Obama to NatSec Agencies: Increase Diversity, Train on ‘Implicit or Unconscious Bias’

President Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Vice President Joe Biden speaks at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., on April 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Vice President Joe Biden speaks at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., on April 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, October 5, 2016:

WASHINGTON — President Obama issued a memo to heads of government agencies today on increasing diversity in the national security workforce to make the diplomacy, development, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security complex “more effective at problem solving than homogeneous groups.”

The national security workforce in the federal government consists of more than 3 million workers from agencies such as the Intelligence Community, USAID, Treasury Department, State Department, Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Obama said data collected on the departments “indicate that agencies in this workforce are less diverse on average than the rest of the federal government,” and in 2015 only the State Department USAID Civil Services “were more diverse in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity than the federal workforce as a whole.”

The president reminded agency heads of his 2011 directive to “promote diversity and inclusion” in the federal workforce as a whole, and directed national security leaders to “ensure their diversity and inclusion practices are fully integrated into broader succession planning efforts and supported by sufficient resource allocations and effective programs that invest in personnel development and engagement.”

Agencies will be required yearly to provide their demographic breakdown to the general public. Applicant data will be analyzed for “fairness and inclusiveness” in the recruitment process and “agencies shall develop a system to collect and analyze applicant flow data for as many positions as practicable in order to identify future areas for improvement in attracting diverse talent, with particular attention to senior and management positions.” Agencies will expand the categories of voluntary information current employees can provide to include details “such as information regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Obama directed interviews with current employees and exit interviews to be studied by leaders for “if and how the results of the interviews differ by gender, race and national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, and other demographic variables” with any resulting policy recommendations.

National security agencies were also told to “prioritize resources to expand professional development opportunities” and “consider the number of expected senior-level vacancies as a factor in determining the number of candidates to select for such programs.”

“Agencies shall track the demographics of program participants as well as the rate of placement into senior-level positions for participants in such programs, evaluate such data on an annual basis to look for ways to improve outreach and recruitment for these programs consistent with merit system principles, and include such data in the report.”

Obama added that “for agencies in the national security workforce that place assignment restrictions on personnel or otherwise prohibit certain geographic assignments due to a security determination, these agencies shall ensure a review process exists consistent with the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, as well as applicable counterintelligence considerations.”

“Agencies shall ensure that affected personnel are informed of the right to seek review and the process for doing so,” he wrote.

Senior leadership and supervisors, the president directed, should “reward and recognize efforts to promote diversity and inclusion… consistent with merit system principles, such as through participation in mentoring programs or sponsorship initiatives, recruitment events, and other opportunities.”

“Agencies shall expand their provision of training on implicit or unconscious bias, inclusion, and flexible work policies and make implicit or unconscious bias training mandatory for senior leadership and management positions, as well as for those responsible for outreach, recruitment, hiring, career development, promotion, and security clearance adjudication,” he added.

That training “may be implemented in a phased approach commensurate with agency resources” and “should give special attention to ensuring the continuous incorporation of research-based best practices, including those to address the intersectionality between certain demographics and job positions.”

The first progress report on the new guidelines will be due to the president in 120 days — when there will be a new occupant in the Oval Office.

Also see:

If you don’t believe what the radicals think you should believe, you must be taught to believe something different — on the government’s dime, of course. Hillary wants to fund the retraining, and the NAACP wants to make it mandatory — complete with sanctions if your perceived biases don’t disappear.

How will the thought police know the actual police are biased? If they don’t believe the “right” things. Spend any time on campus, in diversity training, or on progressive websites, and you’ll see that disagreement with leftist cultural critiques is all the proof anyone needs of racism and other forms of bigotry. Evidence, experience, and probabilities are completely irrelevant when it comes time to cleanse the mind of “bias.”

There are those on the Left who simply refuse to look at a case on the facts. They insist that they have knowledge about the inner lives and motivations of the relevant parties that is unknown even to the parties themselves. They use this alleged knowledge to stoke unrest and violate civil liberties. And they have an ally in Hillary Clinton. She’ll fund all the re-education we need.

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.”


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

(Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

(Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

NJ.com, 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:

Just another day at DHS: 858 criminal aliens from ‘special interest countries’ wrongly granted citizenship

Sakdawut Tangtongsap | Shutterstock

Sakdawut Tangtongsap | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, Sept. 19, 2016:

It’s bad enough that individuals like the Somali stabber in St. Cloud, MN and the Afghani bombing suspect in Elizabeth, NJ were brought into the country and granted citizenship. Now the DHS Inspector General is warning that a number of immigrants from “special interest countries” who were ordered deported, were wrongly granted citizenship.

Here is the key finding from the press release, first reported by AP:

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) today released a report that found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals from special interest countries who had been ordered deported or removed under another name. This happened because neither the digital fingerprint repository at DHS nor the repository at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) contains all old fingerprint records of individuals previously deported.

In the new report, “Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S.Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records,” OIG found that the records are missing from the DHS digital repository because paper-based fingerprint cards used prior to 2008 were not consistently digitized and uploaded into the repository. The FBI repository is also missing records because, in the past, fingerprints collected during immigration enforcement encounters were not always forwarded to the FBI. Currently, about 148,000 fingerprint records of aliens from special interest countries who had final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives have yet to be digitized.

Remember, many immigrants who would be eligible for citizenship initially came here before the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service was rolled into DHS. They are a part of the 148,000 fingerprint records that were never transferred over into DHS databases, compromising the ability of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to monitor which aliens were ordered deported when approving applications for citizenship.

Page three of Inspector General John Roth’s report cuts to the core of the problem with this oversight — assuming it is simply an oversight:

As long as the older fingerprint records have not been digitized and included in the repositories, USCIS risks making naturalization decisions without complete information and, as a result, naturalizing more individuals who may be ineligible for citizenship or who may be trying to obtain U.S. citizenship fraudulently. As naturalized citizens, these individuals retain many of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, including serving in law enforcement, obtaining a security clearance, and sponsoring other aliens’ family members’ entry into the United States.

Oh, and voting rights too. Anyone think these people are voting for Republicans?

It is this literal theft I had in mind when I warned in Stolen Sovereignty about the irresponsible moves of the executive and judicial branches in violating the sovereignty of the citizen. Whether it’s granting unqualified birthright citizenship, preventing states from asking for identification before granting citizenship to children born here, counting illegals in the census, resettling refugees without the consent of local communities, , allowing non-citizens to vote, tolerating fraud in the naturalization process or refusing to deport criminal aliens, the citizens of this country have been disenfranchised time and time again.

Moreover, when viewed through the prism of our current security predicament, consider the following: these individuals are known to have engaged in identity fraud, have already been ordered deported — which means they are likely criminal aliens — AND are from “special interest countries.” As you let that thought sink in, now consider that they already have citizenship in their back pocket, and the rights inherent in being an American.

What has happened to this individuals? One would expect them to be de-naturalized immediately, pursuant to 8 USC 1451(a), which authorizes a court to revoke citizenship through criminal or civil proceedings. As I detail in chapter four of Stolen Sovereignty, our nation has a long history of quickly expatriating individuals whenever the law stipulated that immigrants were no longer here in accordance with national consent. Unfortunately, times have changed.

More from the IG’s report:

However, few of these individuals have been investigated and subsequently denaturalized. As it identified these 1,029 individuals, OPS referred the cases to ICE for investigation. As of March 2015, ICE had closed 90 investigations of these individuals and had 32 open investigations. The Offices of the United States Attorneys (USAO) accepted 2 cases for criminal prosecution, which could lead to denaturalization; the USAO declined 26 cases.

In other words, beyond a handful of cases, these people have never been de-naturalized, much less deported for multiple accounts of fraud (on top of being ordered deported in the first place!).

Raise your hand if you believe DHS will begin immediately combing through the list of 148,000 names whose finger prints have not been placed in the databases used by USCIS. Now raise your other hand if you believe the people’s representatives in Congress, which were purposely vested with the full power over immigration and naturalization, will lift a finger to force DHS to clean up its act.



Also see:

Pay for Play: Where did DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson Get Five Hundred Grand to Donate to the DNC?


A career civil servant with that kind of money ought to be surprising, especially in lieu [light] of his subsequent outreach efforts to proven Muslim Brotherhood outfits.

CounterJihad, Sept. 15, 2016:

UPDATE:  During the years when Republicans controlled the levers of power, Johnson worked for a law firm that represented the Guantanamo Bay detainees — very vigorously.  Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison attorneys went so far as to smuggle in materials to the detainees.  “If I’d gotten caught passing war news to detainees,” one former DOD official said, “my security clearance would have been pulled.”

This week has seen the release of many incriminating documents from the Democratic National Convention (DNC), via Wikileaks’ so-called “Guccifer 2.0.”  The authenticity of these documents is in some question, as they passed through the hands of an outfit which has alleged Russian ties.  Hackers are in the business of violating people’s expectations of privacy in unethical ways, and the interests of foreign powers are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the United States.  We cannot be sure that the hackers are ethical enough to pass the documents on unaltered, in other words, nor that the release of the documents is not chiefly aimed at some hostile foreign nation’s ends.  Thus, we have to analyze all of these documents with some care.

By the same token, however, it is worth analyzing these documents with that care.  America was founded with a system of checks and balances intended to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  That was true both within the Federal government, where the three branches are balanced against each other, and between the Federal government and the states.  Those systems of checks and balances have become increasingly compromised by unethical behavior within the Federal government, such as the IRS scandal.  It has been further compromised by the increased centralization of power that has tipped the balance away from the states and toward the central, Federal, government.  We are less likely to see our own system performing adequately to check centralized power, and thus might consider external checks such as that provided by a foreign power with opposing interests to our administration’s.

Likewise, credibility is the currency of “special war” — including information warfare of the type the Russians are using here.  If their outlets are not credible, they will be less effective.  We must always check to see whether they are trying to slip one past us, of course.  On the other hand, they have an interest in providing damaging information that is accurate and that will be found credible on investigation.  We can’t skip the investigation, but there is a prima facie reason to take the charges seriously pending an investigation.

In terms of the Counterjihad movement, the corruption of the American administration creates several problems.  If high posts are for sale, they might not be occupied by the best people.  Worse, though, they might be bought by the wrong people.  The sale of high offices allows a means of influence on our government that is not accountable to the people, especially given that it was handled secretly — and by a political party, not a formal branch of government.

For example, consider the case of Department of Homeland Security czar Jeh Johnson.  Johnson is a career public servant.  Yet he was able to come up with over half a million dollars in cash to donate to the DNC — and then “feigned disbelief” when he got the job of leading the Homeland Security agency.

How has he used this post?  Oddly enough, we were just talking about that the other day.  Johnson decided to appear at the conference of a known Muslim Brotherhood front organization, while “fully aware” of its terrorist ties.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said.

While there, he shared a stage with a Holocaust denier and a known leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nor was this the only occasion on which he has made moves amenable to the Brotherhood. In June, he testified before Congress admitting that his agency had scrubbed references to Islam from counter-terror materials that they produced.  He claimed to have “no idea” how that happened.

Earlier in June, Johnson downplayed the role of a radical Islamist community in the Pulse nightclub shootings.  He said that shooter Omar Mateen “was ‘self-radicalized’ without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.”  Yet it turned out that Mateen had ties to a known radical imam, one who had served as a bodyguard for the “blind sheikh” who carried out the first World Trade Center attacks.  Perhaps it was worth considering that Mateen might have targeted the gay nightclub in part because of the harsh language his mentor used towards “f****ts” in America, and Islam’s duty towards them?

To be clear, we at CounterJihad have no idea where Jeh Johnson got all that money.  We have no evidence establishing a causal relationship between the inexplicably large donation from a career public servant and his subsequent support of Brotherhood outlets, or the Brotherhood’s agenda.  We cannot even be certain that the documents establishing the donation are themselves fully genuine.  We have to be suspicious of them at first face, given that they passed through the hands of pro-Russian actors.

Nevertheless, we do have questions.  Those questions seem like important questions to us.  We would like answers.  And in a free society, for now, we still have the right to ask those questions and to demand some answers.

Soros instigating pre-election ‘surge’ at border

The surge in family apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016 is driven by migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, who together make up 90 percent of these apprehensions so far this fiscal year. The number of family apprehensions from these Central American countries more than doubled in the first six months of fiscal 2016 over the same time period in 2015 and spiked further in August.

The surge in family apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016 is driven by migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, who together make up 90 percent of these apprehensions so far this fiscal year. The number of family apprehensions from these Central American countries more than doubled in the first six months of fiscal 2016 over the same time period in 2015 and spiked further in August.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 15, 2016:

Illegal border crossings by Central American children and families are surging again, approaching the record levels set in the summer of 2014, according to the latest data released for August. And border watchdogs say it’s all about Donald Trump and the upcoming election.

If the surge continues into September, fiscal 2016 will end on par with 2014, when President Obama was forced to address what was widely referred to as a “humanitarian crisis.”

August figures released this week by U.S. Customs and Border Protection show that more than 37,000 people were apprehended trying to illegally cross the southern border.

That’s nearly 6,000 more than in August 2014 and brings the total to 369,411 with one month still to go in the current fiscal year.

Customs and Border Patrol processed a record 479,000 illegal crossers in 2014, but 2015 saw the number drop to 331,000 as Obama’s DHS claimed it had implemented some upgraded enforcement measures having to do with “priorities.”

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

“These priorities more sharply focus our limited enforcement resources on public safety and border security,” the DHS claims in a statement on its website.

Now with the huge spike in illegal crossings this summer, the final tally for fiscal 2016 is expected to reach 400,000, exposing Obama’s upgraded measures as a fraud, according to border hawks.

A border patrol agent from the El Centro sector in California who asked not to be identified told WND he believes the numbers are up because of the pending presidential election. The fact that Republican Donald Trump continues to close the gap with Democrat Hillary Clinton, actually pulling ahead of her in some polls, is a huge factor driving the surge, he said.

“This is just speculation on my part, but I’m sure we’re getting a rush before the election, because if Trump wins they’re going to put an end to this [catch-and-release] policy,” the agent told WND.

He said the majority of border agents are hoping for a Trump win. Their union, the National Border Patrol Council, has endorsed Trump.

“I’m not saying he’s going to stick exactly to his positions because I don’t believe that for any politician. But I do feel he’ll make a change for the better,” the agent said.

George Soros’ involvement in historic migrations

William Gheen, president and founder of Americans for Legal Immigration, or ALIPAC, agrees with the agent’s assessment on the main reason for the surge. He says there are “big money interests” fueling the surge, with the likes of billionaire George Soros greasing the skids.

“The greatest wave of illegal immigration in America’s history is now inbound. We’ve been warning our supporters about this since January because Obama has sent the green light around the world that America’s border defenses have been compromised by his office,” Gheen said. “And word of that has reached every corner of the earth, where it is estimated some 1 billion people could come to the U.S. if we continue to allow them to do so.”

Gheen said the illegals are “being told to come” by a network of pro-immigrant advocacy groups funded by Soros and other wealthy progressives.

“They’re being told to come by Soros-backed groups and politicians,” he said.

And he’s not alone in that belief.

Read more

Also see:

Sharyl Attkisson Investigates the Cost of Terror


Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, Sept. 8, 2016

Full Measure investigates how much U.S. tax money has been spent fighting the war against terrorists and its impact on the American way of life. The head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, discusses the vulnerability that worries him most today.

Scott Thuman reports from London on the so-called ‘Most Hated Man’ in Britain. Anjem Choudary was jailed for five-and-a-half years for urging support of ISIS. Scott reports on the sentencing as the U.K. tries to stop a generation from being recruited as terrorists.

Lt. General Micheal Flynn details his plan for winning the war against terrorists. Hear why he believes speaking out about this plan ultimately cost him his job as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Some of the costs of terror can’t be quantified. Like the cost to our collective psyche. Full Measure host Sharyl Attkisson remembers the events of that day and the impact of reporting the story from Washington, D.C.

Lessons America didn’t learn from 9/11

(Photo: Twitter)

(Photo: Twitter)

WND, by Paul Bremmer, Sept. 10, 2016:

This Sunday Americans mark the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It will be a day of solemn remembrance, as most Americans now living still remember that horrible day.

But has the United States learned all the lessons it should have learned from the events of 9/11?

Only six days after 9/11, then-President George W. Bush delivered an address at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., in which he declared “Islam is peace.”

“These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith,” President Bush said that day. “And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that… The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

The idea that Islam is a religion of peace is nonsense, according to former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney.

“In retrospect, 15 years later, was President Bush correct?” Haney asked during an interview with WND. “Has Islam proven itself to be, with the hindsight of 15 years, a religion of peace? There have been 29,100 and counting violent jihad attacks around the world since 9/11, scattered all over the world, not to mention conflicts in probably 15 to 20 different countries, with massive atrocities across the globe.”

The answer is obvious, according to Haney. Islam is a violent religion, and its adherents receive their commands to kill from the Quran itself. Haney cited Surah 9:111 of the Quran, which reads in part: “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.”

He also pointed to Surah 2:191, which reads in part, “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you.”

So the lesson to be taken from the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 15 years is that Islam is not peace, as President Bush stated.

“We’ve had 1,400 years of history to evaluate the effect of Islam, and if they were really serious about proving what George Bush said, haven’t they had plenty of opportunity to do so since 9/11?” Haney reasoned.

Not only did Bush fail to learn his lesson, but President Obama has refused to learn it.

Haney noted the Obama administration has allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose members hold dying in the service of Allah as their highest aspiration. He said the Muslim Brotherhood considers the Quran its highest law, not the U.S. Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so there is a fundamental conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and American democracy.

But last weekend Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front group. ISNA was exposed as a front group during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, as Haney documents in his revealing book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”

“So the department that was founded in March of 2003 to protect our country from terrorism and threats from terror has now formed an open and overt alliance with the very organizations that state plainly that they intend to oppose all forms of human government, including the Constitution, and implement Shariah law,” Haney said.

Not only did the Obama administration fail to see the connection between Islam and terror, but they have not taken national security as seriously as they should in a post-9/11 world, according to Haney. He pointed to a directive signed by HHS Secretary Johnson in February 2014 that stated individuals only marginally affiliated with known terrorist organizations may still receive a visa from the State Department. This directive severely hamstrung Haney and his fellow counterterrorism officials.

“The U.S. Southern Command notified us a week or so ago that in 2015 at least 31,000 individuals from countries of concern regarding terror crossed the southern border,” Haney revealed. “That means we’re abrogating our responsibilities to protect our citizens from threats, that we’re not doing all that it takes to protect our border, both the actual physical border and the more abstract border of our civil liberties and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Haney stressed that national security must come first when deciding who to let into America.

“Immigration, helping refugees are noble things, but not at the expense of the freedom and safety and civil liberties of American citizens,” he said.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of 9/11 has been the War on Terror, which has included crusades to overthrow a number of dictators in the Middle East and replace them with democratically elected governments. But this is a fool’s errand, according to Haney, because devout Muslims prefer to Shariah law to Western-style democracy. Therefore, if they have the chance to vote, they will vote for Shariah and all the repression it brings.

“You know a tree by its fruit,” Haney said. “You look at the countries where Shariah law is practiced, whatever spectrum of intensity, from mild to Saudi Arabia-type – are any of those countries free democracies? Is there a single free democracy anywhere in the Islamic world?”

Haney noted whenever Middle Eastern Islamic countries have the choice, they always move toward Shariah, not away from it. Yet the United States often supports these countries under the banner of supporting democracy. The former DHS officer warned Shariah could creep into America if our leaders continue to ally themselves with Islamic supremacists.

“There are many provisions of the Declaration of Independence and/or the U.S. Constitution that are in direct conflict with Shariah law, and when you have Shariah law, those freedoms go,” Haney said ominously. “They do not make provision for the freedoms discussed in the Declaration or the Constitution. They are eliminated, and if it was to happen here, the same process would happen.”


CSPAN, Sept. 6, 2016:

Act for America 2016 Conference, Part 6 Phil Haney, a former Customs and Border Patrol officer with the Homeland Security Department, talked about his allegations of an Islamic infiltration of the U.S. government. He said that his work tracking people affiliated with the Islamic Deobandi movement was stopped so as not to offend the Muslim community. He used slides during his presentation and then responded to questions from members of the audience. Mr. Haney is the co-author of the book See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.

“Refugee Vetting: Is Our National Security at Risk?” was a Refugee Resettlement segment of ACTCON 2016, Act for America’s “National Conference and Legislative Briefing: Taking Back America’s Security.”



Urgent messages from Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch:

State Dept Focused on ‘Reintegrating’ Traveling Jihadis Back into US, Says Muslim Director

Creeping Sharia, 

That is actually a recommendation from the Muslim directing the State Department’s efforts to “counter” so-called violent extremism (a distorted euphamism for Islamic jihad)!

After stints abroad enslaving, selling, raping and dismembering young girls, beheading Christians and other non-Muslims, burning and boiling Muslims and destroying another country – the Muslim in charge wants to offer known jihadists who left the U.S. “something as simple as offers or alternatives to prosecution.” Infiltration at the highest levels.

Source: State Dept.: U.S. Should ‘Rehabilitate’ and ‘Reintegrate’ Foreign Fighters Back into Society

The director of the Office of Countering Violent Extremism at the State Department outlined some of the department’s strategic planning Wednesday to counter “violent extremism.”

Irfan Saeed praised Denmark’s strategy of rehabilitating and reintegrating foreign extremist fighters into society, asking, “What happens when they come back? You have to be able to rehabilitate them and then re-integrate them back into society.”

Speaking at a National Academy of Sciences’ panel on “Ideologically Motivated Violence,” Saeed described rehabilitation and integration as a strategy area of focus for the State Department.

“We’ve seen a large number of individuals travel overseas to foreign conflict zones, places like Iraq and Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan,” Saeed said. “So what happens when they come back? You have to be able to rehabilitate them and then re-integrate them back into society.”

He cited the program in Aurhus, Denmark, “where they’ve really struggled with this issue, but they’ve come up with a comprehensive way to try to rehabilitate these individuals once they come back and then reintegrate them into society.”

Saeed discussed other strategies to counter violent extremism during the panel including intervention which he described as “something as simple as offers or alternatives to prosecution.”

“It’s one thing to throw everybody in jail and figure it out later,” he said, but officials “understand that we can’t arrest our way out of this problem.”

He also emphasized the importance of “strategic messaging,” arguing that “we figure if we can put some good messages on the internet, we can stop radicalization violence.”

He cited the work of the State Department’s new Global Engagement Center, which is charged with “coordinating U.S. counterterrorism messaging to foreign audiences” and was established by Executive Order in March.

Pretty much every Muslim group in the U.S. has rejected the so-called CVE approach (although they probably take the money). Read:  Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Program Collapses Into Absurdity.
Here’s Saeed’s limited bio from a 2014 Johns Hopkins event:

Irfan Saeed is a Senior Policy Advisor at the US Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Mr. Saeed advises DHS leadership on policy isues at the intersection of civil rights and homeland security, developing and coordinating activities relating to countering violent extremism. Prior to joining Homeland Security, Mr. Saeed worked as a Criminal Prosecutor, at the state and federal levels. Mr. Saeed worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, US Department of Justice, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, as well as an Assistant District Attorney, in New Orleans, Louisiana. He served as Resident Legal Advisor at US Embassies in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. While deployed to the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, he was tasked to develop the Community Engagement Office, the first of its kind in U.S. Embassies worldwide, to use traditional public diplomacy tools to counter violent extremism (CVE) in Pakistan.

Based on the continuing violence against women and non-Muslims in Pakistan, that effort could be classified as an utter failure.


click for details

Yet, that got Saeed promoted to the State Dept.

Based on the growing number of jihadis and deadly jihad attacks in the U.S., he clearly isn’t generating a return on investment in the U.S. either.

Irfan’s name popped up in the Creeping Sharia archives back in 2010 when he attended Obama’s White House Ramadan feast (i.e., Month of Jihad) with many Muslim Brotherhood luminaries including Huma Abedin’s mother.

EXCLUSIVE: DHS Defends Secretary’s Appearance At Terror Front Group’s Conference


Johnson was “fully aware” that ISNA was implicated in the nation’s largest terror funding case; he just didn’t care.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 7, 2016:

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was “fully aware” that the Islamic Society of North America was implicated in a major terrorist fundraising case and ID’d by prosecutors as a front for a global jihadist movement that seeks to turn America into an Islamic state through infiltration and subversion when he agreed to speak at ISNA’s annual convention on Saturday, a DHS spokesman told CounterJihad.com on Wednesday.

Johnson was the highest-ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to speak in person before ISNA’s conference held last week in Chicago.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as anunindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said. “However, in the current environment, he viewed the opportunity to address literally thousands of American Muslims as crucial to our homeland security efforts.”

Asked why speaking from another venue or through a video would not have provided the same opportunity to address Muslims, Hakim declined comment. He also did not immediately respond to a letter sent to Johnson Wednesday from Rep. Steve King and two other Republican lawmakers demanding Johnson “renounce the Muslim Brotherhood and suspend further dealings by you or your subordinates with its front organizations like the Islamic Society of North America.”

In the two-page letter, the lawmakers said they were “appalled” that Johnson would “legitimize, let alone pander to, an organization or its proxy that poses a threat to our constitutional republic and its people.”

Reps. King, R-Iowa, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Randy Weber, R-Texas, added: “The fact that you have explicitly called for your appearance before ISNA to serve as a precedent for other Cabinet officials to do the same amounts not just to willful blindness about the nature of the enemy. It is malfeasance.”

In his speech, Johnson encouraged other Cabinet officials to follow in his footsteps, saying, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”

The congressmen called the Muslim Brotherhood “a foreign terrorist organization” and warned that its front groups and operatives in America “are using a variety of techniques — both violent and stealthy — to accomplish the Brotherhood’s stated goal of Sharia’s triumph globally and the reestablishment of the Caliphate.”

A manifesto of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood recovered by the FBI during a 2004 raid of the Virginia home of a terrorist suspect, details a secret plan to “destroy” America “from within” and replace it with an Islamic state through a “grand jihad.” The so-called “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America” lists ISNA first among 29 groups the Brotherhood claims as “our organizations.”

Also see:

Why does DHS want to designate election booths ‘critical infrastructure?’

woman in polling boothConservative Review, by Hans von Spakovsky, August 17, 2016:

The New York Times and other mainstream outlets have been filled with alarming stories recently about the possibility, voiced by Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), that our voting process in the November election could be subjected to cyber-attacks. Johnson told reporters in Washington (and state officials in a phone call on Monday) that he was considering designating our election system as “critical infrastructure, like the financial sector, like the power grid” because there is “a vital national interest in our electoral process.”

There is only one problem with this — there is no credible threat of a successful cyberattack on our voting and ballot-counting process because of the way our current election system is organized. An election official who was on that Monday call, and who has direct knowledge of Johnson’s plan  told me that Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler asked Johnson whether he had any evidence of any credible threat to our election system. Johnson’s answer was “no.”

That confirms what another high-level source who attended a White House meeting last week said – that DHS officials admitted they had no evidence of any “credible threat” of a cyber-attack. But designating the nation’s election system as “critical infrastructure” under a post 9/11 federal statute may be a way for the administration to get Justice Department lawyers, the FBI, and DHS staff into polling places they would otherwise have no legal right to access, which would enable them to interfere with election administration procedures around the country.

Election cybersecurity right now

No one minimizes the threat of cyberattacks by bad actors from the Chinese government to individual hackers. And cyber criminals have managed to get into all kinds of computer systems, from the attack on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that obtained the personnel files of millions of federal employees, to the embarrassing invasion of the DNC’s computer system.  But all of those computer systems have direct access to the internet, which provides the pathway in for hackers once they battle their way through the security firewalls and defenses that are supposed to protect those systems. That is not the case with almost all of our voting and ballot-counting processes. We have the most decentralized election system of any Western democracy, with over 3,000 counties and numerous townships running elections. There is no central computer system running our national elections and the computer ballots used to total votes are almost all standalone computers. (By the way, the Pentagon has an entirely closed computer system without access to the internet in order to protect classified information.) That is why states should entirely avoid any type of internet voting proposals, since then our election process would become highly vulnerable to cyber-attack, as happened to Illinois’s new online voter registration system recently.

The same is true of the electronic voting (touch screen) machines used in polling places in many jurisdictions. The vast majority of counties do not have those machines tied into a reporting system that runs through the internet; they don’t keep their information in “the Cloud” as Louisiana Secretary of State Schedler told me in a separate conversation recently about the cyber issue. Instead, they are stand-alone machines with a cartridge in the back that is removed at the end of the polling day and physically transported to the county elections department, where the cartridge is inserted into the stand-alone computer that totals up all of the votes.

There is no question, as security experts have demonstrated, that the security on some of these individual electronic voting machines is poor, and that they may be subject to hacking if a hacker can get physical access to the machine. But these touch screens are kept in secure warehouses before election day and then are monitored by election officials when they are set up in polling sites. It would be difficult for a hacker to access a significant number of machines in any meaningful way.

That doesn’t mean these types of touch screens shouldn’t be replaced; but the point is that hackers do not have the ability to access either these individual machines or the ballot-counting computers through internet portals. And they have even less of an ability to try to cyber-attack the ballot scanners that are used in the vast majority of polling places. There, individual voters fill out opti-scan paper ballots with a special ballot-marking pen, and the ballots are then run through a standalone computer scanner that counts the vote. Those paper ballots act as a back-up if any questions arise about the computer total. Those scanners are also not hooked into the internet.

Why is DHS pushing for this designation?

So what is going on? After 9/11, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2001 allowing the president or the secretary of DHS to designate “critical infrastructure” that must be protected against attacks (6 U.S.C. §132). In 2013, President Obama issued a revised “Presidential Policy Directive” on “Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience” (PPD-21). If Jeh Johnson designates our election system as “critical infrastructure,” then according to this directive, the Justice Department is given the authority to “investigate, disrupt, prosecute, and otherwise reduce” threats to that infrastructure. DHS will “coordinate the overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of” the infrastructure.

Given the lack of a credible threat of a cyber-attack, there could be another explanation for what DHS is doing.  But designating election systems as “critical infrastructure” could grant Secretary Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security officials, and officials at the Department of Justice access to any and every election and to any and every voting location they “deem” threatened. The government would be able to police the systems, and could demand changes be made to election and voting systems regardless of the views of local officials.

DHS’ actions could stem from the administration’s frustration over the 2013 Shelby County decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, about which Attorney General Loretta Lynch has loudly complained, claiming it severely curtailed the ability of DOJ to send official observers recruited by OPM to polling places. Those officials can only go where a court has given them authorization to be present. Otherwise, DOJ is dependent on local jurisdictions giving DOJ permission for its lawyers and staff to be there. Many jurisdictions have wised up and started saying “no” to DOJ. That must be very frustrating to the partisans who inhabit parts of the Justice Department these days and want their staff out there making sure their political friends get elected.

The realistic fear is that this is the first step towards nationalizing election administration.

In fact, Richard Pilger of the Election Crimes Unit of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division at DOJ was a participant in the Monday call with the secretaries of state, and Chris Herren, the chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, was a participant in a call last week on this subject with Leslie Reynolds, the executive director of the National Association of Secretaries of State. Neither Pilger nor Herren know anything about cyber security; the Civil Rights Division has absolutely no expertise on that subject whatsoever and has no jurisdictional authority over the issue.

Johnson emphasized in Monday’s call that he wanted to make the federal government available to the states to prevent cyber-attacks; but nothing prevents DHS from making recommendations now —no “critical infrastructure” designation is required. Johnson said he was organizing a federal-state working group that would include DHS, DOJ, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the Department of Commerce. Johnson was still “considering” whether he would be “designating some aspect of the election process as critical infrastructure.” But Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp was very vocal in the telephone call in telling Johnson the states don’t need any help from the federal government.

The realistic fear is that this is the first step towards nationalizing election administration. Federal officials who have already shown they will not hesitate to use their power to tilt public policy in favor of their own personal political agenda could bring that same bias to decisions that affect the very integrity of our election process.

If we have close elections on the local, state, or federal level in November, there is a much greater possibility that they could be affected by misbehavior such as absentee ballot fraud or illegal voting by noncitizens or other ineligible voters than that some hacker will be able to manipulate the system. But just like in The Wizard of Oz, this administration wants you to pay no attention to that particular man in the corner while it launches its election Trojan horse.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Along with John Fund, he is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.” 

Also see:

Homeland Security Chief Speaks At Hamas Front’s Confab; Shares Stage with Holocaust Denier, Muslim Brotherhood Leader


The DHS head told the group which worked to finance Hamas, “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 4, 2016:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson — whose job it is to protect America from terrorists — spoke at the annual gathering of an Islamic group the Department of Justice considered a terrorist front on Saturday, where he heaped praise and unearned legitimacy on his dubious host.

After traveling to Chicago as a featured speaker at the Islamic Society of North America’s convention, Johnson took the stage and boasted, “I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention.”

There’s a reason for that: ISNA has been identified by the U.S. Justice Department as a front group for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian terrorist branch Hamas.

Still, Johnson said, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”

U.S. prosecutors would argue that’s nothing to be proud of: In 2008, they listed Johnson’s host as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing trial in U.S. history. Despite repeated efforts to expunge its name from the list in court appeals, ISNA still remains on the list today.  Responding to an appeal by ISNA and other Muslim groups to remove it from the list, federal judge Jorge Solis ruled that, “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

The federal terrorism case, U.S. vs. the Holy Land Foundation, resulted in guilty verdicts on all 108 felony counts against HLF and five of its leaders, who conspired to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian terrorists, including suicide bombers.

ISNA was “intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas,” said U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks in a federal court document. “HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA.”

Jacks said HLF leaders sent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Hamas terrorists through bank accounts controlled by ISNA and its financial arm, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Hamas was designated a global terrorist group in 1995 by President Clinton.

Added Jacks: “The evidence introduced at trial established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood,” whose “ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder recognized Jacks for “exceptional service” in a 2010 Justice Department awards ceremony. So the Obama administration does not dispute the merits of the terrorism case in which ISNA was implicated.

Johnson said his appearance at the ISNA event was part of carrying out a “priority” set by President Obama to “build bridges to American Muslim communities.”

“Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens,” he said. “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

Instead, Johnson portrayed Muslims as victims of counterterrorism efforts, comparing the scrutiny of Muslim-Americans in terrorism cases to the historic discrimination suffered by African-Americans.

“I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself,” he said. “I see a similar struggle that my African-American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.”

On a more personal note, Johnson compared the suspicion Muslim-Americans have fallen under — after Muslim-Americans launched recent deadly terrorism attacks in Boston, Chattanooga, Tenn., San Bernardino County, Calif., and Orlando — to the “McCarthyism” he said his grandfather experienced in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Charles S. Johnson was investigated for his ties to the Communist Party by the House Un-American Activities Committee following his hiring of known Communist operatives as president of Fisk University and defending them after they had been exposed as subversives. Johnson also faced questioning about his own membership in communist fronts.

In addition, ISNA’s convention program shows Johnson was listed to participate in a breakout session calling on Muslims to “turn the tide, confront our challenges and seize our opportunities.” The panel included Tariq Ramadan, who was formally barred from entering the U.S. in 2006 “for providing material support to a terrorist organization” — until, that is, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted the ban on his visa. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the son of the important Brotherhood leader Said Ramadan.

Also listed on the ISNA panel with Johnson was Khizr Khan, the Sharia law advocate who famously took the stage at the Democrat National Convention and complained about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations tied to terrorism. In a treatise on the merits of Sharia law, Khan “gratefully acknowledged” Said Ramadan as a source expert on the subject.

In his speech, Johnson called Khan and his hijab-clad wife “American heroes.”

Also listed as “featured speakers” at ISNA’s 53rd annual convention were Jamal Badawi, a founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood who was listed among unindicted co-conspirators who helped HLF raise money for Hamas terrorists, and Muzammil Siddiqi, a Muslim cleric who currently chairs NAIT, the bank for the Brotherhood in America and the custodian of most of the mosques in America.

In 1995, Siddiqi defended jihad and praised suicide bombers: “Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor.”

During a 2000 anti-Israel rally outside the White House, Siddiqi openly threatened the US with violence if it continued to support Israel. “America has to learn … if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? … If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

Listed alongside DHS Secretary Johnson was Imam Yasir Qadhi, who has called the Holocaust “false propaganda” and described Jews as “crooked-nosed.”

Also see:

One of the early and most important indicators of the Brotherhood’s surreptitious expanding influence within the Intelligence Community [IC] showed up as a terminology scrub of official strategic documents dealing with counterterrorism. As Robert Spencer explains, the trend toward politically correct Global War on Terror (GWOT) language began with a misguided effort by Jim Guirard, the founder and president of the TrueSpeak Institute[40], a lobbying group influenced by input from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Guirard, senior U.S. government officials, either incompetent or unwilling to fulfill their professional duty to “know the enemy,” fell under the Brotherhood’s influence and began substituting a garbled lexicon of inaccurate Arabic vocabulary[41] in place of the actual words the enemy uses to describe what he does and why he does it.[42]

Favoritism for Somali Immigrants from DHS

They lead the nation in ISIS recruitment, so why not give them special access?

dhsCounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 13, 2016:

We commonly hear of the refugee crisis coming out of Syria but they aren’t the only country with the problem. The war-town African country of Somalia has also been having substantial issues with its population. This overview shows the number of registered Somali refugees as of 2016 reaches nearly one million people just in Somalia’s geographic region, while another overview shows that Somalia has over one million internally displaced persons which creates many other issues. Furthermore, Minnesota has been impacted with tens of thousands of Somali Muslims refugees settling in Minneapolis from jihadi influenced Somalia, which has created a hotbed for terrorist recruitment. Numerous Somali Muslims in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area have left to join terrorist groups like Al Shabaab and ISIS or have been apprehended by government authorities. As reported last year by the StarTribune, “Minnesota leads the nation in the number of people who have left or sought to leave the country to fight with terrorists aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria[.]” Worse yet, there is a vocal segment within the Somali-Muslim community that doesn’t blame the terrorists for luring their children into the cause of jihad, but blames the authorities for ‘racial profiling’ – which reflects in them a type of victimhood mentality. For example, Breitbart reports how during a June terrorism trial that found multiple Somalis guilty of terrorism related charges a contributor to City Journal, Scott W. Johnson, was disturbed by the animosity of the Somali community toward the government:

Perhaps most shocking to me was what utterly ordinary members of the Minnesota Somali community the defendants and their friends appeared to be. So far as I can tell, Somali culture is alien and hostile to the United States. Many among the local Somali community considered the defendants to be persecuted innocents entrapped by the government. It would be unduly charitable to characterize the attitude as willful blindness.

We have seen this suspicion manifested before such as when Somali-Muslim leaders blamed the TSA for ‘racial profiling’ several months ago and called for an investigation into the matter. Even after Somali groups received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in federal and state grants under President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, the Somali Muslim community is still distrustful of the government. Apparently this constant complaining by leaders from the Somali-Muslim community is a reoccurring theme even when DHS has attempted to be transparent and given them special access to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Judicial Watch reports:

On at least two occasions—December 18, 2014 and February 18, 2015—federal authorities granted the unprecedented excursions of the facility’s sterile and secure areas, according to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) records obtained by Judicial Watch. The DHS agency that conducted the expeditions, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), provided the Muslim participants with “an in-depth, on-site tour and discussion of CBP’s airport, including both inbound and outbound passenger processing,” the TSA files state. Besides multiple roundtable meetings between CBP and Somali community leaders including imams, the records show that a luncheon and “cultural exchange and educational brief” also took place between December 2014 and February 2015 so that attendees could ask about the agency’s “specific practices” at the airport.

The roundtable events and airport tours were organized by Abdirizak Farah, who is identified in the records as a policy advisor in the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). Farah joined DHS in 2010 with an annual salary of $89,033 and by 2015 his yearly pay increased to $130,453, according to a government database. The TSA’s “Somali liaison officer” in Minneapolis, Andrew Rhoades, told Judicial Watch that the special airport tours were organized for Somali Muslims after they complained to Johnson [DHS secretary] that they felt “harassed and profiled” by CBP at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The DHS secretary had “a sympathetic ear to that,” Rhoades said, adding that no other group has been granted such airport access by DHS…

Not only is DHS’s preferential conduct disturbing, the fact they possibly gave Islamists or those associated with Islamist groups access to procedures and processes that protect airport security is even more troubling. We have already seen how the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has been used by jihadists traveling to Syria to join ISIS – this was the case with Abdi Nur in 2014. Also, one ISIS supporter/sympathizer allegedly once worked at the airport. DHS and other department’s ignorance of the threat of Sharia and jihad is sadly not surprising considering how federal bureaus and agencies have given into the political correctness of the Islamist agenda. For example, a June 2016 DHS CVE Subcommittee report recommends avoiding the use of words such as “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.” These kinds of suggestions handicap our authorities from detecting important ‘red flags’ that help in preventing Islamic terror attacks.

DHS is not only showing favoritism to the Somali-Muslim community in Minneapolis, but it is also jeopardizing U.S. security by giving into the demands of Islamists. In addition, there’s little to no evidence that the CVE programs are actually working to reduce extremism and build meaningful bridges with the Muslim community. Furthermore, a couple of months ago up to thirty Somali males harassed residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood, and one woman said a man made threats of kidnap and rape. With incidents such as this one, how are we supposed to believe that youth outreach is having a meaningful effect in Minneapolis? Our taxpayer dollars must be spent more wisely – President Obama can start by scrapping the whole CVE program.

Also see:

Department of Homeland Security Targeting the Wrong Enemy

  • President Obama has surrounded himself not with military strategists but rather with fiction writers, wide-eyed diplomats whose strategy is “don’t do stupid shit,” and law enforcement officials who believe that “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”
  • Only “rightwing extremism” is obvious to the Obama Administration. Everything else is apparently too complex and nuanced for labels. Even Micah Xavier Johnson, who said that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people, is a conundrum to the president, who bizarrely asserted that it is “hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”
  • The Obama era is one of willful blindness to the jihadist movement that has declared war on America. CIA Director John Brennan purged the word “jihad” from the agency’s vocabulary. Obama’s two Attorneys General have done the same at the Department of Justice.
  • The federal government has spent the last 8 years pretending that “rightwing extremists” are more numerous and dangerous than the careful and intelligent jihadist attackers, whom it insists are just “madmen” or “troubled individuals.”

Gatestone Institute, by A.J. Caschetta, July 26, 2016

Anyone surprised by President Barack Obama’s recurring attempts at exploiting jihadist attacks in his efforts to restrict gun ownership should read the earliest known document concerning terrorism assembled by his administration. The unclassified assessment by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is dated April 7, 2009 — a mere 77 days after Obama’s inauguration.

The document was leaked shortly after its release to law enforcement officials across the country and made public by Roger Hedgecock on April 13, 2009. It laid out the new president’s legislative and executive priorities on terrorism, guns and immigration. Uniquely combining these three issues would become a predictable, coordinated pattern during Obama’s two terms in office.

The assessment boldly delineated the Tom Ridge and Janet Napolitano eras at the DHS. As Eli Lake wrote the day after the document was leaked, “Since its inception in 2003, the department has focused primarily on radicalization of Muslims and the prospect of homegrown Islamist terrorism.” Under Obama’s leadership, attention was directed away from Muslims and Islamist terrorism and redirected towards limiting the Second Amendment, scrutinizing military veterans and expanding both legal and illegal immigration.

Contrary to criticism of the Obama administration as uninterested in the plight of military veterans, the DHS assessment shows that vets were very much a priority. The document’s authors, in fact, were worried that “military veterans facing significant challenges returning into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists.”

The only significant acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by veterans lately have not been inspired from the right, however: Micah Xavier Johnson and Gavin Long are products of a “left wing,” anti-police, anti-establishment ideology. The assassinations they carried out fit the pattern of the so-called “New Left” wave of terror carried out in the 1970s by the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.

The language of the document also foretells the Obama story. In its brief seven pages of text there are 25 references to gun control, weapons and ammunition-hoarding. Terrorists motivated by “anti-immigration” and “white supremacist” ideologies are mentioned 11 times, and veterans returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq are mentioned 9 times. Variations of “extremism,” which would become Obama’s preferred euphemism, occur 42 times.

Timothy McVeigh is the model terrorist in the document. DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said a goal of the report was “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”

The 1990s figure prominently in the DHS prognostication, meriting 17 references. The “poor economic climate,” the Clinton “assault weapon” ban and “a perceived threat to US power and sovereignty by other foreign powers” are envisioned as parallel to the situation in 2009. Looking back at the 1990s and predicting similar troubles in the age of Obama, Napolitano’s DHS made no mention of the most significant development in the evolution of political violence to occur in the 1990s: the rise of Al-Qaeda.

Military strategists worth their pay will recognize the DHS version of “preparing to fight the last war,” but then Obama has surrounded himself not with military strategists but rather with fiction writers, wide-eyed diplomats whose strategy is limited to “don’t do stupid shit,” and law enforcement officials who believe that “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”

In a passage about “the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes,” there is a reference to “the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009.” The shooter in question was Richard Poplawski, who ambushed the police called to his home to investigate a domestic disturbance. The DHS concludes that “his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories” led to his “radicalization,” though years later, after Poplawski was convicted and sentenced to death, reporters and even the jury were still unsure of his motives.

The Poplawski shooting occurred just three days before the date on the document. Compare that remarkably speedy conclusion to the way the Obama Administration has handled jihadist attacks. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 attack in Fort Hood, Texas, and Alton Nolan’s September 24, 2014 ritual beheading of a coworker at the Vaughan Foods plant in Moore, Oklahoma, are described as “workplace violence.”

FBI Director James Comey expressed confusion over Omar Mateen’s motives for the recent Orlando jihad attack, even though Mateen’s attack was accompanied by the jihadist’s battle cry “Allahu Akhbar” and a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Caliph of the Islamic State during a 911 call. Before that it was the San Bernardino husband-wife jihadist team whose motives were ostensibly a mystery to the FBI.

Only “rightwing extremism” is obvious to the Obama Administration. Everything else is apparently too complex and nuanced for labels. Even Micah Xavier Johnson, who told Dallas police that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people, is a conundrum to the president, who bizarrely asserted that it is “hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”

Left: The 2009 Department of Homeland Security assessment titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Right: Micah Xavier Johnson, who murdered five Dallas police officers and injured nine others, said that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people.

After the 2009 DHS assessment was widely and rightly criticized, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) complained that the administration “let its team devoted to non-Islamic domestic terrorism fall apart in the aftermath of… [the] controversial leaked report.” But while the “Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division” may have been dropped, but the principles that led to the document were not.

Even more so than the Bush era, the Obama era is one of willful blindness to the global jihadist movement that has declared war on America. CIA Director John Brennan purged the word “jihad” from the agency’s vocabulary. Obama’s two Attorneys General have done the same at the Department of Justice.

The federal government has spent the last eight years pretending (maybe even believing) that “rightwing extremists” are more numerous and dangerous than the careful and intelligent jihadist attackers, whom it insists are just “madmen” or “troubled individuals.”

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

FBI, CIA go on hiring spree in America’s most Muslim city


WND, by Leo Hohman, July 14, 2016:

The FBI and CIA are looking to increase the “diversity” of their agencies and that includes hiring more Arab Americans.

One of the ways it hopes to achieve its goal of greater diversity is by holding a career fair in America’s most Islamic city – Dearborn, Michigan.

Notices about the career fair have been posted on the Arab-American Chamber of Commerce’s Facebook page, as well as in local news publications in Dearborn.


The Press and Guide, for instance, ran a public notice that stated the following;

“Learn about working for two top government agencies during an informational session being held by The Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“Attendees will learn about both agencies and have the chance to hear about career opportunities as well as network with CIA and FBI representatives.

“The event takes place at 6 p.m. July 19 at the Ford Motor Company Conference & Event Center, 1151 Village Road, Dearborn. A formal presentation will run from 6 to 7:30 p.m. followed by networking from 7:30 to 8:30.

“Both the FBI and CIA are seeking to increase diversity within the organizations and find specifically skilled applicants to fulfill critical roles within the agencies.

“Those at the event will hear about specific job positions and qualifications through a panel discussion as well as the agencies’ similarities, strategic differences and shared commitment to thwart threats to national security.

“Dinner will be provided, but seating is limited. RSVP by July 12 to Christina Petrosian at chrissp@ucia.gov.”

Petrosian did not immediately respond to emails from WND.

Dick Manasseri, communications director for Secure Michigan, a citizen-watchdog group fighting what it sees as the Islamization of Michigan, said he found the advertisements troubling, but not surprising.

“How can the FBI/CIA vet job applicants when they cannot mention the word Shariah?’” Manasseri said.

Manasseri was referring to the scrubbing of all FBI training manuals, removing all references to Shariah and Islam that were seen as discriminatory by Muslim groups. That concession was made in response to complaints by the Council of American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, by then-Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who is now in charge of the CIA.

“How can the FBI/CIA vet the information provided on applications from Shariah-adherents who are encouraged to lie to non-Muslims when it furthers the goals of Shariah?” Manasseri told WND.

The Obama administration has also invited former CAIR officials into its circle of advisers within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“The opportunities for further federal government infiltration increases the probability that we will see Shariah courts in Southeast Michigan before long,” Manasseri said.

Dearborn’s population is about 40 percent Arab and includes both Sunni and Shiite Muslims. A minority of the Arab-American community in Dearborn are Christian.

And the Dearborn area is getting more Muslim by the month thanks to the current Syrian refugee program being carried out by President Obama. Just in the last nine months the U.S. State Department has delivered 143 Syrians to Dearborn for permanent resettlement.

Another 174 Syrians have been sent to Troy, which is only 25 miles north of Dearborn.

Michigan has been targeted to receive nearly half of the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama has promised the United Nations he would admit into the U.S.

After getting off to a slow start, Syrian arrivals are now occurring by the hundreds per day. On Wednesday another 249 Syrians arrived in the U.S. for permanent resettlement.

Obama’s pledge of 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, which ends Sept. 30, now appears to be a deadline he will make. His State Department has delivered nearly 60 percent of the 10,000 with two and a half months to go.