Gaffney: Sanctuary Cities Are ‘Magnet’ for Illegals, Don’t Make Us Safer

AP

AP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, February 1, 2017:

Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy president, praised President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, on Wednesday’sBreitbart News Daily.

“He seems like a most impressive man,” Gaffney told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Following a clip Marlow played, Gaffney said, “The law is not my area of expertise, needless to say – but he, I believe, has epitomized over his distinguished career an approach to judicial practice which that clip you just ran spoke to: that it is not the role of judges to make the law. It is to apply the law, to assure the equitable application of the law.”

“That’s a refreshing change from what we’ve been seeing a lot of from the bench, including the Supreme Court, of late,” Gaffney continued, “a necessary corrective, especially in regards to replacing one of the most eminent, most capable, and most important checks on that practice, namely Antonin Scalia, who Judge Gorsuch is being called to replace on the Supreme Court, of course.”

Marlow asked Gaffney about the spectacle of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) throwing Breitbart News reporter Neil Munro out of an event that was supposedly dedicated to “tolerance” and “inclusion.”

“A couple of quick points on this, Alex,” Gaffney said. “One, among the governments that has tied the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, to terrorism is the United States government. In fact, in the Holy Land Foundation trial – 2007-2008, largest terrorism financing trial in the country’s history – CAIR was identified by an FBI agent, based upon wiretaps conducted by the FBI back in the day when it did that sort of thing, of a meeting. It turned out to be the founding meeting of this organization CAIR, and it involved representatives of a group the Brotherhood itself has identified as a part of their organizations, the Islamic Association for Palestine, on the one hand, and representatives of Hamas. What the federal government contends in court, and four different federal judges affirmed, was that CAIR is Hamas.”

“So there’s that. And then there’s this point that you’ve made, and I think it’s apt, that the most intolerant people on the planet, bar none, are the jihadists – who seek often in this country, doing business as the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, that everybody must be very tolerant of them,” he continued.

“It’s absurd. It’s obscene. And unfortunately, to the extent that these guys have gotten away with it for this long, under, I’m sorry to say, Republican and Democratic administrations, they have managed to become influential in our policy-making process, to the point where we are largely, willfully, blind to the real threat that they represent,” he warned.

“So yes, I do hope that this is another of the things that Donald Trump will attend to here shortly, namely designating the Muslim Brotherhood as what it is: a terrorist organization, which I hope will speak volumes about the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other front groups operating in this country under its banner,” he said.

Marlow referenced Dr. Zuhdi Jasser’s appearance on Breitbart News Daily the previous day, in which he denounced the Left’s use of Muslims as pawns in its identity-politics games.

“Zuhdi’s a remarkable man, and I am very proud to have him as a friend,” Gaffney said. “I think he’s absolutely right about that. I think the corollary, of course, is that the Islamists are using the Left, as well. They’re using them as cover for what is, according to the Muslim Brotherhood’s own secret plan – written back in 1991 as a report to Cairo, the mothership, the headquarters, not meant for our eyes, called the ‘Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group.’ People can go look at it, download it for free at SecureFreedom.org. It is a fascinating read.”

“What it makes very clear is the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in our country is destroying Western civilization from within, by the hands of what you might call the infidels,” he said. “Among the infidels that are most helpful to them, if you’re trained as I was in fighting the old Soviet Communists, think of them as ‘useful idiots’ or ‘useful infidels,’ the term that Daniel Pipes has coined. But whatever they are, they are helping the Islamists in their efforts to take us down, and the Islamists are helping the Left in doing just that. They have a very different vision of what should come next, of course, but they are making common cause.

“And it is bizarre, since among the pillars of the Left, let’s recall, are groups like feminists – as we saw in the streets of Washington and elsewhere recently – and Jews, and homosexuals, and people of various minority faiths, people who leave their faiths. These are all, especially Muslims, regarded as, you know, the enemy by this so-called ‘Religion of Peace.’” he pointed out.

“I want to emphasize, there are people like Zuhdi Jasser who don’t agree with this, that don’t practice sharia, as we’ve talked about often, that animates this very intolerant, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic, and anti-American, anti-constitutional program of the Islamists. But it is really appalling that the Left is helping, in so many ways, normalize and socialize and otherwise advance this toxically anti-American agenda. It’s what we see, of course, most immediately in this effort by Donald Trump to stop – these are my words, but I think this is what it is, at the end of the day – to stop importing more jihadists into the United States. The vast majority of the American people support it,” Gaffney said.

Marlow moved to the subject of President Trump’s executive order on immigration by playing a comment from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to the effect that “sanctuary cities” enhance American security because they attract a large number of illegal aliens who can serve as confidential informants to the police when other illegal aliens commit crimes.

“I think what we’re watching is an effort to defy common sense,” Gaffney commented. “Most of us who have common sense recognize that bringing more people into this country who aren’t just violent jihadists who want to blow things up, or shoot people, or rape people for that matter…I’m just worried, frankly, as I said earlier, about the people who have been engaged in what I think of as kind of ‘pre-violence’: the sharia supremacists who seek to build the infrastructure that supports a violent kind of jihad, that insists that people don’t assimilate into our country, don’t become like Zuhdi Jasser, part of the American fabric and dream.”

“They’re a problem, and we don’t need more of them,” he contended. “I think that’s what Donald Trump is trying to do with his pause and trying to assess how do we enhance our vetting process? How do we keep those kinds of people out?”

Gaffney said that goal was “eminently sensible” and scoffed at the efforts of people like Pelosi to “cast themselves as the people who are protecting us by preventing the police from being able to identify and remove folks as part of an overall law-enforcement effort, who are engaged in that kind of behavior.”

“To suggest that somehow we’re all going to be safer if we actually keep the magnet for people coming here illegally – some of whom, I have to say, are engaged in probably actual or pre-terrorist activity – this is a ridiculous position to strike,” he said. “I think Donald Trump is absolutely right to insist that we shut down these sanctuary cities, that we insist that our cities and our states enforce the law, not undermine it to possibly great detriment of public safety and even the national security.”

Obama Beats ISIS at Word Games

obama-wc2

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Nov. 2, 2015:

“Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas. We will never be at war with Islam,” Obama said.

Pelosi assured worried Americans on MSNBC that we were winning the war against ISIS on social media.

John Kerry took to calling ISIS by the derogatory Daesh epithet to prove it has nothing to do with Islam.

But winning the war of word games wasn’t enough to stop the bombings and beheadings. So American troops are back on the ground in Iraq and Syria to try and win the real non-Twitter war.

But we just can’t call it that.

While raids on ISIS targets are the core of the new strategy, they are referred to as “direct action on the ground” instead of “combat”. American soldiers aren’t “boots on the ground”, they’re just there providing “enhanced support”. The kind of enhanced support that only bullets can offer.

They’re fighting and dying as part of an “advise and assist” mission which is not to be confused with the traditional kind of “fighting and dying” mission.

When Obama announced his first withdrawal from Iraq, he left 50,000 American soldiers there who had been renamed the “advise and assist brigades”. During the election he had promised to have “all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” And he kept his word, by renaming them so that they were no longer combat brigades; instead they were now advise and assist brigades.

Mission accomplished.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom is over,” Obama told Americans in his very own Mission Accomplished speech, a speech that despite ongoing fighting is still bafflingly billed as, “The End of Combat Operations in Iraq.”

“Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended…  This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office,” he insisted.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, a tacky Bush name redolent of patriotism, was renamed Operation New Dawn, which might have been anything from a health resort to a brand of fabric softener. There certainly wasn’t anything military or patriotic about it. Freedom was over, but Dawn was here.

Americans went on dying in Iraq. But the war was over. Except it went on anyway.

Five years later, the war is undeniably back on and so are the word games. We’re back to advising and assisting with bombs and bullets. American soldiers are being shot at and dying in enhanced support.

But we won’t beat ISIS with word games.

Obama excels at renaming things. In his teleprompter, spending becomes investing, unilateral rule becomes bipartisanship and broad violations of the Constitution become common sense solutions.

It’s a form of fraud that is most successful with true believers living in a media bubble. Obama supporters who wanted to believe that he had kept his word by withdrawing within 16 months, could point to the renaming of the mission. Talking about beating ISIS on social media impresses the media types who live on Twitter anyway and credit it with the overthrow of Mubarak and the Arab Spring.

The fraud falls apart when it comes up against the hard realities of the territory that ISIS controls. Word games may fool a few million New York Times readers, but no amount of rebranding will shake ISIS loose. Rebranding is the province of failing companies trying to sell a bad product with a new image. Obama has been selling his image while hoping that no one looks at the product he’s pushing.

Obama’s entire foreign policy has depended on jumping from one lie to another and from one word game to another so that no one realizes the full scope of the disaster that he has caused.

Call it whatever you will, the current plan for defeating ISIS involves putting American soldiers on the ground in direct combat with the terror group. In plain language, Obama has been slowly forced to reverse his withdrawals from Iraq. These reversals have happened because his existing strategy failed.

Lackadaisically bombing ISIS didn’t work. The occasional raids won’t work either. And that means that a more serious and extended presence on the ground becomes the next stage. But Obama isn’t willing to tell Americans the truth. Instead he’s playing more word games with American lives.

Obama has managed to withdraw twice from Iraq, both times under false pretenses, and then return to Iraq, once again under false pretenses. Concealing the truth is a much higher priority for him than national security. Lying to Americans is much more important than actually winning wars.

His administration places a great deal of value on word games. Its grounding in the arcana of left-wing theorizing has led its members into the academic fallacy of confusing nomenclature with reality. Many of them really do believe that you can do anything if you find the right name for it.

But wars aren’t won with names. They’re not won with Marxist theorizing or Google Hangouts. The administration’s entire skillset is built for defeating Republicans and fooling Americans.

It’s completely useless in the face of an armed fanatical enemy with no interest in common ground.

In the Obama mindset, actually winning wars is outdated in the era of smart power. Winning word games is a more intellectual hobby than getting down in the dirt and seizing actual territory. The future belongs to the most agile rebranders, not to those who are willing to die for a cause.

“It is the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press. It is the Soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech,” is a sentiment to be disdainfully dismissed by the White House.

The future isn’t supposed to belong to the best armies, but to community organizers who can convince people that it is in their best interests to do what they are told. Military solutions are in the realm of “horses and bayonets,” as Obama sneered at Romney to the glee of the community organizer media.

But when it comes to actually securing the territory in which there can be freedom of speech or the dominance of Islam, freedom of the press or Jihadist propaganda, the soldier is the final answer.

And it is an answer that Obama doesn’t like.

The refusal to even use the word “combat” is part political cynicism by an administration so thoroughly defined by its opposition to the Iraq War that it refuses to compromise what it considers its greatest achievement by admitting that its Iraq policy not only failed, but backfired so badly it has to be reversed. But it’s also part instinctual antipathy by the most anti-military administration in this country’s history.

General McChrystal was not wrong when he observed that Obama appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated” by military people. The general’s purging only provided further proof of his observations.

Obama doesn’t like military solutions and yet his attempts to solve military problems with non-military solutions and halfway military measures have failed miserably. But he would rather fail on his own ideological terms than succeed by setting aside his ideology and doing what works.

Thousands of Americans have died and were wounded because Obama refused to listen to reason in Afghanistan. ISIS is spreading because Obama has learned nothing from the disaster in Afghanistan.

Military operations have become only another way for Obama and his staffers to play word games, to rebrand their latest disaster and sell one more lie to an American people already swimming in deceit. Instead of accepting the role of the military on its own terms, Obama insists on forcing the military to conform to his botched ideological misinterpretation of international events and foreign relations.

But you can’t use the military to win word games. You can only use it to win wars.

Obama doesn’t want to defeat ISIS. He wants to prove that he was right all along about Iraq. He wants to show that the word game is mightier than the sword.

Each time he is forced to make a concession to reality, he cloaks it in more word games and lies that cloud the actual tactical objectivities. All the word games may make it seem like we’re winning in Washington D.C., but they don’t bring us any closer to victory in Iraq.

Obama is beating ISIS at word games, but losing on the battlefield.

***

National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media, Patrick Poole, joins guest host Rep. Louie Gohmert to discuss the latest decision by the White House to send a small Special Operations force to Syria:

Also see:

Mr. Netanyahu Goes to Washington

March 4, 2015 / /

On Tuesday Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu went before the US Congress in Washington, DC, to warn them about allowing Iran to go nuclear. Bibi came in and did what he needed to do for his people: speak before the government of his closest ally and warn them about the coming threat from the Iranian regime. The man displayed great wisdom and strength at a time when there’s so much uncertainty and threats emerging in the world. What about President Obama? He snubbed Bibi and many from within his administration and party went public talking to the press about how “disrespectful” Bibi was to President Obama for accepting House Speaker Boehner’s invitation to speak to Congress. Bibi completely outmaneuvered President Obama by praising the man, then following up with laying out his country’s concerns about the deal with Iran, which to be blunt is exactly as one-sided as we’ve been saying it would be throughout our “Inside Iran’s Middle East” series.

Netanyahu Lavishes Praise on Obama in Speech: “I called the President, and he was there”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414739/netanyahu-lavishes-praise-obama-speech-i-called-president-and-he-was-there-brendan

bibi___

Source: fronda.pl

The full speech can be found here in case you missed it:

 

One of the individuals who were the most vocal in their disgust for Bibi’s visit was Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who talked about how “disrespectful” he was to visit and then called out her Republican counterparts for allowing him to “insult” the country. She also accused the Republicans of “politicizing” the Iranian nuclear negotiations. We at the ISIS Study Group find this most interesting since Pelosi didn’t seem to have any problems doing exactly what she’s accusing the GOP of doing when she met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad during the Bush years:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad shakes hands with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Damascus

Source: frontpagemag.com

pelosi II

Source: NBC

During Pelosi’s Syria visit, she praised Asad as being “reform-minded.” Is Assad “secular?” Yes, but he’s still a dictator and one that continues to support terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

US Democrat Pelosi in Syria talks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6522743.stm

Despite all the praise she was lavishing on Assad, she did a complete 180 just a few years later when she was advocating US military action against the regime:

 

The difference between Boehner’s invitation and Pelosi’s Syria visit is that Boehner invited Bibi to lay out his concerns of what a nuclear-armed Iran would mean for his people and the Middle East to Congress while Pelosi’s visit was merely to “punch Bush in the face.” Israel is also one of the few countries that we can actually call an ally. Her incompetence on foreign policy highlights the general ignorance that’s endemic throughout the Obama administration and Democratic members of Congress in general. Bibi addressed Congress because he saw it as an opportunity bypass a dangerously naive Obama administration to speak to the rest of the US government in a public forum. Our staff just recently wrote about how a major Syrian opposition group that was benefiting from US military support was forced to disband – and how that group wasn’t the “moderate” entity it was made out to be. More damming is how the overall strategy to defeat IS has been flaccid at best, with the Iraqi Army’s (IA) ability to retake major population centers Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul and Bayji in doubt.

As the administration’s allies in Congress and the media mocked Bibi by referring to him as a “child,” they fail to realize the very real threat to both the Israeli and American people that he described on Capital Hill. He rightfully discussed the fact that the current nuclear deal does nothing to address Iran’s development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMS). If the Obama administration was serious about preventing the Iranian threat from reaching critical mass, wouldn’t it make sense to have that as one of the priorities? We also question the logic of pushing to lift sanctions when its clear that they really haven’t been enforced and were plagued with holes that allowed Iran and the DPRK to circumvent both of their sanctions by working through a series of front companies to develop each other’s nuclear weapons and missile programs in a series of joint endeavors.

The joint-programs involve Iran sharing their know-how in ballistic missile technology in exchange for the Kim regime’s expertise in the nuclear-arena. This allows for both rogue regimes to bypass sanctions on a number of levels, such as enabling Iran to test their methods of producing the required amounts of fissile material for producing a nuclear weapon – of which the DPRK has more than enough installations to facilitate this activity that are beyond Israel’s reach. Since the DPRK has gone fully operational with their nuclear weapons program with no consequences, Iran is pretty much free to continue developing their program unhindered. In the ballistic missile-arena, Iran has a lot of open land that are suitable for missile tests that wouldn’t draw the same levels of unwanted attention as it would on the Korean Peninsula (although Kim Jong Un will test missile in his neighborhood as a means of shaking down the international community for more $$$ – but that’s for another article). Also, the IRGC-Qods Force Cyber-Warfare Division has been training DPRK hackers on cyber-attack TTPs while the Kim regime has been assisting the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas with the construction of tunnel networks. If you want to know [more] on the Iran-DPRK alliance, read this:

How the North Korean Regime Affects the Middle East

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=3038

Iran Steps Up Cyber-Attacks the US and its Allies

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=3560

Sony’s Decision to Pull “The Interview” and the Truth About the DPRK Threat

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=4016

Hamas and North Korea in Secret Arms Deal

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=298

IRAN-NORTH KOREA-DIPLOMACY

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani and DPRK ceremonial head of state Kim Jong Nam
Source: Forbes Magazine

Is the Obama administration aware of the Iran-DPRK relationship mentioned above? You betcha. They’re also very much aware of Iran’s Twelver ideology that believes in the “return of the 12th Imam.” Twelvers believe that the Imam is descended from Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali Ibn Abni Talib, the fourth Caliph that was assassinated in the year 661, which resulted in the permanent Sunni-Shia split. The Shia continued a line of Imams, members of Muhammad’s household and his prophetic heirs. Each one in turn, over two centuries, was poisoned. According to the traditions of Twelver ideology, the 12th of these Imams – a 5 yr old boy – “disappeared” but remained “alive.” Through communicating with the world through various agents, he entered the state of “occultation” in the year 941 and promised to return when the time was right. An important part of this ideology involves the initiating of a planetary conflagration, meaning “Allah’s kingdom” would be established on Earth by the 12th or “hidden” Imam, aka “the Mahdi,” whose advent can be accelerated by creating the right set of circumstances – fighting between nations and violent upheavals bathed in fire and blood.

Ayatollah Khameini and his loyalists believe that a nuclear weapon capability is the best way to set the conditions to expedite the Mahdi’s return. Unfortunately, when you allow a bunch of academics with no real experience in how the world really works to run a country you get foolish policies trusting rogue regimes that are running well-run IO campaigns. The use of “reformers” serving as the face of the regime is one of the ways that Khameini’s followers lure the west into a false sense of security. Individuals such as current Iranian President Rouhani are only there to advance the regime’s agenda – in this case obtaining a fully operational nuclear weapons capability with a neutralized internal opposition. That man’s sole purpose in life is to ensure the lifting of economic sanctions and getting the west (the US specifically) to agree to a deal where Iran gives up little but gains EVERYTHING.

Inside Iran’s Middle East: The “Reformers”

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=2635

FILES-IRAN-POLITICS-GUARDS

The IRGC has been tasked with ensuring the nuclear weapons program becomes fully operational
Source: Der Speigel

The IRGC-Qods Force and their proxies (e.g. Hezbollah) are most active in targeting Israelis and Americans whenever there’s a “reformer” as President. We can’t say that we’re surprised by any of this considering the amount of influence that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) – a Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) front – has within the Democratic party. The NIAC will trot out people like Trita Parsi (the organization’s chief lobbyist on Capital Hill) to do interviews or write articles that appear in Foreign Policy Magazine advocating the lifting of sanctions and “normalization” without holding the regime accountable for its role in sponsoring terror attacks across the globe. Our article titled “Inside Iran’s Middle East: The Charm Offensive” gets into even greater detail on the success that the regime has experienced in its efforts to influence US politicians and the intelligence community which you can find right here:

Inside Iran’s Middle East: The Charm Offensive

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=2676

parsi

Trita Parsi: Chief lobbyist in the Beltway and MOIS asset
Source: NIAC’s homepage

Bibi’s speech was not designed to “stick it” to President Obama or “politicize” the nuclear negations with Iran. He did this speech to air his concerns in a last ditch effort to have the US reconsider the path it chose to take. As we’ve laid out in this piece and throughout our Inside Iran’s Middle East series, the Iranian regime isn’t interested in meeting anybody “halfway” nor do they care to give up their nuclear weapons program. Everything they’ve done over the past 6 yrs has been designed to keep the US at the negotiating table, which bought the regime time to further develop the nuclear weapons program while eliminating all of the rebel groups operating inside Iran’s borders. Once the nuclear program goes fully operational – and it will – they will likely increase the IRGC-Qods Force and Hezbollah external operations throughout the region with a shift towards direct-action missions as opposed to performing the current advise and assist role with the different proxy groups operating in target countries. The US and Israel will find themselves at increased risk of attack on their soil as a result. President Obama made the claim that Bibi didn’t offer an “alternative plan” – but he did, he said we should keep the sanctions in place as long as they continue to sponsor terrorism and attempt to obtain a nuclear weapons capability.

We’re already hearing from our contacts downrange about GEN Suleimani issuing a directive to the Shia militias to begin targeting US military aircraft in Iraq with indicators that anti-air weaponry may have started to be distributed. In fact, a few of our aircraft had been targeting while flying over Shia militia-held territory. What’s worse is the US government is fully aware of this and yet they still continue to hold on to the fantasy that Iran with its current government can be turned into a “friend.” This mindset and the vilification of Bibi Netanyahu is to be expected from the type of people who serve this administration. Bibi is a career military man who firmly believes in things like duty, honor and country. More importantly, this man walked the walk by serving his country and the free world in ways that those in the Obama administration will never be able to comprehend – which is painfully obvious with our country’s suicidal Iran policy and lack of a coherent IS strategy. Bibi knows how high the stakes are, and is not likely to trust this administration with the safety of his people – nor should he. The $1 million dollar question is how many Americans and Israelis will need to die before President Obama finally “gets it?” We’re about to find out…

benjamin-vs-obama

A tale of two upbringings: One man has extensive experience staring evil in the face while defending innocents and the other aspired to become a “community organizer”
Source: The ISIS Study Group

Here’s the rest of our Inside Iran’s Middle East series:

Inside Iran’s Middle East: The Nuclear Weapons Program

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=2640

Inside Iran’s Middle East: The Kurdish Insurgency

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=4068

Inside Iran’s Middle East: The Southeast Insurgency

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=2689

BENGHAZI: UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS OPERATION OR CONGRESSIONAL COVER-UP?

Clinton-Petreausby KERRY PICKET:

Dozens of CIA operatives were involved in an arms smuggling operation on the ground in Benghazi, Libya during the deadly attack on the U.S. compound last September, reports CNN and the U.K. Telegraph. According to these outlets, the spy agency has gone out of its way to keep the information from the public through intimidation of CIA personnel.  

Four Americans were killed, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens that evening in Benghazi almost one year ago.

In light of this new information, either the Congress’ “Gang of Eight” knew about the operation and misled the public about what they knew, or the Obama administration may have been conducting an unauthorized gun-running operation. Fox News reported in October of 2012 about a Libyan ship, reportedly containing weapons for Syrian Rebels that may have been tied into the attack against the consulate and the CIA annex:

Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.

Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

According to section 503’s Presidential Approval and Reporting of Covert Actions in the 1947 National Security Act, the President may not authorize covert CIA actions without informing the intelligence committees of Congress.

Legislation implemented in 1980 gave the president the authority to limit advance notification of especially sensitive covert actions to eight Members of Congress–the “Gang of Eight”: the chairmen and ranking minority Members of the two congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House, and Senate majority and minority leaders. These members are: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

By law, such a covert weapons operation in Benghazi should have been known by all eight members. The disastrous results from the events of September 11, 2012 have not made it easy to get answers from these lawmakers regarding this point.

Many remember when Pelosi, a “Gang of Eight” member, found herself at odds with the Democratic base in 2009 and ridiculed by Republicans, when it was revealed she was actually briefed in 2002 by the Bush White House about the administration’s tactic to water-board terrorism suspects during interrogations. Pelosi denied this fact previously.

Radio host Laura Ingraham asked Boehner on January 24 about Senator Rand Paul’s questioning to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He asked if the secretary was aware of U.S. involvement in the procuring of weapons that were transferred, bought or sold to Turkey out of Libya. Clinton, seemingly confused, told Paul “nobody [had] ever raised” the issue with her before.

Boehner replied to Ingraham, “I’m somewhat familiar with the chatter about this and the fact that these arms were moving towards Turkey, but most of what I know about this came from a classified source and I really can’t elaborate on it.”

Boehner has refuses to appoint a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks and previously refused to support a joint Select Committee to do the same late last year.

Four members of the “Gang of Eight” have told Breitbart News over the past six months they knew nothing about any CIA operation in Benghazi involving the smuggling of Libyan weapons into Turkey that may have been shipped to Syrian rebels, some of whom were affiliated to al-Qaeda groups.

Read more at Breitbart

 

My Thoughts On Boston

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

By David Horowitz:

Watching the news about the Boston bombing and the Muslim fanatics who perpetrated the deed, I cannot help reflect on all the nasty attacks that liberals and progressives and Muslim activists have conducted against conservatives who have attempted to warn Americans that their enemies are religious fanatics driven by an apocalyptic hatred of us because we are Jews, Christians, atheists, democrats – in a word, infidels.

It has been said by Nancy Pelosi, George Soros and other Democrats that George Bush created the terrorists by attempting to enforce a UN Security council resolution and take down one of the monsters of the 20th Century in Iraq.  It has been said by the late Susan Sontag and other progressive intellectuals that the heinous attacks of 9/11 were the result of American policies. The Center for American Progress and university administrators have relentlessly defamed as Islamphobes and bigots those of us who have had the temerity to talk about the Islamic roots of Islamic terror. If only we ignored the Islamic beliefs behind the terrorism and made nice to all Muslims indiscriminately, the terrorists wouldn’t hate us.

Boston has exposed this as the Big Lie and fatuous delusion that it has always been. The Boston killers were treated better in America than all but an elite among Americans born here who love their country. They were given scholarships, they were admitted to the most exclusive prep schools, they lived in a Cambridge environment where critics of Islamic terror were regarded as Islamophobes and they as a minority deserving special consideration and concern. And yet they hated us. They hated America and ordinary Americans like the victims of their mayhem, and enlisted in the army of our mortal enemies. They hated us because they were fanatical believers in the idea that Mohammed had desired them to kill infidels and purify the earth for Allah. This is the face of our enemy and the sooner the delusional liberals among us wake up to this fact, the safer all of us will be.

See also:

 

Democratic-Leaning National Security Group Partners With MPAC

GlobalMB @ November 13, 2012

Islamic media is reporting on the relationship between a Democratic-leaning U.S. national security affairs group and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.  According to an OnIslam report:

Monday, 12 November 2012 00:00 CAIRO – A Muslim activist is winning the admiration of Americans for his efforts to tackle issues that stoke tension between Muslims and non-Muslims and energize younger generations to balance between their faith and the western life. ‘What I like about working with Haris and MPAC is that they understand both the needs of their community and the way Washington works,’ Heather Hurlburt, director of the nonprofit National Security Network, told The Washington Post. Hulburt’s group cooperated with Haris Tarin, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) in Washington to hold a series of hearings on extremism in the US. MPAC… Busting America’s Islam Myths US Muslim Footballer Balances Faith, Life ‘It’s an incredible challenge for a Muslim group to emerge as an advocate in the national security area, and they are really impressive.’ Tarin has won praise in the US for his efforts to tackle issues that stoke sentiments against US Muslims as extremism. ‘We want to ensure that American Muslims are seen as an integral part of the American fabric, that they feel comfortable with both their faith and their American identity,’ Tarin said. ‘We want to be seen as partners, not suspects.’ Born to a former Afghan diplomat, Tarin grew up in Los Angeles and earned a BA at California State University, Northridge. He taught Islamic and social studies at a Muslim school, before moving to a job at MPAC, the publicity arm of the Islamic Center of Southern California, to promote Islam in line with progressive, peaceful and nonsectarian values. Over the span of past week only, the dynamic young Muslim showed a role model for active Muslim youth. He spoke at a Washington panel on how the next US president can combat extremism without using security solutions. Later on, he delivered a guest sermon for `Eid al-Adha, one of the two main Islamic occasions, in Alexandria, during which he wore casual Western clothes but recited prayers in perfect Arabic. Tarin also hosted an election night party and discussion in Great Falls. ‘We have a civic duty to engage in our society. If you don’t make your voice heard, someone else will,’ he told the Muslim audience.

Read the rest here.

A post from earlier this month reported that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was the main feature at a May 2012 fundraising event that included important leaders of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) who sat at the same table with Pelosi. A subsequent post also reported on the formation of a National Muslim Democratic Council.

The website for the National Security Network (NSN) describes itself as “founded in June 2006 to revitalize America’s national security policy, bringing cohesion and strategic focus to the progressive national security community. A Washington Post article reported that the NSN’s advisory board “reads as a who’s who of major left-leaning defense and security experts.” The NSN Advisory Council includes the following individuals of interest:

  • Leslie H. Gelb (Chairman, President of the Council on Foreign Relations)
  • Stanley S. Arkin (Chairman of a private intelligence group)
  • Samuel R. Berger (U.S. National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001)
  • Richard Clarke (former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism)
  • Gen. Wesley Clark (retired Army General, former Democratic Presidential candidate)
  • Dr. Gail Furman (major Democratic donor)

MPAC, headquartered in Southern California, was established initially in 1986 as the Political Action Committee of the Islamic Center of Southern California whose key leaders likely had their origins in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Since that time, MPAC has functioned as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood. MPAC has opposed virtually every count-terror initiative undertaken or proposed by the U.S. government. At times this opposition was said to be on civil-rights grounds but, just as often, MPAC claimed that U.S. counter-terror efforts were aimed at the U.S. Muslim community itself. MPAC has consistently supported and facilitated terrorism by supporting terrorist organizations and, more broadly, constructing an elaborate ideology defending the use of violence by Islamists and Islamist organizations.  Although proclaiming a love for the Jewish people and engaging in interfaith dialog, MPAC has made frequent anti-Semitic statements that assert or imply an organized Jewish campaign to defame and exclude U.S. Muslims. MPAC has also gone beyond criticism of Israel, engaging in demonization of the Jewish state. Such demonization includes accusations of “rape of the Palestinians” in regard to the Al-Aqsa mosque, comparisons with Nazis, accusation of apartheid and genocide, accusations of “butchery”, and suggestions that Israel is seeking the eradication of Islam from its territories. More than any other U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organization, MPAC has developed extensive relationships with the U.S. government which have included numerous meetings with the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Dems Tap Radical Islamists for Cash

by Steve Emerson and John Rossamando:

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi headlined a Democratic Party fundraiser with leaders of Hamasand Muslim Brotherhood front groups in May of this year.

The invitation-only fundraiser was sponsored by Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Andre Carson, D-Ind.; and Steve Israel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and took place on the evening of May 16, 2012, at the W Hotel in Washington D.C.

In attendance were about 20 members of a Syrian dissident group and 10 officials representing Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front groups. Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad was perhaps the most prominent attendee and played a key role in organizing the event.

CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation Hamas money-laundering trials, was described in FBI testimony as having been created by Hamas. In a 2007 federal court filing, prosecutors described CAIR as conspiring with other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.

The FBI officially severed relations with CAIR in 2008 because of its ties to Hamas.

Awad has openly championed Hamas and defended suicide bombings as “legitimate resistance.”

Also in attendance was Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and co-founder of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), an incubator for Islamic radicalism in North America. MSA was the forerunner of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. His name appears in a global phone book of Muslim Brotherhood members recovered by Italian and Swiss authorities in Nov. 2001 from the home of Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano founder Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood.

During the fundraiser, Pelosi sat at the same table with Awad and Barzinji.

Speaking to the attendees in her 10-minute address, she said the Democratic Party should become the natural home of Muslim-Americans, because Republicans fan the flames of “Islamophobia.” She focused exclusively on Islamophobia, a term devised by radical Islamists and their apologists to silence critics, while avoiding any mention of terrorism carried out by Islamists in the United States.

Also speaking were Israel, Ellison, Carson, and Reps Alyson Schwartz, D-Pa., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn. Israel and Murphy were said to have been the most vehement among the members of Congress in attendance in terms of their incendiary accusations of Republican-incited Islamophobia. One observer said that it was striking that “there was not a scintilla of comments in defense of U.S. national security.” However, they welcomed each of the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front groups represented at the event into the “Democratic community” without any mention of their well-documented terror links.

Read more at IPT