Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Terrorist Supporting Imams?


The FBI is trying to draw a difficult line between protected free speech and actual support for terror.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Oct.4, 2016:

America is well-known for its advancement of freedom and democracy but in an environment where the threat of terrorism is a real and present danger Americans are often faced with the struggle between liberty or security. A recent New York Times article called Extremist Imam Tests F.B.I. and the Limits of the Law touches upon how Imam Suleiman Anwar Bengharsa has been making authorities question the boundaries of this dilemma. Despite, Bengharsa allegedly telling Muslims that they “must strictly follow the shariah, or Islamic law, no matter where they live[,]” according to the Times – one can arguably say that he has went so far as to have caused incitement to violence/terrorism. They report on how Bengharsa has supported ISIS via social media:

But in the last two years, Imam Bengharsa’s public pronouncements have taken a dark turn. On Facebook, he has openly endorsed the Islamic State, posted gruesome videos showing ISIS fighters beheading and burning alive their enemies and praised terrorist attacks overseas.

Could one imagine if a Christian pastor endorsed a terrorist group and posted scenes of their grisly murders online – a group that is dedicated to destroying the U.S. and the rest of the West? There would be widespread outrage. Apparently, one saying that they support ISIS isn’t a crime in and of itself according to FBI director Comey, who has stated, “It’s even protected speech to say I’m a fan of the Islamic State so-called[.]” However, with Bengharsa there seems to be a trend of radical associations. In one case he actually gave money ($1,300check) to a Muslim convert in Detroit, Sebastian Gregerson or Abdurrahaman Bin Mikaayl, who has compiled of a number of deadly weapons – including explosives (grenades). It is possible that Gregerson may have been under the inspiration of former Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki – because when the FBI went into Gregerson’s home they discoveredCDs labeled “Anwar al-Awlaki[.]” The FBI also had suspicions that Bengharsa and Gregerson were possibly involved in the scheming of a terror attack:

Nearly a year ago, in fact, the F.B.I. said in a court filing — accidentally and temporarily made public in an online database — that agents suspected the two men were plotting terrorism. “Based on the totality of the aforementioned information and evidence, there is reason to believe that Bengharsa and Gregerson are engaged in discussions and preparations for some violent act on behalf of” the Islamic State, an agent wrote.

Supposedly, there’s “no proof that he [Bengharsa] knew Mr. Gregerson planned to buy illegal explosives.” The Times piece notesthat in Bengharsa’s checkbook he put “zakat” (charity) in reference to the $1,300 check. We have seen before how zakat funding has made its way to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, some authoritative Islamic texts on Islamic jurisprudence such as The Reliance of the Traveler, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law reveal that jihadists are one of the recipients of zakat. In this particular book there are eight types of zakat recipients – the seventh category includes:


The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

The Times article also leaves room for a possible connection between Bengharsa and the radical Yusuf Wehelie. Apparently, in 2010 Wehelie and his brother were halted in Cairo from returning back to the U.S. by the FBI. Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Hamas linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) complained – CAIR still has a sympathetic letter from Yusuf Wehelie on its website attached here. Wehelie was so radical that:

At Yusuf Wehelie’s detention hearing in July, the authorities said he had told undercover agents that he supported the Islamic State and that if he couldn’t join it overseas, he would attack a military recruiting center, possibly using explosives. (Mr. Wehelie’s lawyer, Nina Ginsberg, said that in later recorded conversations, he disavowed those statements and later stopped replying to the undercover agents.)

It’s no surprise that CAIR would support a jihadist – knowing how the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organization is unwavering in their commitment to “civilization jihad” which seeks “to subvert our society from within using the very freedoms they will then take away.” Jihadists and Islamists may use different tactics but they basically have the same goals.

There might also be a possible connection between Bengharsa and Maalik Alim Jones. According to The Washington Times, Jones was accused of providing “material support to al Shabaab and the receipt of military-type training from the terrorist group[,]” among other things. Apparently, Jones went to a Baltimore mosque where Bengharsa sometimes preached. In addition to everything mentioned above, Bengharsa allegedly “transferred money three times to an unnamed person in Yemen[,]” and “received $902,710 in wire transfers in 2014 and 2015, possibly an inheritance.” Furthermore, a couple of Bengharsa’s social media posts shown below with commentary (gathered from the New York Times) capture the type of hatred and anti-American/Western rhetoric he espouses.



It’s disturbing to know that Bengharsa was a chaplain for several years in Maryland prisons likely contributing to the Muslim radicalization problem. It’s almost like these supporters of jihad have to directly call for a specific attack in order to be apprehended by authorities. If we keep allowing these jihadists to establish vast networks of contacts, while building up their arsenals we are only making it easier for the next jihadist to takeover and continue the jihadist agenda. We must allow our law enforcement to be able to do their job effectively in combating jihad.

Finding Truth Among Talking Heads in the Media


Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Oct. 2, 2016:

Many of the questions UTT gets these days revolve around our thoughts on various talking heads who seems to “get it” about the Islamic threat.  Often times the questioners are disappointed to hear the truth UTT shares with them about the person whom they were inquiring.

It is important at this time in the war we all understand that any departure from the truth about the threat we are facing from the Global Islamic Movement provides space in which our enemies can operate.

Remember, our enemy is working most diligently and most effectively in the information battlespace.

Anyone giving our enemy room to maneuver is serving the enemy’s cause not America’s – no matter what their intentions.

What boxes the enemy in is the truth about who they are and what they are doing.

So today, the UTT team would like to offer three simple things to help our readers discern who among the talking heads are intentionally or unintentionally giving our enemies rooms to move, and those speakers who are on point:

  • How does the speaker refer to the threat?  Does he use terms like Islam, Jihad, Global Islamic Movement?  Or does he use terms intentionally meant to keep the discussion away from doctrinal Islam like violent extremists, radical terrorists, radical Muslims, or Islamism.
  • Does the speaker say such things as:  “The vast majority (or “99.9%”) of Muslims do not support what ISIS and Al Qaeda stand for,” “We must use moderate Muslims to drive a wedge between them and the extremist Muslims,” or other such nonsense?
  • Does the speaker claim he/she was “purged” from the government because of his stance on the threat of Islam?  There are three prominent speakers on the circuit today who claim this.  If someone was promoted and kept inside the government during the current administration at a time when those speaking real truth were pushed out, how can one claim he was purged?

UTT hopes these simple guidelines will help you discern truth-tellers from liars.

The Global Islamic Movement, including all of the jihadi organizations as well as jihadis killing people around the world from New York to London to Paris to Brussels to San Bernadino and Orlando, states they are muslims waging jihad in the cause of allah in order to establish a caliphate under sharia (Islamic law).

Its all about sharia.

Anyone watering the truth down at this point in the war is giving our enemy the ability to keep Americans from understanding the true nature of the threat while allowing the jihad to advance forward and making our victory that much more difficult.

Pentagon in Internal Struggle Over Calling out Salafi Jihadism

The Pentagon. (Photo: © Creative Commons/David B. Gleason)

The Pentagon. (Photo: © Creative Commons/David B. Gleason)

Clarion Project, by Elliot Friedland, October 2, 2016:

From time to time, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country’s most senior military officer below the commander-in-chief himself, puts out a National Military Strategy. This document is intended for senior American military commanders around the world and sets out big picture strategy guidance for how the U.S. military ought to cope with the myriad threats it may face in the line of duty.

New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine General Joseph Dunford is compiling a new National Military Strategy. Special Operations Command (SoCom), the branch of the military charged with hunting down and killing terrorists, is providing input and expertise to the report.

SoCom is pushing for Salafi jihadism to be discussed in the report as the branch of Sunni Islam responsible for most global terrorism in the world today. It is the ideology shared by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

“If you look at threat doctrine from that perspective, it’s a much bigger problem because it’s not just the violent jihadists, it’s the non-violent jihadists who support them,” one person knowledgeable about the National Military Strategy told The Washington Times. “Pretending there is no relationship between the violent jihadists and Islam isn’t going to win. We’re completely ignoring the war of ideas. We’re still in denial. We’re pretending the enemy doesn’t exist.”

Dunford’s staff declined to comment on the upcoming report, which will be classified. The last National Military Strategy, by the previous chairman, General Martin Dempsey, was released publicly on the Joint Chiefs of Staff website.  It did not make mention the ideological roots of terrorism.

Sources close to the team responsible for preparing the National Military Strategy told The Washington Times  Dunford’s staff was not persuaded on the merits of including the term.

Quintan Wictorowicz, one of the architects of Obama’s national counter extremism policy, charted the relationships between Salafi jihadist groups (although he did not use that term) and other sects of Islam in a 2005 academic paper entitled A Genealogy of Radical Islam.

“Al Qaeda and the radical fundamentalists that constitute the new ‘global jihadi movement’ are not theological outliers. They are part of a broader community of Islamists known as ‘Salafis’ (commonly called ‘Wahhabis’).”

He distinguished between violent and non-violent Salafis saying “The jihadi faction believes that violence can be used to establish Islamic states and confront the United States and its allies. Non-violent Salafis, on the other hand, emphatically reject the use of violence and instead emphasize propagation and advice (usually private) to incumbent rulers in the Muslim world.”

Wictorowicz details several important theological points that distinguish this movement, notably the use of takfir to brand the enemies of the jihadi movement as apostates deserving of death and the concept of jahilliya which posits that the contemporary Muslim world is not really Muslim because they follow man-made laws and are therefore akin to the pagans who ruled Arabia before the time of Mohammed.

He names Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb as a central figure in the development of this doctrine.

Understanding this application of radical theology to the political sphere helps us to identify why certain groups are dedicated to fighting the United States and helps in setting out clearly the differences between Salafi jihadism and Sunni Islam in general.

DHS Chief: ‘Vilifying Muslims’ Risks ‘Driving Them to a Place’ Terror Groups Want

(Official DHS photo by Barry Bahler)

(Official DHS photo by Barry Bahler)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, Sept.30, 2016:

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told the Washington Ideas Forum this week that he’s “very concerned” about the “prospect of terrorist-inspired plots because of terrorist organizations’ effective use of the Internet, where somebody could self-radicalize at home, in their garage, in their basement, online without us knowing about it.”

Johnson said “the prospect of a homegrown violent extremist self-radicalized, you know, one or two individuals, who could commit an act of violence in a public place or a public gathering” is “the thing that keeps me up at night.”

“We have, since 9/11, gone a long way in addressing the vulnerabilities that existed then,” he noted. “The way I put it is our government has become pretty good at detecting threats to the homeland from overseas, plotting terrorist-directed plots at their earliest stages.”

The DHS chief said that requires “a whole of government approach” with a strong “role for the public — public vigilance, public awareness and, something that I’ve been very focused on in my time as secretary, building bridges to communities, particularly American-Muslim communities, to encourage them to help us in our efforts.”

Johnson was asked about his recent speech to the Islamic Society of North America, in which he said, “It is frustrating to listen to those who foment fear, suspicion and intolerance, who don’t know the mistakes of history, and are in the midst of repeating them.”

“I had nobody particular in mind,” the secretary insisted to the Ideas Forum.

“The other thing I said in that speech was something that I have done from time to time, which is you have an opportunity to look at a room full of American Muslims. And you tend to view the group solely through a security lens, a Homeland Security lens,” he continued. “And we spent a lot of time talking to young American Muslims about what they should not become. And I decided in that address, which was to thousands of American Muslims, it’s the largest gathering every year of American Muslims, to talk about what you can become in this great country.”

Johnson emphasized that “those of us who are students of history can learn from it.”

“And those of us who don’t know the mistakes of history are going to repeat them. And I do worry about a lot of the rhetoric, which has the effect of vilifying — vilifying American Muslim communities here, which drives them in the exact opposite direction of where we want them to go in this country,” he said. “I’m not referring to anything presidential candidates say. But I have before called it out when I hear it.”

Johnson was asked about the TIME magainze op-ed earlier this month of Matt Olsen, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who wrote that “this year, ISIS isn’t simply a passive observer of American politics,” but is rooting for Donald Trump.

“I think we should be concerned about rhetoric that have the effect of isolating the American Muslim communities here, vilifying Muslims and driving them to a place that our enemies would like them to be to make them more susceptible to the recruitment effort,” Johnson said.

Otherwise, the DHS chief said, “I’m not going to comment on what the candidates say specifically because I’m not supposed to.”

Johnson acknowledged “sometimes that gets hard.”

“I will say that when we hear rhetoric that is inflammatory, that strikes fear, that vilifies American Muslim communities, that is counter to our to our homeland security, national security efforts in the environment we’re in, where we have to be concerned about homegrown violent extremists, that some of whom may find the appeals of the Islamic State to be something that they are drawn to,” he added. “And so when we vilify American Muslims and we say you’re different from all the rest of us, that’s exactly what terrorist organizations want them to hear.”


ISIS in the Middle East and now here

A Complete Takeover Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

A Complete Takeover Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Searching for a strategy to defeal Islamic supremacists in America.

Washington Times, By James A. Lyons, Sept. 29, 2016:

A comprehensive strategy to defeat Islamic supremacists must include not only a war plan to defeat the enemy on the active battlefields of the Middle East, but it must also address how to defeat this enemy now inside the United States.

Such a strategy must start by recognizing that there is a Global Islamic Jihad Movement which is carrying out attacks in the United States, e.g., Sept. 11, Ft Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, New Jersey, New York and Minneapolis. This Islamic Jihad Movement is operating on the al Qaeda seven-phase timeline for the conquest of Western Civilization. For example, Phase Four (2010-2013) was to bring about the collapse of hated Arabic governments, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Libya, a goal which was accomplished successfully with the help of the Obama administration.

Phase Five (2013-2016) involved the declaration of an Islamic caliphate. This was accomplished by conquering significant territories in Iraq and Syria and attracting pledges of loyalty from West Africa to the Philippines. We are now in Phase Six (2016-total confrontation), which is a fight between the “believers and non-believers.” It must be recognized that this is a war that has been going on for nearly 1400 years. Mosques and Islamic centers are the command and control centers for jihad here in the United States. There are over 2400 mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. We know some 80 percent of them advocate or support jihad. Islamic cells and networks, many linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, are operating throughout America.

In order to develop an effective strategy, there must be a recognition of the Islamic supremacists’ key organization in the United States. This is embodied by the Muslim Brotherhood and its so-called civilization jihad strategy until ‘zero’ hour, when the war goes ‘hot’ (Phase Seven). Each year there are between 70 and 120 new Islamic non-profits created (with no IRS problems) that work in conjunction with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamic movement in the United States is deeply embedded with thousands of organizations. The Muslim Student Association serves as a recruiting arm with over 700 chapters in major universities. These organizations are well-funded by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al.

Muslim Brotherhood jihadists have been able to penetrate the senior levels of our government. That penetration of our government agencies actually started over 50 years ago but has greatly accelerated under the Obama administration. They have been very successful in penetrating government agencies including security and intelligence where they have been able to influence our domestic and foreign policies. Specifically, they have been able to achieve the purging of any federal training curricula that accurately links Islamic doctrine, law and scripture with terrorism under the guise that factually proven information is found to be “offensive to Muslims.” This denied key information on the enemy not only to our military personnel but law enforcement agencies down to the local police departments. Further, they have successfully restricted local law enforcement’s ability to conduct critical surveillance and monitoring of mosques and Islamic centers.

Complicating the situation is the fact that the Obama administration is now bringing in tens of thousands undocumented shariah-compliant Muslims and settling them throughout the country. Why would the Obama administration do this, when they know that migration is part of the jihad doctrine? It’s called “hijra,” which refers to the symbolic original migration of Muhammed from Mecca to Medina. Therefore, for those who make the “hijra” into non-Muslim countries masquerading as refugees are preparing for the “final phase,” which is armed conflict.

The strategy to successfully defeat the Islamic supremacists’ plan for the United States must directly confront the enemy. First and foremost, the Muslim Brotherhood must be designated a terrorist organization. The 2008 Holy Land Foundation Trial must be reopened in order to prosecute the unindicted co-conspirators beginning with CAIR and ISNA. Local police departments must be unshackled to carry out their critical penetration and monitoring of mosques and Islamic centers. The 80 percent of mosques that preach sedition must be closed and their imams either deported to their country of origin or prosecuted. In order to increase the deterrence level against the Islamic supremacists who would or are planning to conduct terrorist attacks in the United States, the penalty must be very clear. The mantle of trying to use “freedom of religion” as a justification for a terrorist act has no basis under the Constitution. To any thinking person, it should be clear that Islam is a totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion and bent on world domination. Therefore, the following declarations and actions based on a presidential Executive Order must be taken against Islamic supremacists, including U.S. citizens.

• If an individual has conducted or is planning to conduct a terrorist attack in the United States, evidence demonstrates a decision to join the enemy. That individual has placed himself in the same category as a military person who has deserted to the enemy. Such an individual must be classified as a traitor and be categorized as an “enemy combatant.”

• Being designated an “enemy combatant” when captured, such a person would immediately be shipped off to GITMO for intense interrogation to determine the full support network and any other accomplices.

• Once the network is identified, then those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and, and if appropriate, returned to their country of origin. Likewise, those who joined ISIS on the battlefield should not be permitted back into the country.

Such action as proposed above would significantly raise the level of deterrence in the United States.

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

Washington Mall Shooter Came from Turkey, Had a Picture of ISIS Caliph al-Baghdadi on His Blog

kiro7dotcom-template_20160926175324773_6177686_ver1-0_640_360Analysts are still looking for motives, but one cannot deny that jihadism has had an influence.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe Sept. 30 2016:

We have witnessed a number of recent attacks over the past couple of weeks in New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington state, amongst others. New information is coming in for these cases, while analysts are still looking for motives; however, one cannot deny that jihadism has had an influence in at least some of the cases. The Burlington, Washington mall shooting is an interesting case. Even though the shooter, Arcan Cetin, is from a Muslim majority country in Turkey (police originally thought he was Hispanic) and has posted pictures of ISIS’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and had other Islamic references, it isn’t clear yet that he was inspired by jihad. Besidesmultiple “arrests for assaulting his stepfather, as well as a DUI[,]” Cetin seemed to exemplify an Islamist bent toward the treatment of women. FrontPage Mag states:

He scared at least one neighbor: “Amber Cathey, 21, lived in an apartment next to Cetin for the past three months and said she was so frightened by him that she complained to apartment management and kept a stun gun handy. Cathey said she blocked him on Snapchat after he sent her a photo of his crotch. ‘He was really creepy, rude and obnoxious,’ Cathey said.”

A high school classmate recalled that Cetin “was very hurtful towards girls. He would sexually harass them. And bully a lot of them.”

The Washington Post gives more insight into Cetin’s feelings toward women:

Mehmet Ecder, an 18-year old high school student who grew up with Cetin in Amana, Turkey, said Cetin came from a troubled family and was struggling to connect with American girls once he moved to Washington state. He liked living in the U.S., but “He says, ‘American girls hate me,’” Ecder recalled of conversations over the last year with Cetin.

Cetin had mentioned a young woman who had rejected him, Ecder said.

“He says he doesn’t know how to talk to girls,” said Ecder. He believes Cetin may have committed the crime “out of jealousy.”

Even if Cetin was a socially awkward kid (especially around girls) like many other kids in the U.S. this alone typically doesn’t trigger one to go on a shooting spree. Maybe the reason was more cultural. Coming from Turkey where women are relegated in society and men feel entitled to have women it’s not surprising that Cetin could have been influenced by this Islamist culture – at least within his family. It’s quite possible he used this animosity toward women in selecting his targets in the mall shooting – four out of five of the fatalities were female. Only with more time and information will we be able to know with certainty what inspired Cetin to commit such vicious acts of violence (one victim was a sixteen-year-old girl who had beat cancer). As for now we also still can’t rule out the possible jihadist motive.




Obama on Not Saying ‘Islamic Terrorism’: Christian Terrorist Wouldn’t be ‘Killing for Christ’

President Obama pauses during a break in taping of a CNN town hall meeting Sept. 28, 2016, in Fort Lee, Va., with members of the military community. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Obama pauses during a break in taping of a CNN town hall meeting Sept. 28, 2016, in Fort Lee, Va., with members of the military community. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, Sept. 29, 2016:

President Obama told a town hall forum of military and family members Wednesday that he wouldn’t use the term Christian terrorism if a Christian committed terrorist acts, so that’s one reason why he eschews using Islamic terrorism.

Obama was asked by a Gold Star mother whose son was killed in Baghdad in 2007 if he believes that terrorism has “Islamic religious motives” and why he won’t say “Islamic terrorist.”

The president called it “an issue that has been sort of manufactured, because there is no doubt — and I’ve said repeatedly — that where we see terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda or ISIL, they have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse for basically barbarism and death.”

“These are people who kill children, kill Muslims, take sex slaves. There’s no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do,” he added at the Fort Lee, Va., CNN event.

“But what I have been careful about when I describe these issues is to make sure that we do not lump these murderers into the billion Muslims that exist around the world, including in this country, who are peaceful, who are responsible, who in this country are our fellow troops and police officers and firefighters and teachers and neighbors and friends.”

Obama told the mother that what he “learned from listening to some of these Muslim families both in the United States and overseas is that when you start calling these organizations ‘Islamic terrorists,’ the way it’s heard, the way it’s received by our friends and allies around the world is that somehow Islam is terroristic.”

“And that then makes them feel as if they’re under attack. In some cases, it makes it harder for us to get their cooperation in fighting terrorism,” he continued.

“So do I think that if somebody uses the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ that it’s a huge deal? No. There’s no doubt that these folks think that — and claim that they’re speaking for Islam. But I don’t want to validate what they do. I don’t want to — if you had an organization that was going around killing and blowing people up and said, ‘We’re on the vanguard of Christianity,’ well, I’m not — as a Christian, I’m not going to let them claim my religion and say, ‘You’re killing for Christ.’ I would say that’s ridiculous. That’s not what my religion stands for.”

Obama said he’s going to “call these folks what they are, which is killers and terrorists.”

“And that’s what we’ve been trying to do, is to make sure that, A, we don’t validate their claims that somehow they speak for Islam, because they don’t, and, B, making sure that we do not make Muslims who are well-meaning and our natural allies on this fight — because these groups are killing more Muslims than they’re killing anybody else — make sure that they don’t feel as if somehow that this is some contest between the West and Islam,” he said.

“And I think that — I’ll just be honest with you — the dangers where we get loose in this language, particularly when a president or people aspiring to become president get loose with this language, you can see in some of the language that we use — in talking about Muslim-Americans here, and the notion that somehow we’d start having religious tests in who can come in the country, and who’s investigated, and whether the Bill of Rights applies to them in the same way.”

The president called that “a slippery slope.”

“And the way we’re going to win this battle is not by betraying our ideals. It’s by making sure that we hold true to our ideals. And one of our core ideals is that, if you’re an American and you are subscribing to the ideals and the creed and the values that we believe in as a country, then we don’t have a religious test in this country,” Obama said.

He emphasized that his criticism was “not unique to the Republican nominee.”

“And, again, I’m trying to be careful. We’re on a military base. I don’t want to insert partisan politics into this,” he added. “I think that there have been a number of public figures, where you start hearing commentary that is dangerous, because what it starts doing is it starts dividing us up as Americans.”

“When I go to Arlington Cemetery, mostly I see crosses. Sometimes I see stars of David. And sometimes I see Islamic crescents. And those families are just as proud regardless of their religion that a member of their family who they love just as much as anybody sacrificed for this country. And I want to make sure that we as a nation stay unified because that’s how we’re going to achieve our missions.”



Known Wolf Terrorism: A Dozen Cases of FBI Failure on Obama’s Watch


PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Sept. 28, 2016:

FBI Director James Comey was called-out by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) this week on the growing problem of what I have termed “Known Wolf” terrorism – an act of terror committed by someone already known to law enforcement.

During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, Comey said the FBI is reviewing the missed opportunities in both the recent NY-NJ bombing and the mass killing in Orlando in June.

But as seen in the video of the exchange between Comey and Sen. Paul, the FBI director seemed unconcerned about the problem.

Sadly, “Known Wolf” terrorism is rising rapidly, with four such incidents already this year and a dozen incidents during the Obama administration.

In fact, virtually every Islamic terror attack under President Obama’s watch has been by a “Known Wolf” suspect.

As my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, noted here last week for years the Obama administration has pushed a narrative that Islamic terrorists operating in the U.S. were “lone wolves” – striking out of nowhere and without warning.

But in virtually every case these “lone wolves” were already on law enforcement’s radar, and in some cases, had been placed on the terror watch lists.

As I’ve noted here at PJ Media going back to October 2014, the “lone wolf” canard was spun by the Obama administration to exonerate themselves whenever one of these terror attacks occurred.

However the “Known Wolf” terrorism problem is finally being addressed. Senator Jim Lankford (R-OK) is in the process of conducting a six-month investigation into the break down in these cases.

And this past Saturday, a New York Post board editorial noted my identification and two year documentation the “Known Wolf” problem in the West:

FBI Director James Comey notes that searching for lone wolves is like “looking for needles in a national haystack.” But Rahami was less a lone wolf than what Pat Poole at PJ Media calls a “known wolf” — i.e., someone who had been flagged by authorities but then forgotten.Poole cites at least eight other such “known wolves” — including the Underwear Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter and perps in the Orlando nightclub massacre and Boston Marathon bombing as well as jihadis in Garland, Texas; Little Rock, Ark.; Seattle; West Orange, NJ; and Columbus, Ohio.

In fact, there have been a dozen “Known Wolf” terrorism cases on the Obama administration’s watch:

New York-New Jersey: After stabbing a family member in 2014, September 2016 NY-NJ bomber Ahmad Rahami‘s father told New Jersey police that his son was a terrorist, which prompted the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force to open an assessment and Rahami was flagged in the FBI’s Guardian system. The arresting officer told the court that Rahami was likely “a danger to himself and to others,” but no charges were filed. At some point a neighbor contacted authorities concerned that associates of Rahami were trying to procure explosives.

Roanoke, VA: In August 2016, Wasil Farooqi attacked a couple outside their apartment complex shouting “Allah Akhbar” and repeatedly stabbing the couple. He was caught when he arrived at the hospital to have his own injuries treated. While the media has played up his claims to have been “hearing voices” leading up to the attack, he had been on the FBI’s radar after he had traveled to Germany and Turkey, and had attempted to enter Syria, possibly to join ISIS there, but was never charged for the attempt.

Orlando: The mass killer who attacked at The Pulse nightclub in June 2016, Omar Mateen had been interviewed by the FBI on three separate occasions, including an open preliminary investigation in 2013 lasting 10 months, after telling others about mutual acquaintances shared with the Boston bombers and making extremist statements. He was investigated again in 2014 for his contacts with a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque. At one point Mateen was placed on two separate terrorism databases but was later removed.Columbus, OH: In February 2016 when Mohamed Barry attacked patrons with a machete at an Israeli-owned deli and later charged police shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” at which time he was shot and killed, he hadalready been investigated by the FBI for making extremist statements. Barry had been entered on a federal watch list and it appears remained on it until the time of the attack as his car had been flagged by authorities, but no further investigation was made.

Garland, TX: In May 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi were killed in a shootout with law enforcement outside a convention center where they had planned to attack a Muhammad cartoon drawing contest. But Simpson had been known to the FBI for years before going back to his involvement in a terror cell in Phoenix. He was even prosecuted for his involvement, and while a judge found that the had lied to the FBI about his plans overseas, he ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to prove Simpson intended to commit terrorism. He was subsequentlyplaced on the no-fly list, and the FBI opened up another investigation after he had made statements online in support of the Islamic State. Remarkably, evidence in a related terrorism trial revealed that the FBI not only had a paid informant inside the cell, the informant was aware of the attack plans and was reportedly on the scene at the time of the attack.

Columbus, OH: In May 2014, Zakia Nasrin, her husband Jaffrey Khan, and Zakia’s younger brother Rasel Raihan traveled to the capital city of the Islamic State, Raqqa, Syria, to join the terror group. According to U.S. intelligence officials, Rasel was killed there. Jaffrey and Rasel werealready known as extremists by the FBI after an informant’s tip. Suspicions were further raised when Jaffrey and Zakia claimed to have “lost” their passports while in Kenya. Rasel admitted to friends that he had been interviewed by the FBI. The report also claims that they were indeed on the terror watch list. And at the height of ISIS recruitment of Muslim-Americans, the FBI took no measures to prevent their travel to Syria.

Seattle, Newark: From April-June 2014, Ali Muhammad Brown went on a cross-country killing spree murdering 3 victims in Washington and another in New Jersey claiming that they were “vengeance” for U.S. actions in the Middle East. As a teenager Brown had reportedly trained at one of the first known U.S. terror training camps, and was later arrested in 2004 as part of a Seattle terror cell. At the time of his killing spree, prosecutors said he was on the terror watch list.

Boston: Prior to the bombing of the Boston Marathon by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in April 2013 that killed three people and injured 264 others, the FBI had been tipped off, twice, by Russian intelligence warning that Tamerlan was “a follower of radical Islam.” Initially, the FBI denied ever meeting with Tamerlan, but they later claimed that they followed up on the lead, couldn’t find anything in their databases linking him to terrorism, and quickly closed the case. After the second Russian warning, Tamerlan’s file was flagged by federal authorities demanding “mandatory” detention if he attempted to leave or re-enter the U.S. — but his name was misspelled when it was entered. An internal report of the handling of the Tsarnaev’s case unsurprisingly exonerated the FBI.

Underwear Bomber: When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 with 289 other passengers wearing a bomb intended to bring down the plane, he was already well-known to U.S. intelligence officials. The month before the attempted bombing, Abdulmutallab’s father had gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and met with two CIA officers telling them he wasconcerned about his son’s extremism. His name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database, but not the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database or the no-fly list. When asked about the near-takedown of the flight and the missteps, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano remarkably told CNN that “the system worked.”

Fort Hood: Within days of Major Nidal Hasan’s November 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13, news reports indicated that the FBI was aware of his email correspondence with al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki nearly a year before he launched his terror attack. The FBI was quick to issue a press release absolving themselves of responsibility, claiming that the email exchange was innocuous and consistent with Major Hasan’s religious research. But after the emails intercepted by the FBI were made public in 2012, there were clear indications of Major Hasan’s terrorist intent. Hasan had also repeatedly given PowerPoint briefings that proved to be highly controversial to his fellow Army colleagues because they threatened insider attacks by Muslims if they weren’t released as “conscientious objectors.”

New York City: On September 10, 2009, Najibullah Zazi drove his car into Manhattan loaded with backpack bombs intending to bomb the New York City Subway during rush hour. Zazi had received training from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2008 and orders to conduct a domestic terror attack. British intelligence subsequently intercepted an emailbetween a senior al-Qaeda leader and Zazi inquiring about when he was going to conduct the attack and alerted American officials. The FBI then began conducting surveillance on Zazi, and followed him as he drove from Colorado to New York, during which time he lost the FBI tail (requiring FBI agents to fly to St. Louis to catch up with him), was stopped twice by police along the way, and then had his car searched on the George Washington Bridge by New York and New Jersey Port Authority police at the request of the FBI. The explosive device in the trunk was not discovered in the trunk because the trunk was never searched, most likely because the FBI had failed to obtain a search warrant. As Mitch Silber noted in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the FBI allowed Zazi to drive into New York City with the bomb. Spooked by the stops and the search, and then by a tip from an imam who told Zazi that authorities were asking about him, Zazi disposed of the bomb materials in a toilet at a local mosque and flew back to Colorado, where he was arrested several days later. Despite the FBI’s repeated bungling of the case, the bureau publicly tried to pin the blame on the NYPD.

Little Rock: When Carlos Leon Bledsoe gunned down two U.S. Army soldiers in front of a Little Rock recruiting center in June 2009, killing Pvt. William Long, it was not his first contact with the FBI. Bureau agents had interviewed Bledsoe in Yemen and after his return to the U.S. in 2008, but had failed to follow up. After the Little Rock shooting, FBI officials said that he was motivated by “political and religious motives,” but refused to identify the incident as a terrorist attack.

In virtually every single Islamic terror attack inside the U.S. since Obama took office, excepting Chattanooga and San Bernardino both last year, the suspects were extremists already known to the FBI. And in the case of San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik, she had been vetted by the U.S. government in June 2014and given a K-1 visa, though the FBI believes she had already been radicalized by then.

So after two years of reporting here at PJ Media on the ongoing “Known Wolf” terrorism problem, it seems that some members of Congress are beginning to begin to acknowledge problem.

Oct. 24, 2014: ‘Lone Wolf’ or ‘Known Wolf’: The Ongoing Counter-Terrorism Failure

Dec. 15, 2014: Sydney Hostage Taker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ SyndromeJan. 7, 2015: Paris Terror Attack Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 3, 2015: French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 15, 2015: Copenhagen Killer Was yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Feb. 26, 2015: Islamic State Beheader ‘Jihadi John’ Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Apr. 22, 2015: Botched Attack on Paris Churches Another Case of “Known Wolf” Terrorism

May 4, 2015: Texas Attack Is Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

June 26, 2015: France’s Beheading Terrorist Was Well-Known By Authorities

July 16, 2015: Report: Chattanooga Jihadist Was Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist, Anonymous Feds Dispute

Aug. 22, 2015: European Train Attacker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Oct 14, 2015: Yet Again: Turkey, Israel Terror Attacks Committed by “Known Wolves”

Nov 14, 2015: One Paris Attacker Was Previously Known to Authorities, Marks Fifth ‘Known Wolf” Attack in France This Year

Feb 16, 2016: Machete Attack in Ohio Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

May 16, 2016: News Reports Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ U.S. Terrorists

June 12, 2016: Orlando Night Club Attack by “Known Wolf” Terrorist Previously Investigated by FBI

July 14, 2016: Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate “Known Wolf” Terrorism Problem

July 26, 2016: ISIS Suspect in Normandy Priest’s Killing Already Known to French Authorities

August 10, 2016: Canadian ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist Planned Suicide Bombing of Major City, Killed in Overnight Police Operation

August 19, 2016: Man Who Stabbed Rabbi Thursday in Strasbourg, France Involved in Prior Attack

Sept. 20, 2016: NY-NJ Bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami Already Known to Law Enforcement Authorities

Will there be adequate changes made inside the FBI to prevent future attacks by known suspects? It seems unlikely until there are consequences for the long catalogue of failure by FBI leadership.

But as I’ve documented here, the “Known Wolf” terrorism problem is the rule under the Obama administration, not the exception.

Jihad Is War — Not “Narrative”

rtx231u9-e1473703899354Daily Caller, by Abraham H. Miller Sept. 26, 2016:

“La rentrée” is what the French call back to school. This year something is conspicuously different about the festive occasion. Children as young as three are being taught to remain silent during a terrorist attack.

That’s not all that is different this season in France. Many French Jews will be staying away from synagogue during the high holidays beginning next week because of the threats posed by militant Muslims.

France has changed. Radical Islam has changed it.

Tear up your tickets to Turkey and find paradise beneath your feet, an ISIS recruiter tells his fellow Islamists through the encrypted web. Turkey of course is the gateway to the fighting in Syria, and “paradise beneath your feet” is encouragement to wage jihad in the West.

The ISIS recruiter, Abu Suleyman al-Firansi, who spouts this propaganda, is himself French.

These homegrown jihadis are not committing crimes. They are committing acts of war. They are agents of a foreign power intent on our destruction.

Ahmad Rahami’s bombing attack on New York City was not a criminal act but an act of war by an enemy combatant. By treating him as a common criminal, he has been given access to the rights of the system he sought to destroy. And he has lawyered up.

There is ample legal precedent for treating the homegrown jihadis as enemy combatants that should not have access to the civilian judicial system. In the case of American citizens during World War II who were brought back from Germany to conduct sabotage operations on American soil, the United States Supreme Court, in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), ruled that trial by military tribunal was legal in the case of any unlawful enemy combatants against the United States.

It would appear that one of the ways to keep our citizens safe would be to employ the legal tools granted us in Ex parte Quirin. If so, Rahami would not be able to avail himself of the Constitutional rights he sought to destroy but would be tried by the military.

Instead, our political leaders have chosen to view the homegrown problem as a problem in narration – a “public relations” conflict between ISIS and us. The idea is to counter ISIS’ propaganda. As White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in the wake of terrorist attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota, we are in a “narrative” war with ISIS.

To win the narrative war and prevent would-be jihadis from falling into ISIS’ hands, Hillary Clinton is calling for the absorption of more Syrian refugees. Barack Obama is fighting ISIS’ narrative while basking in the glory of raising the number of refugees to be absorbed as if he were some modern-day Moses leading the downtrodden of Egypt into the Promised Land

And to further counter ISIS’ propaganda, Obama is releasing hardened terrorists from Gitmo, who will soon join their brethren in waging jihad and recruiting Western jihadis.

The administration’s mantra is that without Gitmo and with a more liberal policy of refugee acceptance, there might not be a worldwide jihad.

As a consequence of such thinking, our children will face the increasing probability of another Beslan-type massacre. In 2004, on the opening day of school in Beslan, jihadi terrorists seized the school and brutalized the children over a three-day period before killing them. The death toll numbered nearly 400, and the situation required a military assault to be brought to denouement.

Unlikely to happen here? Not according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.) who has studied the Beslan massacre in depth and lectures to law enforcement about the appeal to terrorists of a large-scale slaughter at a school. Grossman and others see Beslan as a dry run for potential operations here.

The Islamists who have slaughtered our fellow citizens were the progeny of parents who came here seeking a better life. And these children repaid us as the Europeans have been repaid, with violence.

Claiming these are a minority of the Muslims coming into our country is a digression. How many people have to be slaughtered before we see this as a real problem? Not a problem in criminal justice but a problem of importing actual and potential enemy combatants whose hatred for us is so great they would rather die trying to kill us and our children than find a decent life among us.

This is not a fight about narratives. It is actual warfare. It should be treated as such. We have no desire to become like France.

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a distinguished fellow with the Haym Salomon Center, a news and public policy group. @salomoncenter

Bombings in N.J., N.Y. not linked to larger terror cell, FBI director says

(Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for

(Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for, By The Associated Press, Sept. 27, 2016:

The investigation into bombings in New Jersey and New York by Ahmad Khan Rahami earlier this month do not point to a larger terror cell, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday.

Comey was testifying alongside Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at a hearing examining threats to national security 15 years after the 9/11 attacks.

Republican senators pressed Comey about whether anything more could have been done to prevent the bombings and other violent incidents including the Orlando nightclub massacre.

Comey said the FBI is fallible and transparent about its mistakes, but he did not concede that anything should have been done differently or that any red flags were missed.

The questions arose because the FBI has said it investigated Orlando gunman Omar Mateen a few years before the June shooting and interviewed him multiple times. The FBI in 2014 also looked into Rahami, the Afghan-born U.S. citizen accused in the explosion, but found nothing that tied him to terrorism.

Two senators, in particular, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Kelly Ayotte, said they were alarmed that both individuals had at one point been on the FBI’s radar but were not intercepted.

“What more do we need to do? What are the lessons learned, and if you need additional support, we need to know about it very quickly,” Ayotte said at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Paul, one of the Senate’s leading civil liberties champions, said he was troubled that the FBI appeared to often seek new tools but didn’t seem to adequately use the ones they had.

Comey pushed back against the criticism, telling Paul that he had his facts wrong in characterizing the FBI’s investigations into both Mateen and Rahami. He said he had commissioned a review into the FBI’s past interactions with Mateen, who killed 49 people inside a gay nightclub, and would be doing the same with Rahami.

“We’re going to go back and look very carefully about the way we encountered him,” he said.

The FBI opened an assessment on Rahami in 2014 following a domestic incident. His father has said he warned the FBI that his son was drawn to terrorism, though law enforcement officials say he never discussed his son’s apparent radicalization.

Separately, Comey said the U.S. remains extremely concerned that violent extremists will eventually flow out of Syria and Iraq and into other countries in hopes of committing attacks.

The number of Americans traveling to Syria to fight alongside the Islamic State group has slowed to a trickle in the last year, but as the so-called caliphate becomes “crushed,” many militants from Western nations who are already there will stream out of the region and create new security threats.

“There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we’ve never seen before,” Comey said.

The hearing took place just over a week after bombings in New York and New Jersey and a separate stabbing attack at a Minnesota mall.

Rasmussen said that in addition to the Islamic State militants, U.S. government officials are concerned about the capabilities and ambitions of al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Johnson said terrorist threats have evolved, moving from terrorist-directed attacks “to a world that also includes the threat of terrorist-inspired attacks” in which individuals who live in the U.S. are “self-radicalized” to attack their own country.

Johnson says that by their nature, terrorist-inspired attacks and terrorist-enabled attacks are difficult to detect by intelligence and law enforcement communities, can occur with little or no notice and in general make for a more complex homeland security challenge.

The panel’s chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said the threat of “militant Islamic terrorist attacks to the United States remains significant,” citing the Sept. 17 attacks in the New York region and Minnesota, as well as deadly attacks in San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.

“In all, Islamic extremist terrorist have killed 63 people on U.S. soil since our committee last held its annual hearing to consider threats to the homeland,” the chairman said in a prepared statement.

Two years after President Barack Obama stated a goal of defeating the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, “we have made little progress,” said the senator, who is not related to the Homeland Security chief.

Rahami, the main suspect in the New York and New Jersey bombings, faces federal terrorism charges after a shootout with police.

Prosecutors say Rahami, 28, planned the explosions for months as he bought components for his bombs online and set off a backyard blast. They say he wrote a journal that praised Osama bin Laden and other Muslim extremists, fumed about what he saw as the U.S. government’s killing of Muslim holy warriors and declared “death to your oppression.”


Also see:

First Presidential Debate: How to Fight Radical Islam?

Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the first debate. (Photo: video screenshot)

Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the first debate. (Photo: video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Sept. 27, 2016:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had their first presidential debate and early indications are that it was a big win for Clinton (although post-debate media coverage is equally as important in impacting polls). But where did the candidates stand on issues related to radical Islam?

The War on the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)

The major point of difference here was the wisdom of publicizing a plan, even a general one, against ISIS.

Clinton argued that she is the only one of the two who has proposed a plan, which she summarized as waging cyber warfare, closer partnerships with technology companies to stop radicalization, intensifying airstrikes and providing more support to Kurdish and Arab allies on the ground.

She said she believed ISIS could be expelled from Iraq within one year and “squeezed” in Syria in order to undermine their claims of having established a caliphate. Clinton also vowed to target the ISIS leadership like she did with Al-Qaeda and to “take out” the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

She criticized Trump for not publishing a plan beyond saying he’d pick the best generals and “knock the hell out of” ISIS with NATO support. She suggested that this means he has no plan and that his comments related to the Muslim world would alienate allies from working with us.

Trump argued that he has a secret plan and it is most responsible to not publicize it. He said that Clinton and the political class are unable to defeat ISIS, as evidenced by how “you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.” Clinton responded by telling the audience to fact-check him.

The U.S. campaign against ISIS began in September 2014 after the group became independent of Al-Qaeda and declared a caliphate. Technically, Trump could argue that it existed previously as an Al-Qaeda branch and took the name of “Islamic State of Iraq” in 2006 and, before that, was an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq birthed in 1999. The answer depends on when you consider ISIS’ existence to begin.

Trump blamed the rise of ISIS on the Obama Administration’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq (when Clinton was secretary of state), saying that at least 10,000 troops should have been left behind, and that the U.S. should have seized the oil in Iraq and Libya to prevent a group like ISIS from financing itself.

Clinton responded that the Obama Administration withdrew based on a timeline established by the Bush Administration and the elected Iraqi government. She says the only way troops could have been left behind would have been getting Iraq to agree to an adjustment that would grant immunity to U.S. troops in the country, which the Iraqis were unwilling to do at the time.

The two also argued over whether Trump is accurate in saying that he opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq before it began and the NATO military intervention to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.


The main point of contention between the two candidates was the nuclear deal with Iran.

Trump blasted the financial transfers to Iran and said the deal puts Iran on the path to become a “major power.” He said that the Israeli prime minister is “not a happy camper.” The deal, he said, rescued the Iranian regime when it could have fallen due to the sanctions. He also blasted the deal for not accounting for Iran’s weapons of mass destruction work with North Korea and support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Clinton argued that Iran was closer to developing a nuclear weapon before the deal and that an attempt at diplomacy is preferable to war. She took credit for implementing the tough sanctions that Trump praised.

She also chastised him for his reaction to the Iranian military taunting U.S. personnel at sea by saying he’d authorize our forces to “blow them out of the water.” She said that would start a new war, which he disagreed with.

Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the Homeland

Clinton proposed an “intelligence surge” to produce “every scrap of information” possible about terrorist groups and plots against the U.S. She described the Muslim-American community as the “front line” in fighting terrorism because they are most likely to develop the intelligence that law enforcement needs.

She argued that Trump’s comments alienate Muslims inside the U.S. and around the world and make it less likely they’ll work with law enforcement.

Trump responded by pointing to endorsements from generals, admirals and Customs and Border Protection agents as proof that he can be trusted to protect the homeland.

Blocking Gun Sales Based on Terror Watch Lists

Clinton proposed that individuals whose names appear on terrorist watch lists and the no-fly list should be barred from purchasing firearms. Trump surprisingly expressed agreement, with the caveat that any move must include a way for those incorrectly placed on the lists to appeal and get removed.

The proposal is a touchy subject. Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) accuses supporters of such proposals to be anti-Muslim and mislead audiences about the issue. Gun rights advocates understandably argue that the watch/no-fly lists are filled with errors and amount to a suspension of the Second Amendment without due process.

Nuclear Proliferation

Clinton emphasized her opposition to more countries like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons and claimed that Trump said he’d be willing to accept such scenarios so they are less reliant upon the U.S. She said that it shows his “cavalier attitude towards nuclear weapons.”

Trump denied that was his position and said he agreed with Clinton that nuclear proliferation is the number one security threat to the U.S.

Cyber Attacks

Both candidates agreed that the U.S. must remain or become the leader in cyber warfare and defense technology, but disagreed on how Russian cyber aggression fits into the equation.

Clinton argued that the U.S. needs to convince adversaries like Russia and Iran that state-sponsored cyber attacks will result in retaliation. She criticized Trump for his history of favorable comments towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. He protested her depiction of him as a supporter of Putin.

Also see:

Pentagon’s top brass explores Islamic ideology’s ties to terror

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Washington Times, by Rowan Scarborough, September 25, 2016:

U.S. Special Operations Command has privately pressed the staff of the nation’s highest-ranking military officer to include in his upcoming National Military Strategy a discussion of the Sunni Muslim ideology underpinning the brutality of the Islamic State group and al Qaeda.

Thus, behind the scenes, the Pentagon’s top brass have entered a debate coursing through the presidential campaign: how to define an enemy the U.S. military has been fighting for 15 years.

The National Military Strategy, authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, is one of the most important guidances issued to global combatant commanders. It prioritizes threats to the nation and how to blunt them.

The 2015 public version does not mention Islamic ideology. It lists terrorists under the ambiguous category of “violent extremist organizations” and singles out al Qaeda and the Islamic State group.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford took the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff two months later and is now preparing his first National Military Strategy.

It is during this process that Special Operations Command, which plays a major role in hunting down terrorists, has provided its input to the Joint Staff, Gen. Dunford’s team of intelligence and operations officers at the Pentagon.

Special Operations Command wants the National Military Strategy to specifically name Salafi jihadism as the doctrine that inspires violent Muslim extremists. Salafi jihadism is a branch within Sunni Islam. It is embraced by the Islamic State and used to justify its mass killings of nonbelievers, including Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, as well as Christians.

People knowledgeable about the discussion told The Washington Times that SoCom has not been able to persuade Gen. Dunford’s staff to include Salafi jihadism in any strategy draft. It is unclear whether Gen. Dunford has been briefed on the proposals.

Spokesmen for the Joint Staff and U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, told The Times that they could not comment on a pending strategy. Gen. Dunford’s strategy will be classified in its entirety, meaning there will be no public version as was issued by his predecessor, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, in 2015.

Special Operations Command is headed by Army Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, a veteran terrorist hunter who led Joint Special Operations Command, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden and many other extremists.

There does not appear to be an effort to include the words “radical Islamic terrorism” in the strategy. But including a discussion of Salafi jihadism would tie acts of terrorism to Islamic ideology.

President Obama has fiercely rejected any connection between Islam the faith and al Qaeda, the Islamic State or any other Muslim terrorist organizations. He argues that they have corrupted the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran. His administration refers to them as simply “extremists.”

The counterargument from many U.S. national security analysts and Muslim scholars is that mass killings are rooted in the Koran and other primary writings and preachings of credible Islamic scholars and imams. These teachings at some mosques and on social media encourage youths to become radical Islamists.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ruthless Islamic State founder, is a cleric who studied at a seminary in Iraq. Al-Baghdadi has a Ph.D. in Koranic studies from Iraq’s Saddam University.

‘War of ideas’

If the cycle of global jihadism is to be broken, they say, U.S. officials must accurately assess the nature of the threat and its doctrines. If not, Gen. Dunford’s National Military Strategy is, in essence, directing commanders to ignore threat doctrine and relinquish the information battlefield to the enemy.

“If you look at threat doctrine from that perspective, it’s a much bigger problem because it’s not just the violent jihadists; it’s the nonviolent jihadists who support them,” said one person knowledgeable about the National Military Strategy. “Pretending there is no relationship between the violent jihadists and Islam isn’t going to win. We’re completely ignoring the war of ideas. We’re still in denial. We’re pretending the enemy doesn’t exist.”

A joint counterterrorism report by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War concluded:

“Salafi-jihadi military organizations, particularly ISIS and al Qaeda, are the greatest threat to the security and values of American and European citizens.”

The Islamic State is also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh.

Albert M. Fernandez, who was the State Department’s chief of strategic communication, said that on some level, if not the U.S. directly, people need to talk about the form of Salafi jihadism that promotes violence.

“Using the word ‘extremism’ is extraordinarily vague language,” he said.

Some voices in the Muslim hierarchy differ with Mr. Obama and say the encouragement of violence is a problem that Islam must confront.

One such leader is Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy Mosque in Paris. France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and has been wracked by a series of brutal terrorist attacks planned and inspired by the Islamic State.

Mr. Chalghoumi spoke last year at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which tracks jihadi social media and promotes moderate Islamic leaders.

Mr. Chalghoumi said mosques are one “battlefront” in the war on extremism.

“The third battlefront is the mosques, in many of which there is incitement to anti-Semitism, hate and ultimately violence,” he said. “This is the most critical battlefront regarding the future of Islam and its relationship with other religions. But even this one is not solely internal. The government should have a role in prohibiting money from terrorist organizations from reaching mosques and guiding their activities. It should prevent extremist leaders from preaching in pulpits from which they can abuse their power and spew hate and violence. It should make sure that the people who preach religion to others are qualified and endorse human values.”

Teaching terrorism

Advocates of publicly discussing the influence of Salafi jihadism point to Sahih al-Burkhari. It is a nine-volume collection of Sunni Muslim dictates from historical figures that is held as only second in importance to the Koran.

Volume 4, Book 56, justifies the killings of non-Muslims. “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him,” says one apostle of the Prophet Muhammad.

Volume 9, Book 88, contains this: “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e., they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

Robert Spencer is an author who runs Jihad Watch, a nonprofit that reports on Islamic extremism.

He explains that Salafi Jihadism is a vehicle for taking the teachings of the Koran and applying them to jihad.

“The Islamic State scrupulously follows the Koran and Sunnah in its public actions, including its pursuit of jihad, and provides in Dabiq its Islamic justification for even its most controversial actions,” he said. “Thus the Islamic State is essentially the apotheosis [highest form] of Salafi Jihadism.”

The Sunnah contains the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Dabiq is a town in Syria where a final battle between Muslims and Christians supposedly will take place.

A 2008 strategy paper from Harvard University’s John M. Olin Institute said:
“Like all ideologies, Salafi-Jihadists present a program of action, namely jihad, which is understood in military terms. They assert that jihad will reverse the tide of history and redeem adherents and potential adherents of Salafi-Jihadist ideology from their misery. Martyrdom is extolled as the ultimate way in which jihad can be waged — hence the proliferation of suicide attacks among Salafi-Jihadist groups.”

Defining the enemy

How to define the Islamic State, which controls territory in Syria and Iraq and has franchises in over 20 countries, has been a hot topic in the U.S. presidential campaign.

Republican nominee Donald Trump criticizes Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for refusing to define the threat as “radical Islamic terrorism.”

He has surrounded himself with advisers who do see the threat that way. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who has authored papers on the extremist Islamic threat, has joined the campaign as a foreign policy adviser.

Another Trump spokesman is retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who led the Defense Intelligence Agency under Mr. Obama. He has said he was fired by the White House for promoting the idea that there is a radical Islamic movement that must be confronted.

One of Mr. Trump’s most ubiquitous surrogates is former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was on Fox News on Saturday morning again criticizing Mrs. Clinton for not defining the threat.

Mrs. Clinton at one point said “radical jihadists” is the proper description. After the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, by an Islamic State follower, she said “radical Islam” is permissible. She infrequently uses either term.

“Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric and threatening to ban the families and friends of Muslim Americans as well as millions of Muslim businesspeople and tourists from entering our country hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror,” she said in June, taking a swipe at Mr. Trump. “So does saying that we have to start special surveillance on our fellow Americans because of their religion.”

The Defense Department on a few occasions has purged from its ranks those who advocate a discussion on how Islam the religion encourages violence.

In 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, the Pentagon ended a contract with Stephen Coughlin, an Army Reserve officer and lawyer. His consulting work centered on showing the links between Islamic law and violent extremism.

In 2012, in the Obama administration, Gen. Dempsey, then the Joint Chiefs chairman, publicly admonished Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley for linking the roots of Islamic teachings to the terrorism’s ideology today. Col. Dooley was removed as a teacher at Joint Forces College within the National Defense University and given a poor performance evaluation.

A student linked some of his training materials, and Muslims complained to the White House.

Gen. Dempsey called Col. Dooley’s training materials “academically irresponsible.”

The university’s teaching guidance says it permits outside-the-box instruction.

Muslim groups have petitioned the White House to end what they consider anti-Muslim training.

One set of complaints came in an October 2011 letter from 57 Islamic groups to Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, now the CIA director. Mr. Brennan refuses to use the words “Islamic extremists” or “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Some of the groups were unindicted co-conspirators in a federal terrorist financing prosecution in Texas. They also have ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood, whose goal is a world ruled by Islamic law.

Gen. Dempsey issued the Pentagon’s last National Military Strategy a little over a year ago.

It says the two leading terrorist organizations are al Qaeda and the Islamic State, which are defined as “violent extremist organizations.” That is the paper’s only use of the word “Islamic,” and there is no use of “Muslim” or “Salafi.”

Also see:

Maryland imam swept up in alleged ‘conspiracy’ to commit jihad

Sebastian Gregorson, left, may have had help in purchasing an ‘arsenal’ of weapons by Maryland imam

Sebastian Gregorson, left, may have had help in purchasing an ‘arsenal’ of weapons by Maryland imam

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 23, 2016:

The FBI is widening its probe into a Detroit Muslim who investigators now suspect was conspiring with a Maryland imam to acquire military-grade weapons and commit acts of jihad on behalf of ISIS.

WND reported Aug. 30 on the alleged “arsenal” found at the home of Sebastian Gregerson, a convert to Islam who now goes by the name Abdurrahman Bin Mikaayl.

The Detroit News reported a new twist in the story Thursday, that Gregerson likely did not act alone. He allegedly had help from an imam who specializes in Shariah law. That imam, Suleiman Bengharsa of Clarksburg, Maryland, may have used donations from his mosque to help finance Gregerson’s purchase of grenades, two AK-47s, seven rifles, tactical knives, a shotgun and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

More than 200 pages of sealed federal court records offer new details about an FBI investigation spanning at least three states, the News reported.

The investigation started about 18 months ago but bore fruit on July 31 when Gregerson was arrested near his Detroit home after allegedly buying fragmentation grenades from an undercover FBI agent.

It is unclear whether imam Bengharsa was financing weapons purchases in other parts of the country, but WND sources, including retired Homeland Security officer Philip Haney, say this type of financing involving American mosques happens all the time.

According to Shariah law, one-eighth of all charitable donations at a mosque, called zakat, must go to fund jihad around the world, Haney told WND. And approximately 80 percent of America’s more than 3,000 mosques are financed by Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most Shariah-compliant nation in the world.

“Based on the totality of the aforementioned information and evidence, there is reason to believe that Bengharsa and Gregerson are engaged in discussions and preparations for some violent act on behalf of (the Islamic State),” an FBI agent wrote in a Jan. 7 search warrant application.

The scope, targets and number of people involved in the investigation are unclear, but the case also involves Virginia, according to the Detroit News report.

Imam Bengharsa, 59, laughed and scoffed at the FBI’s allegations, which he told the Detroit newspaper were “ridiculous.” He also denied being an ISIS supporter and dismissed the charges as a witch hunt against Muslims.

“It feels like McCarthyism,” Bengharsa told the newspaper.

“No, no, no, that is absolutely untrue,” Bengharsa added. “It might appear that way. I am an advocate of the United States and the West getting the hell out of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

“It’s ridiculous. All I can say is it’s ridiculous,” he added. “If this was the case, why haven’t they come to arrest me?”

He said he would rather go to jail than live in a country that goes the route of McCarthyism.

Haney said the imam’s comments were brazen.

“People will say, ‘Oh, Sharia doesn’t teach that.’ Well, one-eighth Muslim charitable contributions are obligated according to Shariah to go to the support of jihad, which means if this imam is gathering money up to buy hardware, like grenades and guns, then he’s doing it in accordance with Shariah. And according to the Detroit News article, he’s an expert in Shariah,” said Haney, author of the best-selling book “See Something Say Nothing.”

Promoting Shariah law in U.S.

Bengharsa is founder and director of the Islamic Jurisprudence Center, an independent legal resource center near Baltimore that promotes understanding of Shariah law.

The center has issued several fatwas, or religious edicts, including one calling supporters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations disbelievers and traitors to Allah, the News reports.

“(Islamic Jurisprudence Center) management firmly believes and propagates that Islamic law is divine law, and therefore, unequivocally superior to man-made laws,” according to the center’s website.

“He actually presents himself as a Shariah-compliant imam but he is using taqiyya, a defensive response, when questioned by the newspaper,” Haney told WND. “He responds to the allegations, saying it’s ridiculous, that it feels like McCarthyism, pushing it on us, he’s the victim, an innocent victim, and we are the oppressors.

“It’s a wonderful arrangement,” Haney added, and a favorite tactic of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Victims are never responsible for anything they do. And that’s exactly what the imam’s position is: ‘We’re not at fault, they’re persecuting us, we’re the victims.’”

The imam said “if that’s what this country has come to,” he’d rather be in jail.

“This is how bold they are now,” Haney said. “He’s throwing it in our face that he’d rather go to jail.”

The imam is clearly well schooled in how to deploy classic Islamic deception while living in a non-Islamic society, Haney said.

There’s a passage, Quran 8:60, that Haney points to. It says, “prepare to strongly terrorize your enemy.”

That word “prepare” is also a main tenet of the Brotherhood.

Bengharsa has not been charged with a crime during the investigation, which is ongoing.

“In the real world, evidence matters,” former FBI counter-terrorism specialist John Guandolo told WND.

“Yet another Islamic leader is found to be directly involved with jihad on behalf of some named jihadi group, all for the sake of Islam,” said Guandolo, founder of the website “He joins the ranks of Alamoudi, Awlaki, and so many others. And he does it all while laughing at us and throwing ‘McCarthyism’ in our face. Our leaders will probably apologize to him for executing the legal search warrant based on facts.”

Search warrant affidavits that revealed the focus on the imam were briefly unsealed in federal court in Detroit this week and obtained by The News before a federal magistrate resealed them.

The affidavits show that FBI counterterrorism agents have spent months analyzing bank records, social media accounts, phone records, emails and messages involving Gregerson, 29, and the imam.

American convert supports ISIS

As WND reported last month, Gregerson is an Islamic State supporter who allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he fantasized about killing local Muslim religious leaders and others.

Detroiter Sebastian Gregerson, aka Abdurrahman Bin Mikaayl

Detroiter Sebastian Gregerson, aka Abdurrahman Bin Mikaayl

Gregerson is being held without bond and faces up to 10 years in federal prison if convicted of the weapons charges. He has not been charged with a terror-related crime amid the ongoing investigation.

FBI agents likely are investigating whether the imam bankrolled weapons purchases for anyone else and if there are plans underway for attacks, Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor, told the News.

Gregerson grew up near Ann Arbor and converted to Islam after high school. He is married, the father of 4-year-old twins and, until his arrest, worked retail at a Target store.

Gregerson and the imam met about five years ago in Maryland, the FBI alleges.

“Suleiman Bengharsa is the former imam of a mosque Gregerson attended while living in Maryland,” an FBI agent wrote in an affidavit.

Gregerson lived in Windsor Mill, Maryland, from 2011 to 2014.

During that time, Bengharsa was imam at the Masjid Umar mosque in Woodlawn – less than three miles from Gregerson’s apartment – according to the imam’s LinkedIn page, the News reports.

By 2015, Gregerson had moved to Detroit and started amassing tactical knives, according to the FBI.

“(Islamic State) members have used knives that appear similar to those purchased by Gregerson in beheadings, such as those seen in the videos of ‘Jihadi John’ beheading western hostages,” an FBI agent wrote in one search warrant affidavit.

“The nature of Gregerson’s purchases roughly correlate with instructions given by (the Islamic State) to individuals living in Western countries on how to prepare to commit violent jihad in those countries,” the FBI agent wrote in a filing.

The FBI subpoenaed Gregerson’s phone records and learned he was in frequent phone contact with Bengharsa while amassing the arsenal.

Bank records obtained by the FBI showed the imam wrote a $1,300 check to Gregerson on June 24, 2015.

In the memo line on the check was the word “zakat,” a word referring to the Muslim obligation to give charity, according to the FBI.

Gregerson cashed the check days later and deposited $800 in his checking account, the FBI said.

“This is a very typical event,” Haney told WND. “You see this type of thing going on in many places around the world, where you see Islamic leaders or imams providing leadership, counsel, guidance, to members of the Islamic community. And one of the ways to become a better Muslim is to follow Shariah law.

“Violence is but one part of a spectrum of tactics used explicitly for the implementation of Shariah law; it’s a tactic. What you’re looking at in this story is a tactic for the ultimate implementation of Shariah law.”

Is Obama’s ‘Narrative Battle’ with ISIS or Reality?


Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Sept. 23, 2016:

According to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, “When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight—a narrative fight with them. A narrative battle.”  Earnest said this the day after two separate bombings occurred in New York, and an ISIS-linked Muslim went on a stabbing spree in Minnesota.  Obama’ spokesman later elaborated:

What is important in the context of political debate is to remember ISIL is trying to assert a narrative, that they represent the religion of Islam in a war against the west and in a war against the United States. That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true. That is bankrupt ideology they are trying to wrap in the cloak of Islam.

This, of course, is a strawman argument: the real question isn’t whether ISIS “represents” Islam, but whether ISIS is a byproduct of Islam.  And this question can easily be answered by looking not to ISIS but Islam.  One can point to Islamic doctrines that unequivocally justify ISIS behavior; one can point to the whole of Islamic history, nearly 14 centuries of ISIS precedents.

Or, if these two options are deemed too abstract, one can simply point to the fact that everyday Muslims all around the world are behaving just like ISIS.

For example, Muslims—of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, in Arab, African, Central and East Asian nations—claim the lions’ share of Christian persecution; 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in are Islamic.  In these countries, Muslim individuals, mobs, clerics, politicians, police, soldiers, judges, even family members—none of whom are affiliated with ISIS (other than by religion)—abuse and sometimes slaughter Christians, abduct, enslave and rape their women and children, ban or bomb churches, and kill blasphemers and apostates.

Anyone who doubts this can access my monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” reports and review the nonstop persecution and carnage committed by “everyday” Muslims—not ISIS—against Christians.  Each monthly report (there are currently 60, stretching back to July 2011) contains dozens of atrocities, most of which if committed by Christians against Muslims would receive nonstop media coverage in America.

Or consider a Pew poll which found that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.  Similarly, 81% of respondents to an Arabic language Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State.

Do all these hundreds of millions of Muslims support the Islamic State because they’ve been suckered into its “narrative”—or even more silly, because we have—or do they support ISIS because it reflects the same supremacist Islam that they know and practice, one that preaches hate and violence for all infidels, as America’s good friends and allies, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar—not ISIS—are on record proclaiming?

It is this phenomenon, that Muslims the world over—and not just this or that terrorist group that “has nothing to do with Islam”—are exhibiting hostility for and terrorizing non-Muslims that the Obama administration and its mainstream media allies are committed to suppressing.  Otherwise the unthinkable could happen: people might connect the dots and understand that ISIS isn’t mangling Islam but rather Islam is mangling the minds of Muslims all over the world.

Hence why White House spokesman Josh Earnest can adamantly dismiss 14 centuries of Islamic history, doctrine, and behavior that mirrors ISIS: “That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true.” Hence why U.S. media coverage for one dead gorilla was six times greater than media coverage for 21 Christians whose heads were carved off for refusing to recant their faith.

The powers-that-be prefer that the debate—the “narrative”—be restricted to ISIS, so that the group appears as an aberration to Islam.  Acknowledging that untold millions of Muslims are engaged in similar behavior leads to a much more troubling narrative with vast implications.

Even so, until this ugly truth is accepted, countless more innocents—including born Muslims who seek to break free from Islam—will continue to suffer.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Chelsea Bomber Is ‘A Man Who Has Taken Sides in a War,’ Not ‘Just Another Criminal’

Fox News/Screengrab

Fox News/Screengrab

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 23, 2016:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, addressed the idea of treating Chelsea bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami as an enemy combatant, rather than a criminal, in a Fox News appearance.

“I think it’s very compelling to make an argument that this isn’t just another criminal,” Gorka told host Neil Cavuto. “This isn’t a member of the Mafia, this isn’t a bank robber. This is a man who has taken sides in a war, and he is on the side of an enemy entity – in this case, the Islamic State, the new caliphate, run by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.”

“If you look at World War II, we did not treat enemy agents captured on U.S. soil as just common criminals,” he pointed out. “In fact, they were treated as enemy combatants, and if they were U.S. citizens, the treason statutes applied. So if you believe we’re at war, Neil, then there’s a very compelling case to be made that you don’t treat this guy just like a common criminal.”

Cavuto noted that Rahami apparently will be treated as a criminal, with defenders of the practice arguing that other terrorists have been handled through the criminal courts successfully.

“It’s a question of perspective: do you think we are at war?” Gorka maintained. “I think we are. I think we are now in the 16th year – we just had the 15th anniversary of 9/11, and we are in the longest war America has ever waged, since 1776.”

“This isn’t just a bunch of random criminals. They’re not people making profit. These aren’t psychos. This isn’t Jeffrey Dahmer. These are jihadis who wish to destroy America and Western civilization. As such, i think they should be treated as enemy combatants, and not enjoy the rights and privileges that Americans enjoy, who are citizens of this nation, and don’t wish to destroy this nation.”

Cavuto asked Gorka if he thought Rahami had help, “maybe a lot of help.”

“Oh, my gosh. This is a man who, I’ve read the contents of the journal, this man was not just a consumer, he was a propagator of jihadi narrative,” Gorka responded, referring to the notebook taken from Rahami after his capture.

“Not only did his father turn him in, or try to turn him in, he made blatantly anti-American statements in public. He made blatantly homophobic statements. And then what does he do? He travels to South Asia and he visits Quetta. Quetta is the hotbed of jihadism,” he said.


Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of N.Y., discusses calls for Ahmad Khan Rahami to be treated as Enemy Combatant