Former Muslim warns that if Islam continues as is, the West will not

 (AP Photo/Shiho Fukada)

(AP Photo/Shiho Fukada)

Family Security Matters, by Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.) October 26, 2016:

A 1986 television commercial punch line for makers of Vicks Formula 44 cough syrup proved very successful in marketing their product. The line, “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV” was delivered by actor Peter Bergman who played a doctor on daytime television.

Seeking accurate medical advice, one left to choose between a real doctor and an actor playing one, obviously would opt for the former as a knowledgeable duty expert.

Why then, seeking to understand Islam, do we accept what our non-Muslim leaders tell us about the religion being peaceful, ignoring what we are told by real duty experts-those once-practicing Muslims more intimately knowledgeable about it?

President Barack Obama has supposedly read the Koran. He assures us, although not a Muslim himself, the religion is peaceful. Having grown up in Muslim countries, he may have played the role of a Muslim but he was not one. Thus, his repeated pronouncements Islam is peaceful should carry no more weight than a diagnosis of a real illness by an actor playing a doctor on television.

Somali-born author, activist and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a duty expert on Islam. Just like Christianity underwent a Protestant Reformation, she explains, Islam also needs reform. And, while she admits only Muslims can make it happen, “the West cannot remain on the sidelines as though the outcome of this struggle has nothing to do with us.”

Ali lived as a Muslim before experiencing its dark side. Forced into marriage with a man she never met, she experienced firsthand abuses directed at Muslim women. But, she warns, should the West remain on the sidelines concerning reform, terrorist attacks will continue.

Ali makes a connection Obama refuses to make. She warns [emphasis added]:

“I believe it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam, can somehow be divorced from the religion itself…Islam is not a religion of peace…There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world…The call to violence and justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred text of Islam. Moreover, this theologically-sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offences including, but not limited to, adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy…Those who tolerate this intolerance do so at their peril.”

Clearly Ali, unlike Obama, sees the Koran as a spring-loaded trigger for violence-activated by numerous offenses-which, while viewed in the West as the exercise of individual rights, are viewed by Islam as crimes punishable by dismemberment or death.

Ali is dumbfounded Western liberals and progressives believing “so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threat to that very freedom and those very minorities.”

As an example, Ali told of her experience, despite working for Muslim women’s rights and being invited to accept a degree from Brandeis University in 2014 for doing so, of then being disinvited by professors and students protesting her criticism of Islam.

“My disinvitation…was no favor to Muslims-just the opposite,” Ali explained. “By labeling critical examination of Islam as inherently racist, we make the chances of reformation far less likely.”

Ali points out, while other religions are fair game for criticism, we contort Western intellectual traditions, giving Islam a free pass-even ignoring Muslim activists who risk life and limb seeking Islam’s badly needed reform.

She notes Western hypocrisy in having supported Cold War activists seeking to reform the Soviet Union’s system, but ignoring today’s Muslim activists seeking to reform Islam.

“These are the Muslims we should be supporting for our sake as much as for the sake of Islam,” Ali says. Yet, “the West either ignores them or dismisses them as ‘not representative.’ This is a grave mistake…If we do, in fact, support political, social and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims living in the West, if you want to live in our societies, to share in the material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional. Islam is at the crossroads of reformation or self-destruction-but so is the West.”

There is a frighteningly real declaration Islamic expert Ali makes that clearly is at odds with representations by non-expert Obama. Ali states, “The call to violence and justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred text of Islam.”

Thus, Muslims answering the call need feel no remorse for their violence. This leaves non-Westerners to determine, among those invited into their countries as refugees and immigrants, who among them will heed the call. It is a near impossible task to screen out those who agree with this command now or, who may choose to obey it in the future.

The bottom line is this: every Muslim entering a non-Western nation does so with a license, issued by the Koran, to commit violence in Allah’s name. Just like one who obtains a fishing license, some will choose to use it and fish; some will not; but all have the right to do so.

Shockingly, while assuring us Islam is peaceful, Obama continues to embrace as such the Muslim Brotherhood. That Brotherhood’s basic tenet is a global caliphate-a tenet it cannot renounce and seeks to impose upon the world-violently if necessary. For that reason, even our U.K. ally has condemned Obama’s “peaceful” Brotherhood.

There is a basic misconception about Islam Obama perpetuates: It is not, as he claims, extremists who have hijacked Islam, trying to give it a violent spin; it is moderates who have hijacked the religion, trying to give it a peaceful one. The trigger for violence is written into the Koran for followers to obey.

It is time to heed the voice of a real expert on Islam and not that of he who plays one as our president.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields,” “Living the Juche Lie: North Korea’s Kim Dynasty” and “Doomsday: Iran–The Clock is Ticking.” He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.

UTT Throwback Thursday: TSA Surrenders to Terrorists

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 27, 2016:

In January 2010, Hamas (doing business as CAIR) complained new TSA security procedures would alienate Muslims.


The complaints stemmed from TSA’s announcement it would strengthen security measures and give extra scrutiny to travelers entering the U.S. from Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen.

Seems reasonable to reasonable people who actually want our nation protected from terrorists.

Not to Nihad Awad, the leader of Hamas in the U.S.  So Hamas complained.

Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood and is a designated terrorist organization.

How did TSA respond?  Exactly how Hamas wanted them to.

In November of 2010, the Muslim Brotherhood’s MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) trained thousands of TSA employees.


But has there been any real impact on TSA over the last six years?

YOU decide.



Iran’s proxy missile attacks

Missile Attack Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Missile Attack Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

The Islamic regime seeks control of Middle East waterways

Washington Times, by James A. Lyons, October 25, 2016:

The recent missile attacks attributed to Yemeni Houthi rebels, with assistance from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah, demonstrate Iran’s classic use of proxies to promote its political agenda. The Houthi rebels denied any involvement in the missile attacks. However, they certainly were not fired by camel herders. The Houthis never would have launched an attack on the U.S. Navy without being ordered to do so by their Iranian sponsors. To think otherwise would be delusional.

Iran has the failed to honor the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons agreement. There is actually no agreement, since nothing has been signed. With Russia’s support in Syria, Iran clearly feels emboldened to challenge the United States directly. And with the $150 billion sanctions relief windfall, plus planeloads of hard cash totaling more than $33 billion, Iran can easily expand its role as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, which is what we are witnessing in Yemen. The Iranian use of proxies has cost thousands of American lives, but, fortunately, this time they failed.

Clearly, Iran wants to be able to control the strategic Bab al Mandab Strait, which would give it de facto control of the Suez Canal. More than 10 percent of the world’s maritime shipping passes through that strait on a daily basis. Such control, when combined with control of the Strait of Hormuz, would give Iran control of all Arab oil shipments as well as all Israeli shipping emanating to and from the port of Eilat in the Red Sea. Iran would also like to see our 71-year alliance with Saudi Arabia terminated.

With the help of the IRGC and the Iranian proxy terrorist group Hezbollah, two radar sites were recently constructed outside of Yemen’s two principal Red Sea ports, Mokha and Hudaydah, which are currently under the control of the Houthi rebels. These sites, according to various reports, were operated by IRGC and Hezbollah radar and missile teams. The missiles fired were an upgraded version of the Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile. It should be remembered that on July 14, 2006, Hezbollah successfully fired a C-802 missile against the Israeli missile ship INS Hanit, inflicting heavy damage.

Despite Iran’s assurance about not providing weapons, the Houthis received a delivery the week prior to the missile attacks, the largest shipment of Iranian weapons to date. Obviously, this shipment, apparently undetected by our intelligence resources, included Scud D surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 800 kilometers as well as the upgraded Chinese C-802 anti-ship missiles. The Scuds went to the northern border to be used against Saudi Arabia, and the C-802 anti-ship missiles went to the Houthi’s Ansar Allah faction, which is under the direct control of the IRGC.

The same day missiles were fired against the USS Mason, Oct. 9, the Houthis, with the assistance of the IRGC, fired Scud-D missiles at the Saudi town of Ta’if, which is 700 kilometers from the Yemeni border — but, more importantly, only 70 kilometers from the holy city of Mecca. The message to the Saudis was clear. Iran intends to challenge the Saudis’ control of Islam’s most holy sites.

The Red Sea is a very narrow strategic body of water. It is only 62 kilometers from the Saudi coast to Africa. All shipping can be threatened and easily attacked with the current inventory of missiles transferred to Yemen.

The Houthis have also landed and taken control of Perim Island in the mouth of the Bab al Mandab Straits. Since the main maritime route is only 20 kilometers wide at this point, it serves as a natural choke point and a threat to all shipping as long as it remains under Houthi-Iranian control.

How did we get involved in this classic Sunni-Shia sectarian war? Very briefly, in late 2014, Shia Houthi rebel forces captured the capital city of Sana’a. The Houthis, backed by Iran, are fighting against the internationally recognized government of Yemen’s Sunni president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. In March 2015, the Saudis led a campaign to overthrow the Houthi rebels. President Obama, in an attempt to get Saudi Arabia’s support for his nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, agreed to support the Saudi effort. We proceeded to provide limited intelligence, in-flight refueling, command and control guidance and some weapons.

The missile attack on our forces in the vicinity of the Bab al Mandab Straits is another manifestation of Iran’s contempt for America and disregard for international norms. Further, with little to fear from an Obama administration response, they clearly have been emboldened to further their hegemonic objectives by challenging our forces directly. While the Houthi’s missile attack on the United Arab Emirate’s HSV-2 Swift Catamaran vessel was successful on Oct. 1, their attack on the USS Mason was, fortunately, a failure. While it took us four days to respond, the USS Nitze’s tomahawk missile strikes destroyed the three Iranian radar sites, which eliminated the immediate threat to shipping in the area.

This was a minimum response — a tit for tat — which will most likely invite more attacks, since C-802 missiles can be fired without radar. When an enemy attacks one of our U.S. Navy ships, our response must be overwhelming. =We should have destroyed not only the radar sites but also any missile-launching sites and any associated ammo storage sites. Any known Iranian installations should have been destroyed. Electrical utility grids that provide power to support Houthi rebels and Iranian forces in the two areas should also be destroyed. The Houthi installation on Perim Island should be eliminated. The message must be clear: “Don’t tread on me.”

James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin


Witnesses say Clinton aide “overrode security protocols,” hoarded classified information at home.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 27, 2016:

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.

The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”

While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the ( domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was, was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.

Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her account to either her or her account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.

Why Weren’t Clinton’s Lawyers Prosecuted for Failing to Report Mishandling of Classified Information?

download-17National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy October 25, 2016:

I have a column just up on the website, focusing on an issue that’s been ignored: the classified-information law implications of Hillary Clinton’s transmission of classified information to her lawyers.

There has been a good deal of commentary about the fact that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, former State Department officials under Secretary Clinton, should not have been permitted to represent Clinton as lawyers in the e-mails investigation: They were subjects of the same investigation; as former government officials, they were disqualified from advocating on Clinton’s behalf; they were barred from representing Clinton by ethical rules applicable to lawyers; and the arrangement was illegal under federal criminal law.

But let’s put all that aside for the moment. There is no doubt that Clinton willfully provided Mills and Samuelson with her e-mails, at least 110 of which (the FBI tells us) were classified at the time they were sent or received. Those include e-mails classified as top-secret and designated as “special access program.” Even if Mills and Samuelson had security clearances, the transmission of such highly classified information to them would have been illegal unless they were read into these limited-access programs and had a government-certified need to know the information.

The same is true of Clinton’s principal criminal defense lawyer, David Kendall. He reportedly has a security clearance, but that is not sufficient to make one an authorized recipient of this kind of intelligence.

On this subject, my column raises a little-noticed provision of federal law that I want to flesh out a bit more.

It is not only a criminal offense for government officials to mishandle classified information willfully or with gross negligence. It is also a felony for a persons trusted with security clearances to fail to report to the government that they have learned classified information has been removed from its authorized, secure location and transmitted to an unauthorized person or stored in an unauthorized setting.

When Clinton, Mills, Samuelson, and Kendall reviewed Clinton’s emails – beginning in mid-2014, at the State Department’s request – did they immediately report to the government that classified information had been removed from its proper government repository and stored on non-secure, non-government servers, laptops and thumb-drives?

I’m betting they didn’t. Indulge me for a moment as we consider how a failure to do so would be prosecuted.

There is no doubt that Mills and Samuelson had Clinton’s classified e-mails on their laptops. As FBI director James Comey conceded in his congressional testimony, these lawyers had copies of what was on Mrs. Clinton’s home-brew server so that, at Clinton’s direction, they could sort the supposedly private e-mails from those that were State Department-related.

Again, let’s assume they failed to report to the government that they’d learned during this review that highly classified information had been improperly removed and was being improperly stored. That’s a criminal offense, so how would the Justice Department and the FBI ordinarily go about proving it? Well, it would be straightforward as long as the government had obtained the laptop computers on which the classified information was improperly stored.

The Justice Department could easily have obtained these computers by either having the FBI seize them pursuant to search warrant, or issuing subpoenas that compelled the lawyers to surrender their laptops to the grand jury.

But what did the Obama Justice Department do? It refused to open a grand jury investigation so subpoenas could be issued; and it treated Mills and Samuelson as friendly witnesses – even lawyers – in the case, not as suspects from whom investigators typically seize evidence by warrant.

The Justice Department gratuitously gave the two lawyers immunity from prosecution in order to cajole them into turning over their laptops, promising that Mills andSamuelson would not be indicted based on any evidence found on those laptop computers. And Justice promised these computers – the incriminating evidence – would be destroyed after the FBI conducted a highly limited examination.

In a normal investigation, the government does not grant immunity when it has a solid, prosecutable criminal case against a suspect. It indicts the suspect and then, from a position of strength, negotiates a guilty plea agreement in which the suspect promises to cooperate in the investigation of other suspects in return for sentencing leniency.

But for some reason – can’t imagine what it might be – that didn’t happen in the Hillary Clinton e-mails investigation.

Realism About the Jihad Threat in Oklahoma


Oklahoma State Rep. John Bennett ventures where few dare to tread.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, October 27, 2016:

In an age of near-universal denial and willful ignorance at the highest levels about the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, it is as unusual as it is refreshing to find lawmakers at any level who are willing to approach the problem honestly. State Representative John Bennett of Oklahoma, a Marine and combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of an all-too-rare breed.

On Tuesday, Bennett held an “Interim Study” on “the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.” In his request to hold this study, he explained: “This will be a study of the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.”

This kind of study should have been held not just in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, but in the U.S. House, and Senate as well. That such an idea is inconceivable is an indication of the fix we’re in. And the situation is only marginally better in Oklahoma: nowadays the misinformation and disinformation about what we’re up against is so universal that anywhere the truth is told about this threat, there is significant pushback from the allies and enablers of jihad and Islamic supremacism.

And so it was in Tulsa on Tuesday. The interim study featured testimony by former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, whose exploits as an undercover agent infiltrating the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are chronicled in the eye-opening book Muslim Mafia.

Gaubatz and Guandolo presented evidence, including land records, showing that the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC) is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood group the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), that both CAIR, which has an active chapter in Oklahoma City, and ISGOC are Muslim Brotherhood organizations, and that CAIR has extensive ties to the jihad terror group Hamas, which styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. They pointed out that since Imad Enchassi, the imam of ISGOC, is a Palestinian and has all these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, he likely also has links to Hamas.

Guandolo and Gaubatz did not base their case on innuendo and hearsay. They laid out FBI evidence, Muslim Brotherhood documents, and more, demonstrating that the claims they were making were based on solid evidence.

Predictably, however, the mainstream media, which we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt is simply and solely a propaganda arm for the Left and the Democratic Party, focused entirely on the presence of Adam Soltani of CAIR-OK and Enchassi. The Tulsa World ran a piece with the hysterical headline “State representative brands CAIR-OK, its director and a local imam as terrorists.” It quoted Soltani raging against Bennett: “Rep. Bennett is shamefully wasting taxpayer money to promote his own biased agenda. This hearing was a new low for Rep. Bennett, as his guests presented a biased narrative that achieves nothing more than demonizing and marginalizing the Oklahoma Muslim community.”

The World magisterially told its readers that “CAIR is a Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group working to enhance the understanding of Islam.” It didn’t see fit to mention that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. There was not a word in the World report about how CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) A California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI, and a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets with the same message. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates.

But the Tulsa World and other mainstream media outlets that covered Bennett’s study did not see fit to inform their readers of any of that; instead, predictably enough, they portrayed the hearing as a baseless exercise in race-baiting and fearmongering conducted by a politician up for reelection.

John Bennett, and the people of Oklahoma, deserve better. There are legitimate questions about CAIR and ISGOC; Bennett dared to raise them Tuesday; for that, he is being subjected to a media lynching that is cynically designed to obscure the genuine concerns he raised – yet ever since a member of ISGOC beheaded a coworker in 2014, these concerns are more urgent than ever.

The media enablers of jihad must be decisively repudiated. Please email the Speaker of the Oklahoma House, Jeff W. Hickman, politely and courteously expressing your support for John Bennett and requesting that his hearing be just the first of a series. His email is and his phone number is (405) 557-7339.

John Bennett has yet again stuck his neck out for freedom. In these hard times, those who are willing to do that have to hang together.

John Brennan is completely unqualified to be Director of Central Intelligence


Jihad Watch, by Michael J. Del Rosso, October 26 2016:

Robert Spencer wrote this yesterday:

Is it widely known that there is a top intelligence official in the Obama Administration’s CIA who has converted to Islam? Yes. It was reported in none other than the Washington Post in 2012. Why couldn’t it be Brennan? The movie Zero Dark Thirtyabout the killing of Osama bin Laden, for which the moviemakers gained access to classified material (the Obama administration was criticized for making it available to them) featured a top counter-terror official who strongly resembled Brennan and was shown performing Muslim prayers. Were the filmmakers hinting at something they knew? Did La Miere speak to Brennan?

Allegations that Brennan is a convert to Islam are based upon firsthand reports of those who served with him in Saudi Arabia.

  1. Those allegations include that Brennan was the target of a Saudi intelligence influence operation, one outcome of which was Brennan’s conversion to Islam.
  2. At that time, Brennan was chief of station, a billet that is designed for an operationally trained officer with experience in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, which Brennan was not. Brennan’s background is that of an analyst, which may explain why he lacked the sophistication and experience to understand that he was being played by the Saudis in an influence operation.
  3. Anyone so inept as to be oblivious to basic hostile intelligence tactics such as this influence operation is unqualified to be DCI.
  4. Furthermore, Brennan’s definition of jihad, “meaning to purify oneself or one’s community,” is incorrect as a matter of fact, since all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence say that the primary and paramount definition of jihad is kinetic war against non-Muslims to forcibly establish submission to Islamic law globally.
  5. If Brennan truly believes his fictitious definition of jihad, he is unqualified to be DCI, since he obviously is unaware of or indifferent to the fact that he is directly contradicting all published Sunni jurisprudence. Al-Qaeda’s bin Laden, ISIS’s al-Baghdadi (who has a doctorate in Islamic law), Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the other numerous violent jihadi terrorist groups all say that they are at war with us because Islamic law makes such war — jihad — obligatory for all Muslims. They also point out that Islamic law makes the funding of jihad obligatory, as well as lying to further jihad. That 15 years after 9/11, Brennan has yet to drop $40 on to purchase a certified English translation of an authoritative textbook on Islamic law, such as Reliance of the Traveller, is professional malpractice of the highest order for someone who has held the senior counter-terrorism and intelligence positions he has.
  6. Furthermore, the fiction that Brennan is espousing is not just any fiction, it is a deliberate propaganda lie by America’s enemies in our 15+-year war. It is designed to disorient us from understanding our enemy’s Threat Doctrine. If he is truly unaware of this, he is a useful idiot in espousing enemy propaganda in time of war, and is unqualified to be DCI.
  7. If Brennan does know the factual Islamic legal definition of jihad, then he is deliberately espousing enemy propaganda in a time of war, in which case Brennan is a traitor — and unqualified to be DCI.

The high-ranking CIA official who converted to Islam, who was called “Roger” in a Washington Post report, was outed last year, confirming that he is not Brennan, but another official named Michael D’Andrea. As the Washington Post reported in 2012, D’Andrea “married a Muslim woman he met abroad, prompting his conversion to Islam.”

Brennan just happens to be another Muslim. Where Spencer wrote of Roger, “Why couldn’t it be Brennan?,” more accurately the question should have been, “Why couldn’t Brennan be a convert to Islam, too?” At the time of the Washington Post article, Brennan was White House Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, and was not in the CIA, while “Roger” was running CIA counter-terrorism operations.

As far as Brennan’s conversion to Islam is concerned, a U.S. asset assigned overseas with Brennan in Saudi Arabia when he was station chief confirmed years ago their firsthand account that Brennan was indeed the target of a Saudi intelligence influence operation that led to his conversion. Brennan has also stated publicly that he visited Mecca, which is impossible for a non-Muslim to do unless he is a special guest of the Saudi King.

When John Guandolo wrote an op-ed in February 2013 to try to rally Senators to oppose Brennan’s nomination to be DCI, I advised John that Brennan’s conversion was de facto irrelevant, given the fact that the Washington Post had recently reported that “Roger,” the CIA’s chief of counter-terror operations, was a Muslim, and that was a non-issue to everyone.

A more compelling disqualifier for Brennan is that he consistently says that “jihad” is a good thing. For example, in 2009, Brennan said: “Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” And in 2010, he said: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

None of what Brennan says is true regarding the legal definition of jihad in Islamic law. The opening sentence in the Reliance of the Traveller chapter on jihad is crystal clear: “o9.0 – Jihad. Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” (Italic emphasis in original.)

Hence Brennan is either, as explained above, too stupid to live and shouldn’t be DCI, or lying about the true definition of jihad (which deception is also obligatory according to Shariah), in which case he is guilty of treason and again shouldn’t be DCI, but rather prosecuted.

This is not a religious issue. Americans believe in freedom of religion for religions that believe in freedom. Rather, it is a national security issue. It is a statement of fact that pious, observant Muslims are required to adhere to Islamic law, which is not scripture, but legal texts written by men. A cursory examination of Reliance of the Traveller will show that it uses the word “obligatory” hundreds of times, and enumerates mandatory acts for all Muslims which are felony violations of the U.S. Code, including terrorism, material support of terrorism, perjury, espionage, treason, making war against the United States, sedition, and misprision of treason. Please let that sink in.

Every American should have a problem with this.

And why don’t we? Because blame isn’t limited to John Brennan. America’s political and national security elites, and especially our mainstream journalists, are guilty of professional malpractice, dereliction of duty, and worse, for being willfully ignorant of these easily verifiable facts.

The net result is that America has not only lost this war, but we changed sides and are aiding our enemy. We need look no further than what Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration did to Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, and tried to do to Egypt, for evidence of that.

Michael J. Del Rosso is a Senior Fellow for Homeland and National Security for the Center for Security Policy.


John Guandolo: Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Speech’ Prosecutions in Europe Portend the ‘Destruction of Liberty in the West’

Matt Cardy/Getty

Matt Cardy/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 26, 2016:

Former FBI agent and counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo, founder of, joined Breitbart News Dailyon SiriusXM Wednesday to talk about the cultural impact of mass immigration from Middle Eastern conflict zones into Europe.

Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow began the discussion with a story from Austria about an Iraqi asylum-seeker who confessed to raping a ten-year-old boy, but saw his rape conviction overturned because he said he was dealing with a “sexual emergency.”


“What you described, and what the individual describes in this story, what the Muslim describes, that is actually lawful under sharia,” Guandolo said, referring to the Islamic legal code.

He continued:

It’s the reason that, according to sharia, a Muslim male can have sexual relations with an animal, with a woman, with a boy, is because of exactly what he said – from the Islamic perspective legally, sexual urges are things that can be released as the Muslim man needs to. It’s literally that simple. And it’s just a part of Islam that’s not talked about because of it’s crudity, how crass and crude this discussion can turn, but the reality is, that’s something that needs to be understood by your listeners.

Marlow mentioned another headline from Austria about the editor of the country’s largest paper being charged with hate speech for an article on the assaults and property damage caused by Syrian migrants.

Guandolo said this concept of “hate speech” has already reached the United States:

You have got Hamas doing business as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. My organization, Understanding the Threat, UTT, everywhere we go, you have Hamas doing business as CAIR, literally putting a massive amount of pressure on whoever is hosting our programs – whether it’s a three-day law enforcement program, or any other program.

I mean, right now, they teach classes on, literally when I come to town, how to shut my programs down. I put out an article a couple of weeks ago, we have them on video saying when John Guandolo comes to town, this guy’s gotta be shut down, here’s what you do.

“What is that all about? It is about shutting down the free exchange of ideas, that in this particular case is, because of my FBI background, a factual presentation based in evidence on the fact that CAIR is a Hamas organization,” Guandolo maintained.

He offered a timely story drawn from his own recent experience to illustrate how hate-speech accusations can obscure certain messages, even if they cannot (yet) be censored outright in the United States.

“I’m in Oklahoma right now. Yesterday Chris Gaubatz and I testified before the Oklahoma State Judiciary Committee about the Islamic movement in the nation and specifically in Oklahoma, and the two organizations we focused on that are Muslim Brotherhood were — I mean, we focused on a lot that I laid out — but they have a mosque here called the Grand Mosque in Oklahoma City, and the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, both Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas supporters. The Islamic Society here is a subsidiary of ISNA, which as you all know, because you’re reported it before, is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo recalled.

“But I laid out the evidence, I laid out the property records showing that it’s owned by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank, laid out all kinds of stuff, their financial reportings, all that,” he continued.

“Well, the imam for that organization, who I identified as being Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood was sitting seven feet away from me, as was the director of CAIR Oklahoma, which is Hamas, and I identified them as Hamas. We laid it out. This was a three-hour interim study at the state level. We went into the next room after it was over and had a press conference, and the state legislator that invited us in brought me to the podium, and we said, ‘Are there any questions?’ There were at least fifteen people in the media. Nobody had a question,” he said.

“Soon as we were done, they flocked around the Hamas guys, and it was like ducks eating bread from a park bench. It was amazing to watch right in front of us. I literally interjected into what CAIR was saying when they were talking to me, I said, ‘This is exactly what I just testified to in there.’ They were like, ‘Hey, don’t interrupt!’ I said, ‘These men are Hamas terrorists that you’re talking to, and you just heard the evidence in the other room.’ And yet, what did they report all over Oklahoma, was that it was just ‘hateful,’ just hateful speech,” Guandolo reported.

“As we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, the media is so in the bag. What you’re describing as going on in Europe is happening right here in America, and it is the complete shutting down of the free exchange of ideas, and free speech,” he warned.

“We already have people in the West, as you just noted, in Europe who have had handcuffs put on them because of Facebook posts, and free speech on the street corner. It is the destruction of liberty in the West, and I don’t see people in Europe fighting it. I am seeing some in America fight it, but we’re in a really bad way,” he said.

Marlow asked Guandolo for his estimate of how many mosques have been radicalized in the U.S., and how many are susceptible to radicalization.

“Well, we have over three thousand now, is the best number that exist. It looks like over three thousand. The number is increasing pretty rapidly, and has over the last couple of years,” Guandolo replied.

“Of those, the percentage that UTT usually looks at is a number between 75 and 85 percent, and that’s based on three things,” he explained. “It’s based on property records, it’s based on leadership of the mosque, and it’s based on the mosque’s study – which Chris Gaubatz, who’s a part of UTT, went undercover at CAIR, and the book Muslim Mafia is written about that experience, at least in part.”

“He also took part in a mosque survey where he went around the country, he and a few others, and went into a hundred random mosques, and they looked at what was being taught, and the sharia adherence there,” Guandolo continued. “We saw that sharia adherence, strict sharia adherence and extreme sharia adherence, is in about 81 percent of mosques in the United States. And where you have a high level of sharia adherence, you have violent jihad being taught and encouraged in these places.”

He explained:

So that number 80 percent that people throw around is not just kind of something that somebody pulled out of the air. There’s been testimony on Capitol Hill. There’s evidence of the studies that we’ve done, and we know that this is a number that puts it very close to the mark. So 80 percent of 3,000 is a big number. And of course we see, across the United States, that number is very close when we look at the number of organizations that are Muslim Brotherhood that are these mosques.

So you not only have kind of an independent look at it, when you look at the Muslim Brotherhood mosques and Islamic centers in this country, that number is right about 80 percent. That’s a massive number. And so we know that if they’re Muslim Brotherhood, they’re the kind of mosques, like the one we spoke about yesterday in front of the Oklahoma Judiciary Committee, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. These are Muslim Brotherhood mosques, and they teach jihad.

In the case of that one, that’s the mosque where Alton Nolen attended, and he ended up being on top of a woman in the office space in Oklahoma, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and sawing her head off. These are the kinds of things that come out of places like that. We can tie jihadi attacks, whether it’s the Boston bombing, the San Bernardino, Orlando, the shootings in Chattanooga, the killing of Private Andy Long in Little Rock, Arkansas – all these attacks that we’ve seen in the United States, we can almost always tie to a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic center or Islamic society.

New Center Monograph Warns Of ‘Gateway’ Group For Violent Jihadists: Tablighi Jama’at

photoshop-ccscreensnapz002Center for Security Policy, October 26, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): Fifteen years after 9/11, one reality should be self-evident: No matter how many jihadists are killed as a result of U.S. and allied kinetic actions, our Islamic supremacist enemies’ ranks seem to be continuously replenished by an inexhaustible pipeline. While it is undeniable that most jihadis are nurtured in Muslim communities, families, madrassas, and mosques, the final indoctrination that propels an Islamic terrorist on the pathway to mayhem often takes place among Muslim scholars especially dedicated to the teaching and training of those showing the most promise in devotion to the faith.

Preeminent among such incubators of indoctrination is a global Islamic missionary and revival movement known as Tablighi Jama’at (TJ). Founded in the 20th Century on the Asian subcontinent, TJ claims more than 70 million followers in 80 countries around the world. The group strictly enforces a no-violence policy among its missionary membership.

Those imbued with Tablighi Jama’at’s adherence to the jihadist doctrine of Sharia, however, are ripe for recruitment by groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that – in light of Mohammed’s example and the teachings of Islam’s sacred texts – have no such compunction against the use of terrifying force. Indeed, TJ-affiliated members, students, teachers and mosques have been at least loosely-connected to a number of U.S. terror attacks, including in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida in 2016.

In this video, the Center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis, Clare Lopez, who serves as the editor-in-chief of the “Terror Jihad” collection and its companion, the “Civilization Jihad Readers Series,” introduces the Center’s new monograph

If the terrorist pipeline to which Tablighi Jama’at contributes is ever to be severed, it is imperative that U.S. policy-makers and the American people understand the contribution this ostensibly “non-violent” missionary group makes at the intersection of Islamic indoctrination and jihadist terror. To that end, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the second monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series,” Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad, by Ilana Freedman.

This publication, like Freedman’s first in the series, Jihad! The Threat of ISIS in America, brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and solid analysis to help explain how it is that indoctrination in the Islamic canon can and does all too often lead to an absolute conviction of Islamic supremacism, and thence to violence.

In unveiling this new product, the Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, observed:

For far too long, the West has given a pass to Tablighi Jama’ati missionaries, on the theory that – like the Muslim Brotherhood – their ostensibly non-violent practice of Islamic supremacism poses no threat to our civilization and security. Ilana Freedman powerfully debunks this theory, exposing the dangers associated with it and making the case for treating TJ as the toxic enabler of jihad that it is, both elsewhere and here.

 Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format: gatewaytojihad

Zineb el Rhazoui, Charlie Hebdo survivor, discusses why the world needs to ‘Destroy Islamic Fascism’

Zineb El Rhazoui feels she is carrying on the legacy of her dead Charlie Hebdo comrades.

Zineb El Rhazoui feels she is carrying on the legacy of her dead Charlie Hebdo comrades.

Undeterred by fatwas and death threats, the author has released an incendiary and thoughtful new book, bound to provoke debate

New York Times, by Emma-Kate Symons, October 18, 2016:
She leads a clandestine existence, on the move and under 24-hour guard as France’s most protected woman. Yet Zineb El Rhazoui, the Charlie Hebdo journalist who happened to be in Casablanca on January 7 last year, the day terrorists “avenging the Prophet” massacred nine people at the satirical magazine in Paris, believes she has a duty to defy Islamists desperate to silence her.

Shaken but undeterred by the fatwas and relentless, precise death threats issued via social media to “kill the bitch” since she helped produce the publication’s first survivors’ issue following the attack — and spoke about it in Arabic for the Arab press — the Moroccan-French writer refuses to assume an anonymous identity. Fleeing Paris or abandoning her human rights activism, and her unforgiving critiques of the religion she grew up with, are also out of the question.

“I don’t have the right to renounce my struggle, or to give up my freedom,” says the reporter and sociologist of religion in an interview with Women in the World, during a recent trip to New York, as part of French president Francois Hollande’s delegation when he received the Appeal of Conscience Foundation’s World Statesman Award for 2016. “If the French state protects me it is not little individual me: What is being protected is my freedom to be irreverent, and freedom of expression, so I should exercise this even more because I enjoy this protection.”

“It’s totally crazy. I have done nothing against the law and have nothing to hide, yet I live with security while those who threaten us are free,” El Rhazoui declares with an air of shock and anger that underscores the arbitrariness and brutality visited on a 34-year-old woman condemned to living on the run and mostly in the shadows. “And if you call them by their names you are Islamophobic and racist. I am racist? I can teach them a few things about Arab culture. I can show them how to discover its richness and the diversity of their culture. I believe this culture deserves universality because you can be Arab, Muslim and a free thinker.”

Resisting terror

Sweeping in to the offices of Women in the World in Manhattan, accompanied by bodyguards, the world-renowned journalist is living proof of her pledge to keep “living her life beyond its limits” as a key way of resisting terror. Elegant and beautiful, with her long, wavy hair flowing freely and in an impeccably tailored black dress, El Rhazoui is reminiscent of 1940s cinema’s cerebral heroines — her eloquence and composure only occasionally betraying the trauma of the past 20 months. Each time we speak about the aftermath of the massacre at her magazine and how she is coping personally her voice quavers, but when the subject comes back to her fight for reform in Islamic civilization she is fearless.

In this spirit, El Rhazoui, obliged to spend most of her time in hiding, like Salman Rushdie after his 1989 publication of The Satanic Verses, has taken the high-risk option of publishing an explosive new book about Islam.

Detruire Le Fascisme Islamique (Destroy Islamic Fascism), being released in France this week, takes the battle of ideas directly to the ideologically-driven zealots who inspired the assassins of her dear friend Charb (Stephane Charbonnier), late editor of Charlie Hebdo who preferred “to die standing than to live on my knees.”

Obtained exclusively by Women in the World, the book dedicated to “Muslim atheists” is an unapologetic strike against the strict application of Islam by imitating the first Salafists or “pious ancestors.” The Prophet Mohammed and his companions, whose violent exploits are contained in “bellicose texts from a barbaric 7th-century Bedouin tribal context,” exhibited codes of behavior El Rhazoui insists have no place in the modern world and can be directly connected to terrorism. “The most abject crimes of Islamic State are but a 21st-century remake of what the first Muslims accomplished under the guidance of the Prophet,” she writes, noting that sexual and domestic slavery, the massacre of non-Muslims (notably Jews), pedophilia, pillage, polygamy and summary executions were all adopted from pre-Islamic societies. The book is also the journalist’s way of carrying on the legacy of her dead comrades, who reveled in their right to mock established religion and fanatics everywhere — with Islam no exception to their traditional French anti-clerical ridicule — through satire and caricature.

Formerly the magazine’s religion writer, El Rhazoui is in the throes of joining the exodus of staff breaking from the magazine under its new management. Flush with cash from international donations, the fundamentally altered publication, she disappointedly explained, “will probably never again draw the Prophet” out of fear of more reprisals.

“[And] those who think that only a handful of madmen are capable of killing for a cartoon of Mohammed forget that everywhere that Islam reigns as the religion of the state, caricatures and cartoons in the press are repressed”.

Religion of peace and love?

“We need to admit that Islamism today is applied Islam,” El Rhazoui — who describes herself as an “atheist of Muslim culture” –writes, responding to politicians, religious figures, Islamophobia opponents and media commentators who claim after every jihadist attack that “real Islam” has nothing to do with such terror.

“When we apply Islam to the letter it gives Islamism, and when we apply Islamism to the letter it gives terrorism. So we need to stop saying Islam is a religion of peace and love. What is a moderate Islamist? An Islamist who doesn’t kill?”

The essay-length book is in the grand French polemical tradition of Emile Zola whose J’accuse denounced the anti-Semitism of the French state and establishment during the Dreyfus Affair, on the eve of the 20th century. El Rhazoui, who holds Moroccan and French citizenship, takes aim at a very 21st-century phenomenon: what she abhors as the “intellectual fraud” of Islamophobia, which pretends to be about anti-racism but in her reckoning is used as a weapon to silence all critics of Islam and the ideas behind it as automatically hostile towards all Muslims. Epitomized by the French Collective Against Islamophobia (CCIF), this deliberate strategy vilifies as Islamophobic voices such as El Rhazoui’s who dare question the religion the CCIF and fellow travelers define only through the prism of their own fundamentalism.

The notion of Islamophobia doesn’t even exist in Muslim countries, the author points out, because outside the West, criticism of the religion or Mohammed is officially “categorized as blasphemy.”

“Unable to pass blasphemy laws in Europe, groups like the CCIF employ a dangerous “semantic confusion,” she said. On the CCIF site it is written “Islamophobia is not an opinion: it is an offense.”

“This is very dangerous because it has even entered the dictionary as hostility towards Islam and Muslims. Yet criticism of an idea, of Islam or of a religion cannot be characterized as an offense or a crime. I was born and lived under the Islam of Morocco and live in France and I have the right criticize religion and this dictatorship of Islamophobia that says I have no right to criticize! If we criticize Christianity it doesn’t mean we are Christianophobes or racist towards the ‘Christian race.’”

The widespread pressure to self-censor is severe, El Rhazoui says.

“You can no longer speak about Islam without saying it’s a religion of peace and love. But when you open any book in Islam what do you find? Violence, blood, oppression of women and hate for other religions.

“Of course you can find this in other religions, however we are talking about something written many centuries ago during a barbaric time for humanity. As long as we don’t talk about this, and keep repeating that Islam is a religion of peace and love, many people will continue to believe the Koran is a constitution, and that rather than being a book written 15 centuries ago reflecting a particular context, it is a legal constitution to apply today.”

Takfiri “Al Shabab” On Rampage in Somalia


They have captured a town, murdered a theater troop, and attack an African Union military base within the last week.

CounterJihad, October 26, 2016:

Islamic extremist group al Shabab, a violent offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union that once attempted to govern Somalia, has staged a series of guerrilla attacks in the last week.  In Kenya, they struck a troop of non-Muslim actors trying to bring awareness of a new program to provide textbooks to regional schools.  Twelve of the actors were killed in an attack that featured grenades and homemade explosives, finished off by militants with guns who stormed the building and murdered the wounded.

The attack is part of a campaign to drive non-Muslims, and especially Christians, from educational facilities in the region.  In this it is similar to Boko Haram, another African Islamist group that targets educators and schools in an attempt to control the minds of the youth.  Though the claim is that Western education is a kind of propaganda, Western mathematics and medicine are being denied to the people of these regions in an attempt to make sure that they learn nothing that might cause them to question the conservative interpretations of Islam favored by these militants.  Though they are quite similar in this way, the two groups are not formally aligned.  Boko Haram is allied with the Islamic State (ISIS), whereas al Shabab’s affiliation is with al Qaeda.

Separately, yesterday another group of Shabab militants attacked an African Union (AU) military base hosting troops from Djibouti.  The complex attack featured a truck bomb followed by coordinated small arms fire.  The military forces claim that they not only repelled the attack, but killed all members of the attacking force.  Shabab’s spokesmen say that the attack was a reprisal for massacres allegedly conducted by the AU forces.  Djibouti is an American ally, hosting Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonnier, an old French Foreign Legion base that is currently the only permanent base for US forces in Africa.

In addition to this, al Shabab captured a city in Somalia in the last week.  Allied Ethiopian forces fled before them, leaving them to occupy the city of Halgan.  However, this is the third time this month that the militants have captured that city.  So far the Somali government has managed to put together enough of its own or allied forces to retake the city.  The Ethiopian forces built trenches and fortifications, but appear to have elected to destroy them and flee rather than use them to stand and fight against the Islamists.  While this does at least deny al Shabab the benefit of the fortifications, it is unclear why these professional soldiers would not or could not hold their posts against guerrilla forces from a dug-in position.

Early this month al Shabab even managed a car bomb attack on a restaurant in the capital city of Mogadishu.

The Battle of Mosul

7fb89ca7-549c-4fff-a20f-b1551b8a4554Townhall, by Cliff May, Oct 26, 2016:

Ayman al-Zawahiri was correct. Believed to be ensconced in the tribal lands of Pakistan, the leader of what’s sometimes called al Qaeda Central has dedicated his life to a jihad that he hopes and prays will lead to the founding of a new and mighty Islamic empire. But he understands the value of strategic patience.

In particular, he recognized that establishing a caliphate before conditions were favorable for its survival and expansion could only be unhelpful, causing Muslims to doubt whether spreading Islamic domination in the 21st century is a divinely blessed mission.

By contrast, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, 45, has been a young man in a hurry. As leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, he chafed at taking orders from the 65-year-old successor to Osama bin Laden. In 2014, he broke with al Qaeda, declared a caliphate, the Islamic State, with himself as caliph. And now he and his fledgling empire are in peril.

A coalition of forces is closing in on Mosul, the only major Sunni-majority city in Iraq still under Islamic State control. It is probably only a matter of time — and blood — before Mosul is liberated, a term that should be used advisedly in the Middle East.

The Islamic State is believed to have fewer than 7,000 fighters in Mosul. How many will seek martyrdom (after using human shields for as long as possible) and how many will run from the more than 30,000 coalition troops — troops much better equipped and supported by American air power? Hard to say.

Those who flee may head for towns along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that remain Islamic State strongholds. Others will try to reach Syria, especially Raqqa, the caliphate’s de facto capital, northeast of Damascus.

An offensive against Raqqa is being contemplated. But who will lead that effort? And who will govern Raqqa after the Islamic State is gone? These are difficult questions that ought to be answered within a broader strategic framework.

Imagine that the Battle of Mosul is followed by a Battle of Raqqa and that the Islamic State ends up with little or no territory still under its control. What do its surviving fighters do then? Perhaps some will slink back to wherever they came from, defeated and disillusioned. Others may become guerrillas, perpetrating acts of terrorism within the region and plotting a comeback. Still others could decide to put their skills and experience to use in a more distant land, perhaps one that mistakes them for refugees.

We don’t know how much destruction will be visited on Mosul over the days ahead, but it’s likely that hundreds of thousands of people will be displaced. The agencies charged with caring for them are already burdened to the breaking point.

Mosul and the nearby Nineveh Plain are the historic homeland of the Assyrian Christians. The U.S. Congress, the Obama administration and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom have all recognized that these and other Christian communities of the Middle East, as well as Yazidis and other religious minorities, are facing genocide. Such recognition should guarantee that saving Christians and their communities is a high priority. That does not appear to be the case at present. It’s easy to champion diversity for Washington, Toronto and Berlin. To do so for Muslim-majority lands is more challenging.

Though the forces assembled for the Battle of Mosul view the Islamic State as their common enemy, their alliance remains tenuous. The Peshmerga, the army of Iraqi Kurdistan, is constituted of tough fighters whose most important mission is consolidating and defending historically Kurdish lands. Elements of the Iraqi military are reportedly flying Shia flags, a sight not reassuring to Mosul’s Sunnis. Also joining the coalition are Popular Mobilization Forces, Shia militias, the most powerful of which are controlled by Iran. Just a few years ago, they were killing American troops, using such weapons as EFPs, explosively formed penetrators — highly lethal bombs supplied by Iran’s ruling mullahs.

If the Battle of Mosul goes as expected, the Islamic State’s loss, while significant, also will be al Qaeda’s gain. Dr. Zawahiri (he was a physician before he was a revolutionary) should have an easier time attracting recruits and funds once it becomes indisputable that the rival founded by Dr. Baghdadi (he was a theologian before he was a revolutionary) has not lived up to its promise.

Also benefiting from the decline of the Islamic State will be the Islamic Republic of Iran, which aims to establish a new Persian empire, albeit one based on religious allegiance. Most immediately, the clerical regime is attempting to construct what has been called a “Shia crescent” including Iraq, where its influence has only grown since the 2011 withdrawal of American troops, and Syria, where it is defending the dictatorship of its client, Bashar Assad (with significant Russian assistance). Beyond Syria is Lebanon, where Hezbollah, Iran’s foreign legion, is more powerful than the national armed forces and is preparing for a future showdown with Israel. In addition, Iran provides support to Houthis fighting a civil war in Yemen, and to Hamas in Gaza.

So while the Battle of Mosul is likely to be a military victory for the alliance President Obama supports, it would be unwise for him to claim — once again — that “the tide of war is receding.” The free peoples of the world, as well as those who might like to be, are in for an extended conflict, one that will have to be fought on multiple battlefields against a list of jihadi groups and regimes. Perhaps the next American administration will develop a serious strategy to defeat our enemies. I’m not suggesting that’s probable, only that it’s not impossible.



Also see:

Beyond the media propaganda: American Mideast Coalition endorses…Trump

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 26, 2016:

Now that we know that the mainstream media is simply and solely a propaganda arm for the Left and the Democratic Party, it is interesting to see some of those who, we’re told, are deeply concerned about Trump’s “racism,” breaking ranks. There are Middle Easterners who are deeply concerned about jihad and Islamic supremacism, and they are not falling for the party line.

If America is ever going to fight effectively against the global jihad, the mainstream media stranglehold must be broken.


“American Mideast Coalition Endorses Donald J. Trump for President in Washington DC. October 17th,” New English Review, October 21, 2016:

On October 17th, 2016, over 250 leaders of numerous diverse Middle Eastern communities in the United States gathered in Washington DC to endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States.

Warmly received were Donald Trump’s foreign policy and national security advisors General Bert Mizusawa, Professor Walid Phares and Attorney Joseph Schmitz, who explained the nuances of Trump’s foreign policy toward the Middle East and Africa.

Also present were a number of foreign dignitaries including, Serbia’s Ambassador Djerdj Matkovic, Filip Jasinski (First Counselor of the Polish Embassy), Yasser Elshimy (Policy officer at the Egyptian Embassy), Mohamed Bahzad (Kingdom of Bahrain Embassy), Khaled Darief (Libyan Embassy), Karl Lagatie (Belgian Embassy), Gregor Csorsz (Austrian Embassy) Mamad Talibov (Azerbaijan Embassy) as well as Caroline Hurmdal, Chima Pavan and Ben Norman (UK Embassy). They were introduced by Mideast Hispanic Women for Trump Astrid Mattar-Hajjar.

Numerous community leaders recounted the foreign policy failures of the Obama/Clinton years and expressed their support for the direction Donald Trump will take as President. Where Obama has shunned moderate, secular voices in the region and has partnered with radicals (such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist regime of Iran), Donald Trump promises to do exactly the opposite: to support the moderates and oppose the radicals. This change in direction was endorsed vociferously and cheerfully by the participants – Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, Assyrian, Chaldean, Coptic and Maronite Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, Jews and Africans.

The Co-chairs and officers of the American Mideast Coalition for Trump, John Hajjar, Tom Harb, Eblan Farris and Hossein Khorram introduced the large coalition of several Middle East and East African pro-Trump groups coming from across the United States to the capital to express their rejection of the Obama-Clinton policies both at home and overseas, and to support an alternative program advanced by the next President of the United States, Donald Trump.

Among the community leaders who addressed the audience were Assyrian American Ms. Nahren Anweya from Michigan, Iranian-American leader Dr. Mohammed Hamzepour from Virginia, Lebanese Shia Imam, Sheikh Mohammed el Hajj Hassan and Chaldean-American leader Sam Yono, both from Detroit, Ethiopian American Laban Seyoum and American Sudanese Ibrahim Ahmed Beja, both from Virginia, Turkish American Sal Simsek of Connecticut and Egyptian American Dr. Ashley Ansara from Florida. In addition, Mauritanian American Ahmad Sidi Moila and Yazidi American Khalid Haidar from West Virginia spoke to the press.

At the close of the event, the names of the very important Donald J. Trump for President Inc.’s “Middle Eastern  American Advisory Committee” members were announced.

It should be noted that this event was heavily covered by Middle East media including al Arabiya, al Jazeera, Skynews Arabia, al Hurra TV, Radio SAWA, Voice of America Persian, Radio Farda as well as major social media broadcasts.

The Advisory Board and AMCT are now heavily campaigning for Mr Trump across the country and particularly in all battleground states.

Newt Gingrich Challenges Megyn Kelly on Anti-Trump Bias in Epic Showdown…Megyn Won’t Call Bill Clinton a ‘Sexual Predator’


Breitbart, by Patick Howley, October 25, 2016:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich engaged Megyn Kelly in an epic showdown over her anti-Donald Trump “bias” on Kelly’s Fox News show Tuesday night.

Gingrich accused Kelly of being “fascinated with sex” after Kelly used the term “sexual predator” to describe Trump. Gingrich challenged Kelly to call Bill Clinton a sexual predator, but Kelly refused to do so, staunchly defending the Clinton ticket and even saying that the polls show people don’t care as much about Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions as they do about Trump’s alleged incidents.

At the end of the segment, Kelly accused Gingrich of “anger issues.”

Here are the fireworks:

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you using language that is inflammatory that’s not true!

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker…You have no idea whether it’s true or not.

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That’s right. And I’m not taking a position on it, unlike–

NEWT: Oh yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. And I think it is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

MEGYN: Incorrect.

NEWT: I think that is exactly the bias that people are upset by.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

NEWT: No, may I just suggest to you–

MEGYN: No! Let me make my point and then I will give you the floor. What I said is, IF Trump is a sexual predator then that’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That’s what we saw. Then we saw ten women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, ‘That was untrue. He did it to me! He did it to me!’ We saw reporters, people who had worked with him, people from Apprentice, and so on and so forth. He denies it all. Which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say that the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Sure. Okay, so it’s worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a speech in Brazil…saying her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America. That’s not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering.

NEWT: You want to go back through the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me, really?

NEWT: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

MEGYN: Well, you know what, Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like to know–

NEWT: Ok, and therefore we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because after all you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah, listen, it’s not about me, it’s about the women and men of America. And the poll numbers show us that the women of America in particular are very concerned about these allegations and in large part believe that they ARE a real issue. Don’t dismiss the women summarily!

NEWT: Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We on the Kelly File have covered that story as well, sir.

NEWT: No I want to actually hear you use the words. Bill Clinton, sexual predator. I dare you. Bill Clinton, sexual predator.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we’ve covered–

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar.

MEGYN: Excuse me. Excuse me.

NEWT: $850,000 penalty?

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We on the Kelly File have covered the Clinton matter, as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey, we’ve covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he’s not on the ticket, and the polls also show that the American people are less interested–

NEWT: He’ll be in the East Wing.

MEGYN: In the deeds of Hillary Clinton’s husband than in the deeds of the person who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump. We’re going to have to leave it at that. And you can take your anger issues and spend some time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

NEWT: And you, too.

Hillary’s 33,000 emails might not be ‘missing’ after all

clintonswiftboatNew York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 25, 2016:

For months now, we’ve been told that Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 missing emails were permanently erased and destroyed beyond recovery. But newly released FBI notes strongly suggest they still exist in several locations — and they could be recovered, if only someone would impanel a grand jury and seize them.

In a May interview with FBI agents, an executive with the Denver contractor that maintained Clinton’s private server revealed that an underling didn’t bleach-clean all her subpoenaed emails, just ones he stored in a data file he used to transfer the emails from the server to Clinton’s aides, who in turn sorted them for delivery to Congress.

The Platte River Networks executive, whose name was redacted from the interview report, said PRN tech Paul Combetta “created a ‘vehicle’ to transfer email files from the live mailboxes of [Clinton Executive Services Corp.] email accounts [and] then later used BleachBit software to shred the ‘vehicle,’ but the email content still existed in the live email accounts.”

Unless one of Clinton’s aides had the capability to log in to the PRN server as an administrator and remove a mailbox, her archived mailboxes more than likely still reside somewhere in that system. And they may also materialize on an internal “shared drive” that PRN created to control access to the Clinton email accounts among PRN employees. PRN has been under FBI order to preserve all emails and other evidence since the start of its investigation last year.

Clinton’s missing “personal” emails may also be captured on a Google server. According to FBI notes, Combetta “transferred all of the Clinton email content to a personal Google email address he created.” Only the FBI never subpoenaed Google to find out.

The FBI documents also reveal that Hillary’s server was mirrored on a cloud server in Pennsylvania maintained by Datto Inc., a tech firm that performs cloud-to-cloud data protection.

When PRN contracted with Datto, it requested that Hillary’s server be backed up locally and privately. But the techs forgot to order the private node, and they sent the server backup data “remotely to Datto’s secure cloud and not to a local private node.” The FBI never subpoenaed Datto’s server, either.

Then there’s the laptop Combetta loaded with the Clinton email archive and allegedly shipped back to a Clinton aide in Washington, who claims it got “lost” in the mail. Not so fast: The latest FBI document dump includes a series of interviews with an unidentified former “special assistant” to Clinton at the State Department who said the elusive Apple MacBook laptop was actually “shipped to the Clinton Foundation in New York City.”

But in a June follow-up interview, FBI agents inexplicably left it up to this critical witness to “inquire about the shipment” with the foundation’s mailroom manager, who works in Rockefeller Center. The FBI still does not have the laptop in its possession.

It turns out that investigators also know the whereabouts of the original Apple server Clinton used in her first two months in office. Recovering that equipment is critical because it contains a mass of unseen emails from Jan. 21, 2009, to March 18, 2009 — a critical period in Clinton’s tenure at State. Witnesses say the equipment was not discarded, as first believed, but “repurposed” as a “work station” used by staff in Clinton’s Chappaqua residence.

Yet the FBI says it “was unable to obtain the original Apple server for a forensic review.” Instead of seizing it, the agency has taken Clinton’s aides’ and lawyers’ word that the server’s bereft of relevant emails. In fact, the agency confesses on Page 27 of its 47-page investigative case summary that it failed to recover other equipment and data as well: “The FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server log data for the relevant time period limited the FBI’s forensic analysis of the server systems. As a result, FBI cyber analysis relied, in large part, on witness statements.”

Congressional investigators say FBI Director James Comey in his year-long “investigation” didn’t even bother to send agents to search Clinton’s homes in Chappaqua or Washington, DC. Nor did he dispatch them to the offices of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Executive Services Corp. in New York City.

“The Clinton residences and other locations should have been treated like any other criminal investigation — with federal grand jury subpoenas or search warrants issued by judges and served in the middle of the night,” said veteran FBI special agent Michael M. Biasello, who worked criminal cases out of New York and other field offices for 27 years.

“Never — I repeat, never — in my career have I or any FBI agent known to me investigated a criminal case without the use of a federal grand jury, grand jury subpoenas or search warrants,” he said. “It’s disgraceful they weren’t used in this case.”

The most damning evidence against Clinton may never have been actually destroyed. It was simply left untouched by the FBI.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration.”