide bombing campaign inspired by the late terrorist mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki.

Irfan Khalid, Ashik Ali and Irfan Naseer were radicalized by Awlaki’s lectures and by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula’s Inspire magazine, which regularly featured the terrorist mastermind’s articles prior to his death in a September 2011 drone strike.

Police found lectures by al-Awlaki on Khalid’s cell phone, including “The Book of Jihad,” “It’s a War against Islam,” “Brutality towards Muslims” and “Stop Police Terror.”

According to the Telegraph, Khalid encouraged his fellow plotters to listen to al-Awlaki’s lectures.

Additional CD-ROMs containing talks by al-Awlaki were found in Khalid’s grandparents’ home. The terrorist leader’s messages were also found stored in Ali’s laptop and cell phone.

The trio experimented with making bombs using ammonium nitrate they removed from sports injury cold packs. Experts told the court they could have developed a viable improvised explosive device (IED) using their bomb-making recipe.

Such tactics resemble the sort of “Open Source Jihad” tactics advocated in Inspire that call for small groups or individual jihadists to make bombs and other weapons using readily available ingredients.

“They wanted to commit their own 9/11. They were critical of the July 7 [2005] bombers because they didn’t kill enough people,” said Marcus Beale, assistant commissioner of the West Midlands Police, the Guardian reported. “From evidence we presented to the court there were 8-10 bombs that they wanted to deploy, a mixture of suicide bombs and IEDs. So in terms of their capability, if they delivered on the plans that they had they would have committed mass murder on a horrendous scale.”

A coordinated series of bombings in London in 2005 killed 52 people in what is known as the 7/7 attacks.

Another of the plans the trio discussed involving the attaching of blades to the wheels of cars to mow down pedestrians came directly from an Inspire article titled, “The Ultimate Mowing Machine.”

Al-Awlaki has been tied to numerous other terror plots, including: Maj. Nidal Hasanand the Fort Hood shooting, Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab‘s plot to blow up an airliner with a bomb in his underwear and Faisal Shahzad‘s plot to blow up a truck in Times Square. The 9/11 Commission Report also stated he was tied to two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Although al-Awlaki might be gone his message lingers in his videos that are still for sale in Islamic bookstores and in more than 2,000 YouTube videos.


9/11 Bombshell Report: 3000 Americans for Three Saudi Princes

Walid  Shoebat:

Link to 21-Page 9/11 Bombshell Report below…Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are in abundance. Some even believe that it was an “inside job”. We reject this notion completely. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Bush administration made a conscious and very ill-advised decision not to go after the real perpetrators of the attacks – Saudi Government officials, Princes, and wealthy financiers. The accounts of the deaths of three Saudi Princes in particular don’t just border on absurd; they cross the line into absurdity. Foul play is the only logical conclusion.

On the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Americans should come to grips with the fact that those responsible for attacking us have not been brought to justice. Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead and the nineteen hijackers who rammed our own airliners into our own buildings in order to slaughter 3000 Americans are long gone but who provided al-Qaeda with the financing necessary to carry out these attacks and why were so many individuals and entities who were responsible, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all?

Three Saudi Princes were outed by Abu Zubaydah thanks to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT); three hundred Saudis were permitted to fly out of the United States in the days after 9/11, many of whom were not questioned, including one of the three Princes; this means that U.S. authorities allowed at least one culpable Saudi Prince out of the country. Were there more?

The cold hard truth is that our government knew full well who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and chose NOT to make them pay.

Unless, of course, you believe three Saudi Princes were solely responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.

9/11: 3000 Americans for Three Saudi Princes – New detalis about the Troubling Omissions of Saudi Arabia’s wealthy from 9/11 Commission Report

And at WND Walid writes:

What is a Saudi prince worth? The answer is one Saudi prince is worth 1,000 Americans – if, as evidence suggests, it’s a simple mathematical equation that included a deal being struck between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia whereby three Saudi princes suspiciously perished in July 2002 within days of each other.

In a Vanity Fair article, a former CIA operative was cited as the source that identified those three princes as having been named by the captured No. 3 man in al-Qaida, Abu Zubaydah, during interrogations. Each of these three princes were said to have been financiers of 9/11. Many believe that the 9/11 Commission Report omitted the princes’ involvement and that a 28-page, redacted chapter in a Joint Inquiry report – which remains classified – confirms foul play by Saudi Arabia regarding these deaths.

With that as a backdrop, what I provide here are more details about the deaths of those Saudi princes, courtesy of Arabic sources, believed never to have been released in English until now.

I include the only eyewitness account and translated reports that could help provide more pieces of the puzzle.

To date, in English, I cannot find any testimonies, eyewitness accounts, details, or any official investigation that provides any evidence that puts a closure to these mysterious deaths aside from the typical few lines and obituary notices.

The first was the story of Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, the well-known horse racing enthusiast and owner of Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem. Less than one year earlier, bin Salman was allowed to fly out of the United States on Sept. 16, 2001. His cause of death was ruled a heart attack during routine abdominal surgery on July 22, 2002.

The United States still refuses to release the names of over 140 Saudis that were permitted to leave the country on several jets in the days after 9/11. Prince bin Salman was one of the few that was, cited in a 9/11 staff report published about one month after the Commission Report; the staff report focused on the issue of terrorist travel.

The second curious death is that of Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah al-Saud who mysteriously died on his way to bin Salman’s funeral in a car accident one day later, on July 23, 2002.

The third is Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, who mysteriously got lost in the desert and died of thirst on July 30, 2002.

There is much more

Iran-Hezb’allah: “They Already Hit the Homeland 10 1/2 Years Ago”


 By Clare M. Lopez at American Thinker:

At the mid-March 2012 congressional hearings on the “Iran-Hezb’allah Threat to the Homeland,” chaired by Representative Peter King, top officials from the DEA, the FBI, and the New York City Police Department, as well as senior scholars addressed the alarming capability and motivation of this Axis of Jihad to strike inside the U.S.  Critical and timely, this was the latest in a series of hearings that Rep. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has held to focus attention on the deadly threat to America’s national security from the forces of Islamic jihad and sharia.  There was an unmentioned elephant in the room this time, though, and that was 9/11–when the terror alliance of al-Qaeda, Iran, and Hezb’allah joined forces to hit the homeland for the first time ten and a half years ago.

Perhaps taking their cue from the apparently oblivious director of National Intelligence, Gen. James Clapper, the panel of witnesses spoke of Iranian willingness to attack the U.S. homeland in terms of some kind of hypothetical developing threat.  Indeed, Gen. Clapper told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in late January 2012 “that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.” 

It is difficult to know where to start, but a logical point would be the mid-1980s, in the depths of the horrific Iran-Iraq war, when the Ayatollah Khomeini commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to “get the bomb.”  That order is public knowledge, a quarter of a century old, and, the duplicitous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran notwithstanding, it has never been rescinded during the 24-year reign of Khomeini’s successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.  That weapon is now nearing deployment status in the hands of the Iranian regime, a regime known by the intelligence community to have been connected in terrorist alliances with Hezb’allah and al-Qaeda for decades.  That terror team has struck Americans at home and abroad, repeatedly, for decades.  That terror team — Iran, Hezb’allah, and al-Qaeda — has been at war with the U.S. for decades, despite the inexplicable unwillingness of American leadership to acknowledge that what we face is indeed an enemy alliance.

Fast forward to the 9/11 Commission Report, which came out in 2004.  There are multiple references in that voluminous document about the Iran-Hezb’allah-al-Qaeda operational relationship: its early 1990s origins in Sudan; first joint terror operations at Khobar Towers, the East Africa Embassies, and the USS Cole; and continuing post-9/11 alliance.  Moreover, because Commission staffers discovered only at the last minute before the report went to press a treasure trove of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents which constitute the archives of the U.S. Intelligence Community about the Iran-Hezb’allah-al-Qaeda relationship, that material could be included in the final report only in a limited fashion. 

Read the rest…  

Clare M. Lopez is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and an expert witness in the Havlish case.

Guess who’s lobbying against tracking of al-Qaida in U.S.?

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND:

 An organization that monitors Islamic extremism around the world reports there have been 3,094 people killed in 66 Islamic terror attacks in the United States in recent years, but the activist Council on American Islamic Relations says it is unfair for the nation’s Department of Homeland Security to single out Muslims for observation.

CAIR, which calls itself a civil liberties and advocacy organization and says its goal is to “empower American Muslims,” is distressed with proposals in Congress that would authorize the federal department to appoint an official to coordinate efforts that would be aimed at deterring and preventing such attacks.

The organization is urging Muslims “and other people of conscience” to lobby members of Congress an oppose the plans that are outlined in Senate Bill 1546, which calls for the DHS secretary to “designate an official … to coordinate efforts to counter violent extremism in the United States, particularly the ideology that gives rise to Islamist terrorism as identified in the 9/11 Commission Report.”

A related proposal, pending in the House, is H.B. 3116. It calls for DHS secretary “to designate an official of the department to coordinate efforts to counter homegrown violent Islamist extremism, including the violent ideology of al-Qaida and its affiliated groups, in the United States.”

It is the Religion of Peace website that has compiled lists of Muslim attacks around the world. Its list for the United States alone features the 2010 attack in Illinois in which “a Muslim convert shots his family members to ‘take them back to Allah.'”

It includes the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, with a fatality toll in the thousands.

Also included is the 2008 incident in which “a devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing” and in 2009 when “a woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a care for being too ‘Westernized.'”

Also in 2006 in Maryland, “a 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack,” and the same year in Denver, “Saying it was ‘Allah’s choice,’ a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.”

In 2007 in Salt Lake City, “A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine’s Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.”

The website notes that since the Islamic terror attacks on 9/11, there have been 17,881 deadly Islamic terror attacks around the world. For the week of Oct. 8-14, there were 29 jihad attacks with 145 fatalities and 534 critically injured globally. For the month of September, there were 144 attacks with 658 dead and 1,377 critically injured.

But, according to Robert McCaw, CAIR government affairs coordinator, “CAIR, along with the mainstream American Muslim community, utterly rejects violent extremists. Any action that harms innocent civilians is reprehensible, regardless of ideology that drives it. Focusing solely on American Muslims to combat domestic extremism is misguided.”

However, the legislation doesn’t focus “solely” on American Muslims; both proposals target “violent extremism in the United States” and “homegrown violent Islamist extremism, including the violent ideology of al-Qaida.”

And both are consistent with the department’s purpose to deter and prevent violence from any source, according to the bills themselves.

But CAIR wants the Muslim factor to be ignored.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s own statistics show there are a variety of domestic extremist groups threatening the nation and that each deserves serious consideration and consistent attention,” McCaw said.

The group is urging Muslims and “people of conscience” to “call members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about proposed legislation” that focuses on a group that factors largely in the violent extremism in the U.S. and around the world.

“CAIR believes that the legislation, sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), is too narrowly focused and does not go far enough to keep Americans safe from all types of violent extremism,” the group said.

In a release about the issue, the organization tells people what to say to members of Congress, including to U.S. senators: “I also ask you to ensure that if the Department of Homeland Security Reauthorization Act of 2011 comes to a vote in the Senate, that Section 213 is amended to remove all problematic language that targets ideology and singles out American Muslims for additional scrutiny.”

CAIR also advises supporters to say: “As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any legislation that singles out the American Muslim community for unwarranted scrutiny. I also ask that you support measures that persue (sic) criminal action, not beliefs.”

In a letter from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to Collins, she noted that homegrown violent extremism is “not limited to a single ideology.”

But she also wrote, “We know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaida, and individual terrorist thought leaders, are actively seeking to recruit or inspire Westerners to carry out attacks against Western and U.S. targets.”

The activism of CAIR and like-minded groups has been getting more attention in recent days. Read the rest here.