#Obamagate Raises the Question: Should We Repeal FISA?

Angelo Codevilla says yes. John Guandolo says no.

Jail the Guilty, Repeal FISA, at American Greatness by Angelo Codevilla, February 6, 2018

The House Intelligence Committee’s summary memo of highly classified FBI and Justice Department documents confirms what has been public knowledge for over a year: Some of America’s highest officials used U.S. intelligence’s most intrusive espionage tools to attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and then to cripple Donald Trump politically. Being of one mind with the rest of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, these officials acted symbiotically and seamlessly with them, regardless of any cooperation that may have existed.

The party-in-power’s use of government espionage to thwart the opposition violates the Fourth Amendment and sets a ruinous precedent. Having done so under color of law—specifically, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—makes it a lot worse.

Unfortunately, the summary memo—to say nothing of the Democrats’ and their kept media’s reaction to it—focuses largely on whether the FBI and Justice Department dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s as they obtained a warrant from the FISA court to do the spying. This misrepresents high crimes as merely technical violations. Worse, it risks leaving in place a law under which those in charge of the government may violate the basic tenets of American political life with reasonable hope of impunity.

FISA’s Origins
Prior to FISA, American intelligence agencies had done national security electronic surveillance under the president’s power as commander in chief of the armed forces. The president and his agents were responsible for doing it properly. I was part of the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that drafted FISA in 1978. The legislation was meant to answer complaints from leftists who sued the FBI and the National Security Agency after learning they had been overheard working against the United States during the Vietnam War. They wanted to extend the principle that no one may be surveilled without a court order to Americans in contact with foreigners.

But the main push for FISA, in fact, came from the FBI and NSA. Wishing to preclude further lawsuits, the agencies issued Congress an ultimatum: no more national security wiretaps unless each tap has the approval of a judge (thus absolving them of responsibility). FISA established a court to review warrant applications for national security electronic surveillance, in secret and without contrary argument. It commanded the agencies to observe procedural safeguards for the Americans involved.

I opposed FISA as a Senate staffer. I also argued against the legislation in an American Bar Association debate with Antonin Scalia, who was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School at the time. My view then and now is that the FISA court creates an irresistible temptation to political abuse and that officials would interpret any procedural safeguards accordingly.

The Memo Reveals a Bigger Problem
In what is arguably the key passage of the Nunes memo, the committee states:

Neither the initial application [for surveillance of the Trump campaign] in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier [which was a basis for the application] were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

If that’s true, then the officials who signed the applications—including FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, acting Attorney General Sally Yates, then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente, and then-acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—are guilty of misrepresenting material facts to a federal court. All of them belong in the slammer—for at least a little while.

And at some level, they know this. Hence the public relations campaign to downplay the crime. For example, the New York Times on February 2 quoted David Kris, who served as President Obama’s head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. According to Kris, if the FISA application merely told the court that “Mr. Steele’s research was motivated to undermine Mr. Trump’s campaign,” then “the FISA application would be fine.” Note well what narrow distinction, subject to a wide latitude of interpretation, supposedly separates a high crime from “that’s fine” under the law.

But the FISA court’s procedures and requirements—inherently subject to self-interested interpretation as they are—are of far less importance than the fact that FISA was a big mistake to begin with. The law removed responsibility for the substance of executive judgment from the shoulders of the very people who make such judgments.

Today, Comey, Rosenstein, and others may well believe their own claims that they were merely turning government’s neutral wheels and that the judges would judge. Nonsense. They decided to become partisans in the 2016 presidential campaign because they were as convinced as were countless others of their class that they had the right and the duty to protect America (and their place in it) from unworthy challengers.

Perhaps only their failure to dot the i’s and cross the t’s may make it possible for them to be jailed for their crime. But because their successors may be similarly motivated and more careful, it behooves us to erase doubt about who is responsible for electronic surveillance by repealing FISA.

***

FISA is a Constitutional & Needed Weapon in This War, by John Guandolo, Feb. 4, 2018:

With news full of reports about the fraudulent dossier used to obtain the FISA warrant to intercept communications of Carter Paige and the release of the memo last week, the following is provided to UTT readers to help them understand what it takes to obtain a FISA warrant, that FISA is constitutional, and that FISA is needed for the national security of America.

F.I.S.A. stands for the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, and was legislated by the U.S. Congress in 1978 to ensure American citizens were protected from overzealous government intrusion into their privacy in the name of “national security.”

The FISA Court provides a means for the U.S. government to collect on subjects of sensitive/classified investigations (counterintelligence and terrorism for example) without endangering sources and means of the investigation.

FISA judges are federal judges who have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate and chosen by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Understanding the Threat’s President John Guandolo served as a Supervisor in the Counterterrorism Division at FBI Headquarters during his career in the FBI.  In that capacity, he was the affiant – one who swears to the veracity of an affidavit – in support of numerous FISA warrants.

When an FBI agent in the field needs a FISA warrant, he/she contacts their supervisor at FBI headquarters who acts as the affiant for the warrant.  The two work through the affidavit, sometimes over 100 pages long, until the FBIHQ Supervisor is satisfied the legal standard of Probable Cause is met and the facts are verified.

The FBIHQ supervisor works with a Department of Justice attorney, and the cover sheet for the affidavit must be signed off by a DOJ official.  The affidavit is also reviewed and signed off by the FBI Director or Deputy Director.

It is not unusual for the FBI supervisor and DOJ attorney to meet with the FBI Director over a weekend at his home while the Director reviews the affidavit, asks questions, and is satisfied the affidavit can go to the judge.

Then the FBI supervisor and DOJ attorney sit before the FISA judge who reads the affidavit and asks questions.  When the judge signs the affidavit, the technical process begins to intercept the subject of the investigation.

This entire process is legal, constitutional and an important tool in the national security toolbox for dedicated servants inside the government.

In the current case before us, FBI and Department of Justice leaders put forth an affidavit that – as the memo released last week makes clear – was fraudulent and the FBI knew it.  The dossier from Christopher Steele was fabricated and purchased by Hillary Clinton/DNC, and yet this information was not provided to the FISA judge during the initial application for the FISA warrant nor at any of the three times when the warrant was renewed.

In a vacuum, these actions are violations of federal law.  At a minimum, this is perjury and tampering with a federal election by those involved.

But it is much worse than that.

Robert Mueller’s investigation was predicated on a request for Special Counsel which did not allege any crime.  The FISA warrant for Paige was predicated on lies using a source known by the FBI to lack credibility (Steele).

In reality, these actions – efforts to tamper with a federal election and, now, undermine and overthrow a duly elected President of the United States – constitutes “Sedition.”

***

***

Also see:

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

Attkisson on New Strzok-Page Texts: What’s in the 5 Months of Messages We Haven’t Seen?

Grassley-Graham Memo: Dossier Author Christopher Steele Lied to FBI, FBI Didn’t Tell FISA Court

The Other Secret Dossier

Latest FBI Texts: ‘Hillbillys,’ ‘OUR Task,’ Obama ‘Wants to Know Everything’

BREAKING: Senate Homeland Committee drops BIG document dump on FBI’s Hillary email investigation [READ THEM HERE]

Exclusive — Rep. Paul Gosar: Obama’s Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS Scandals All Connected to DOJ, FBI Corruption in Trump Probe

Outraged About The FISA Court? Maybe You Should Think About Who Is Surveilling You

Breaking: All Contacts On Anthony Weiner’s FBI Confiscated Laptop Leak Including Clinton, Soros, Gore (Updated)

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists

2211774854

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 20, 2016:

Two former U.S. government officials made explosive revelations on national radio this past Friday including the charge the U.S. government is a “tool” for the jihadi movement here, and that the driving force behind America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and our foreign policy is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

The exchange took place on the Sean Hannity radio program between the host, Philip Haney (former DHS law enforcement officer with Customs and Border Protection) and Richard Higgins (a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programs at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section).

Both Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins revealed there is a massive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States, and made clear the MB’s influence is so significant they control how the issue of terrorism is discussed and how it is handled at the national security level.

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

When asked about language being scrubbed from the U.S. government Mr. Higgins responded by saying, “What (leaders in the US government) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies.”

He went on to say, “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.  And the way they control it is by prohibiting US national security personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil (Haney) had it.”

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood:  the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him.  Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”

UTT has written about the willful surrender to our enemies by American leaders here, here, and here.

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

With regard to the Marxist/Socialist collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood – as UTT has detailed via the Black Lives Matter/Hamas relationship – Mr. Higgins warned, “Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately respond with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments.  That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Philip Haney’s story is devastating to hear because he publicly states he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of terrorists and terrorist organizations from DHS databases which he inputted through the course of investigations he was conducting.

This is a violation of the law.  The names removed included several known Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

His story can be found here or here, and his powerful new book See Something, Say Nothing is now available.

Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years:  “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”

It’s all about sharia.

Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the jihadi threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies.

Philip Haney said it best when he articulated, “This is the first and foremost obligation of the U.S. government:  to protect it’s citizens from a threat, both foreign and domestic.  And I can also tell you that if we don’t address it voluntarily with courage and conviction now, we’re going to be addressing it involuntarily, and we are going to be at a much greater disadvantage than we already are right now.”

The full audio for the show can be found HERE and the discussion with Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins begins at approximately minute 14.

OBAMA PROVIDES MATERIAL SUPPORT OF $1.7 BILLION TO IRAN TERRORISTS.

jc6ja6l_o3mtxxapao3wzg_r

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 16, 2016:

Obama will pay Iran $1.7 billion in a “settlement”. Obama’s statement suggests that the settlement, most of which is interest, is tied to the latest hostage release. “With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well.” It sounds a lot like the hostage releases were linked to the amount of money Obama is giving Iran. Which wouldn’t be surprising.

This is on top of all the other sanctions relief Iran will be getting.

Iran is a terror state. The IRGC, its terrorist arm is the Shiite equivalent of Al Qaeda and ISIS except it’s based out of an entire country. This is straightforward funding of terrorism. So why are we still prosecuting people for penny ante levels of providing material support to terrorists. When the Obama regime has just kicked over $1.7 billion to terrorists. And no one is putting it on trial.

Obama Inc. decried countries making ransom payments to ISIS for hostages. Yet he appears to have made a much larger ransom payment for hostages to Islamic terrorists.

***

Alan Colmes interviewed John Guandolo about his recent article, The Intentional Obama Administration. Guandolo explains why he believes Obama is guilty of treason. As he starts to explain why CAIR is not moderate Colmes cuts him off.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Can America Survive Obama’s Pro-Muslim Bias?

Obama_meets_King_Abdullah_July_2014IBD Editorials, by Paul Sperry, Dec. 23, 2015:

In a new NPR interview, President Obama complains that “strains in the Republican party suggest that somehow I’m different, I’m Muslim, I’m disloyal to the country, which unfortunately is pretty far out there.” Is it?

While there’s no evidence to suggest Obama is a practicing Muslim, there is plenty to suggest he is disloyal. He not only shares Muslim hatred for America and Israel, but actually sympathizes with the endless anti-Western grievances lodged by Muslim terrorists.

The reason the president won’t engage this enemy is because he sides with it, not because he can’t see it or understand it. It is not a matter of incompetence. It is a matter of bias.

If this sounds like betrayal, that is because it is. Here is a bill of indictment:

Count 1: In 1995, in his first memoir, Obama shares the “rage” of his Kenyan Muslim grandfather who he claims was tortured by British colonizers, while exalting his Muslim-convert brother Roy, who swore off “the poisoning influences of European culture,” as “the person who made me proudest of all.”

Count 2: In 2004, in a little-noticed preface to his re-released memoir, the newly elected senator implied that America was punished for past wrongs on 9/11, writing that “history returned with a vengeance” on that terrible day.

Count 3In 2006, in his second memoir, Obama vowed that he “will stand with” Arab and Pakistani Muslims to protect “their sense of security” should their community be implicated in another terror attack on America.

Count 4In 2009, Obama in his first foreign speech apologized to world Muslims for the War on Terror, inviting banned Muslim Brotherhood leaders to sit on the front row of his Cairo address, while declaring “Islam is not part of the problem” and demanding that Israel give Palestinians “a state of their own.”

Count 5That same year, Obama stopped cold a major investigation of terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood front groups and mosques following the successful prosecution of Brotherhood charities by U.S. attorneys.

Count 6Then he ordered the FBI and Homeland Security to delete “jihad” from counterterrorism manuals and fire all trainers who linked terrorism to Islam.

Count 7: Obama vowed to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison and bring 9/11 terrorists to America, where they would enjoy full rights, including habeas corpus, in civilian courts.

Count 8: As Obama kicked off a two-day summit on combating generic “violent extremism,” he argued that Muslim terrorists have “legitimate grievances” that must be addressed.

Count 9: He also asserted that “the Muslim world has suffered historical grievances,” and blamed the rash of global terrorism in part on “a history of colonialism” in the Mideast, Africa and South Asia.

Count 10: At the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama told Christians to get off their “high horse” about Muslim terrorism and “remember the terrible deeds in the name of Christ” committed by Crusaders 1,000 years ago.

Count 11: He credited Muslims with “building the very fabric of our nation” and “the core of our democracy.”

Count 12: The president boycotted January’s world march against terrorism in Paris following the slaughter of anti-Islamist cartoonists by two French Algerians, in a shocking move that would have made Obama’s late hero, Algerian mujahedeen Frantz Fanon, proud.

Count 13Obama agreed to release five Taliban commanders for a POW who he knew was a deserter and who may turn out to be a traitor.

Count 14: Obama removed sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program, despite overwhelming evidence by Israeli and U.S. intelligence showing that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe our closest and most trusted Mideast ally off the map.

Count 15: Obama broke his promise to 9/11 families to release the 28 pages documenting Saudi Arabian and other foreign Muslim sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks.

Count 16: The president insists on calling ISIS “ISIL” — which stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — because it includes “Palestine,” a slap at Israel.

Count 17: Despite his entire security team warning that such Muslim immigrants cannot be screened for terrorist ties and evidence that ISIS has infiltrated their ranks, Obama stubbornly insists on bringing another 10,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S.

Count 18: In the heat of the San Bernardino attacks, as bodies were being removed from the scene, Obama called a high-level security meeting to keep a lid on the Muslim connection.

Count 19: In his prime-time terrorism speech, the president spent half his time warning Americans not to blame Muslims.

Count 20: Obama insists on emptying Gitmo of terrorist prisoners, even after one of his earlier releases re-emerged as a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Count 21: The Obama regime has invited members of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front groups to serve in the Homeland Security and State departments, and meet regularly with the attorney general, as well as the president and his security advisors in the White House.

Obama is hellbent on shuttering the detention camp and is queuing up for release another 17 dangerous al-Qaida terrorists, earlier classified as “forever detainees” due to the high threat they pose to America.

Americans should know that if we are attacked again in a major way in his remaining 13 months in office, Obama “will stand with” Muslims over Americans, meaning that he will continue to back off radical mosques, refuse to connect terrorism to Islam and continue to hold open the floodgates to mass Muslim immigration.

This president, who had Pakistani roommates in college, is more concerned about “their sense of security” than non-Muslims threatened by Muslim terrorism like the massacre carried out by the two Pakistani Muslims who attacked San Bernardino. What if the enemy of the state is actually the head of state?

• Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

TREASON: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to Meet with MB/Hamas Monday

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 6, 2015:

How much treasonous and traitorous behavior must Americans endure from our leaders?

Monday evening December 7th – Pearl Harbor Day – the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Jeh Johnson – will hold a press conference at the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas ADAMS Center in Sterling, VA.

AC event

The ADAMS Center was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Ahmed Totonji who still resides in Northern Virginia and was the Chairman of the Board for the ADAMS Center.  Totonji also founded major Muslim Brotherhood organizations including the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the SAFA Trust (raided by the FBI), and others.

Moreover, the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center – Imam Mohamed Magid – is the outgoing President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), identified by the Department of Justice and FBI as the “nucleus” for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in America and a funding support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

ISNA remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).

ADAMS also states on their website that 1/8 of all the Zakat they collect goes to JIHAD…terrorism.

And this is the place the Secretary of Homeland Security has decided to go to talk about the “civil rights” of Muslims.

At what point do we collectively realize leaders like this cannot claim ignorance of the enemy at this level. Therefore, a rational person would surmise Secretary Johnson is aware ISNA and ADAMS are enemy entities, yet he is going to provide support to them none-the-less.

In these times, Americans have a number of enemies.  In this case, there is the identifiable jihadi threat from organizations like ISNA, NAIT, MPAC, CAIR and so many others.  The enemy also includes senior government officials like Secretary Johnson who is aiding and abetting a Hamas support entity whose doctrine states it is waging “civilization jihad” against us to “destroy America from within” in order to establish and Islamic state under Sharia (Islamic Law).

Seems like that Mr. Johnson’s continued efforts to protect and support enemies of the United States meets the legal criteria of Treason, much like his colleague in the Attorney General’s office.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason:  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treasonand shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Also see:

A Time To Confront Our Enemies At Home

obama (1)Frontpage, by David Horowitz, Daniel Greenfield, July 20, 2015:

The killing of five unarmed military servicemen at two military recruiting centers is an omen and a warning: The “war on terror” has come home.

Thanks to Obama’s retreat from Iraq and the Middle East, the jihad waged by Islamic terrorists is now being fought on American soil, instead of on a battlefront in Fallujah and Anbar. Thanks to the borders Obama has destroyed and the tens of thousands of legal immigrants the White House has decided to import from terrorist regions, the enemy is among us. Thanks to Obama’s denial that we are at war at all, the Islamic jihad is now being waged in Chattanooga and Fort Hood, the fly over country that liberals and progressives have always despised.

This is not the first time that a military recruiting office in the South was attacked by a Muslim terrorist. In 2009 – Obama’s first year in office – Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire on a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, under orders from Al Qaeda in Yemen, and killed Private William Long.

It was the shot that should have been heard around the country but wasn’t, because America’s Commander-in-Chief told us that Muhammad was a lone crazed assassin, not a vanguard Islamic soldier. According to Obama, there was no war with Islamic fanatics. The fanatic himself rejected the lie.  “This is not the first attack, and won’t be the last,” Muhammad warned. “I’m just one Muhammad. There are millions of Muhammads out there. And I hope and pray the next one will be more deadlier than Muhammad Atta!”

The next one—the attack this time– was certainly deadlier than his. Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer’s attack in Chattanooga copied Muhammad’s tactic of opening fire from a car on a recruiting center before driving on to the next target. In 2009 Abdulhakim Muhammad was not charged with terrorism. The Commander-in-Chief called him “a lone gunman” and a pliant media dutifully dismissed his military mission as a product of personal depression and mental instability rather than an act of service to Allah’s war.

Barack Obama’s first year in office was also the year of the Fort Hood massacre, when a self-declared Islamist warrior, shouting “Allahu Ahkbar,” gunned down 13 American soldiers – also unarmed by order of their government. The Obama administration officially labeled his act of war “workplace violence” and refused to identify the enemy or take steps to defend his targets.

Four unarmed Marines and an unarmed sailor died this week because of the refusal of our Commander-in-Chief to learn from the 2009 attacks or prepare for the next. Instead he covered it up with psychobabble, and continued to deny our servicemen the weapons that could have saved their lives. Obama’s strategy in this war to destroy us, target by target, is to lull Americans into believing that there is no war, that Islamic terrorists are “not Islamic,” and that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The result of Obama’s denial is that the war has come home and we are fighting blind in our own country with our hands tied behind our backs.

Every Muslim attack in the last decades has been made possible because the apologists for terrorism among us have done everything they could to deny the plain and obvious, to tie the hands of our first responders, and to make the tasks of our would be destroyers that much easier. While the Muhammads and Mohammads kill Americans in a holy war for Allah, the liberal apologists for Islamic fanatics wage a holy war against their critics. They have been doing this since 9/11, beginning with President Bush. For eight years the Bush administration kept our Islamic enemies on the run in Afghanistan and Iraq but thanks to the appeasement of Obama and the Democrats, they have finally succeeded in shifting the terror front from Tikrit to Tennessee.

Our military cannot defend our shores against the Islamic holy war when their commander-in-chief will not allow it. By withdrawing from Iraq and tying the military’s hands, Obama has allowed the homeland to become a target. By abandoning the Iraqis to the mercies of the mullahs, he has created chaos and a vacuum in the region that stretches from Afghanistan to the Levant. The results are horrific: hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims slaughtered by ISIS with barely a mention from the Obama White House, let alone a response; two million Christian and Muslim refugees driven from their homes by fear of crucifixion and beheading, murder and rape; ISIS savagery instantiated in an “Islamic State.” Obama’s response? “The Islamic State is not Islamic.”

Obama is the leader of America’s fifth column – the domestic abettors of America’s destroyers. The column itself is the danger we face. Even as the ashes of 9/11 smoldered, Saudis and Kuwaitis were rushing to buy up American law firms and PR outfits to defend the killers and transform them into victims; longstanding anti-American parties like the ACLU got to work persuading hundreds of American cities to make pledges of non-cooperation with Homeland Security the Patriot Act; Democrat run “sanctuary” cities sprang up to provide safe havens for criminal aliens seeking a base in the American homeland; a coalition of civil rights groups set out to sabotage America’s defenses, claiming that a totalitarian state was around the corner if Americans dared to confront terrorism with beefed up security.  With the imprimatur of the White House, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts manufactured a crisis of Islamic “persecution” and worked to expunge the words “Islamist” and “jihad” from the manuals and pronouncements of the federal government. Their goal? To handcuff law enforcement’s first responders as they dealt with the terrorist threat.  With the connivance of the White House they reached the goal.

So where do we stand? The holy war against Americans – against atheists and believers, against Christians and Jews – grows more dangerous by the hour while the president and his followers find every excuse to promote a nation’s denial and make it more and more difficult to defend itself. Defense of America is condemned as “Islamophobia” – and this by liberals at the Center for American Progress and the New America Foundation as well as by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is actually responsible for inventing the term.

The battle flag of our internal attackers is green and red. The green side of the unholy alliance is the political arm of the Islamic jihad, the Brotherhood and its offshoots. The red side is the political left encompassing the spectrum from liberal to progressive (but excluding patriots like senators Lieberman and Menendez). The apex of this unholy collaboration is in Washington D.C. where the president finds ever more innovative ways of promoting Islam as the victim and denying the obvious threat. He withdraws our military ground forces from frontline battlefields safely distant from America’s shores. He wags his finger at Christians, drawing diagrams of moral equivalence between Islamic fanatics and their infidel victims. He turns his back on allies in Israel and Egypt, while offering his political support to the Brotherhood in Cairo and the Islamists in Teheran. The Democrats have become a party of collaborators and their leader the Petain of a Vichy America that provides a stealth cover to the enemy’s attempts to destroy us.

It is time to stop pretending that Obama and his minions really care when Christians are slaughtered without mercy or Jews are threatened with extinction. What is being done to stop these genocides?

When the Commander-in-Chief occasionally drones a terrorist leader this is not an act of war or reprisal but a feint to draw attention away from the fact that he is disarming America, degrading our military even as the threat to our citizenry grows and grows.

It is time to recognize that Obama does not love America enough to confront our enemies and defend our shores.

It is time for the patriots among us to wake up and step forward. It is time to call the actors by their right names. Islamist are Islamists and terrorists are terrorists. But that is only a beginning.

It is time to hold accountable all those who are helping to bring the war home. This is essential in order to defend ourselves against the next round of terrorist attacks. Let us begin by calling them by their right names:

A denier is a denier.

An appeaser is an appeaser.

An enabler is an enabler.

A betrayer is a betrayer.

And President Obama is all of these.

And so are those who follow his lead.

Why Adam Gadahn’s Killing Matters To Al-Qaeda

Adam Gadahn Credit Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Adam Gadahn Credit Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

MEMRI, by Steven Stalinsky, April 24, 2015:

On April 23, 2015 the White House announced that Adam Gadahn, the first American to be charged with treason since World War II and the man known as Al-Qaeda’s American spokesman, had been killed inadvertently in a U.S. drone attack in January in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. It seems inconceivable that 35 years ago in California, a little-known Jewish psychedelic musician, himself the son of a prominent Zionist doctor, and his wife brought into the world a son, Adam Pearlman, who would become one of America’s most notorious traitors in the war on terror.

In 2004, at age 26, Gadahn made it to the FBI’s most wanted list. He trained in Afghanistan terrorist camps, and was asked by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad to join a plot for a suicide attack outside Baltimore. A sealed indictment dated September 8, 2006 accused Gadahn, aka Al-Qaeda operative “Azzam the American,” of helping the terror organization with communications and propaganda, serving as its English translator, and providing it with information about American culture and vulnerabilities. The following month, the U.S. government formally announced treason charges against him.

Adam Pearlman’s parents converted to Christianity and took the last name Gadahn. Adam’s first contact with Islam came when his father sold meat he had slaughtered to Muslim halal markets. As a pimply, head-banging 17-year-old, Adam embraced Islam at an Orange County mosque. Until the summer of 2006, the University of Southern California’s (USC) Muslim Student Association’s online compendium of Muslim texts included an essay by “Adam Pearlman” titled “Becoming Muslim,” which stated: “Having been around Muslims in my formative years, I knew well that they were not the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists that the news media and the televangelists paint them to be.”

His first Al-Qaeda video appearance was in October 2004; a masked Gadahn declared, “Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood.” In his next video, which aired on Al-Jazeera on September 12, 2005, he explained, again masked, that Al-Qaeda’s numerous post-9/11 audio and video recordings communiqués had been “released to explain and propound the nature and goals of the worldwide jihad against America and the Crusaders and convey our legitimate demands.”

Both Gadahn’s knowledge of American culture and his media skills played a significant role in the development of As-Sahab, the Al-Qaeda media company; he was one of its key officials. He also laid the groundwork for other homegrown terrorists and for the use of the Internet for cyber jihad. High-ranking members of the Al-Qaeda leadership – even leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri – told Americans to listen to his words.

In his next video appearance, on July 8, 2006, Gadahn, unmasked for the first time, warned, alongside footage of 7/7 London suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer and of Al-Zawahiri: “When we bomb their cities and civilians… no sane Muslim should shed tears for them.” In a subsequent video, released January 6, 2008, Gadahn renounced his U.S. citizenship as he ripped up his passport.

From 2004 onward, Gadahn starred in nearly two dozen Al-Qaeda videos, producing, narrating, and providing graphics for many more. In most of his appearances, he was seated at a desk, usually with a computer and a rifle; in 12 years, he appeared outdoors only once. Most of his early videos were in English, but over time he began speaking in Arabic.

While some government and counterterrorism analysts have debated Gadahn’s importance, the fact is that he was a trailblazer in inspiring and helping to recruit American youth to join Al-Qaeda. No other Westerner, let alone American, was ever as close to the leadership of Al-Qaeda, including its late leader Osama bin Laden, current leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and even 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

Gadahn’s importance within Al-Qaeda was confirmed by the May 2012 release of the Abbottabad documents found in the May 2011 raid on bin Laden’s compound; the documents revealed that he had been one of the few people in contact with bin Laden and had actively advised him before his death. One, a 21-page letter, was filled with both media advice and general advice about the future of Al-Qaeda and the direction it should take with respect to its affiliates and their actions.

Not only did Gadahn help Al-Qaeda reach a wider audience, but his appeal to prospective recruits resonated with those seeking a direction and attracted to radical Islam. His personal story showed that anyone in the West, even the grandson of a Jewish Zionist doctor, could become a global jihad leader. In particular, he was influential among the American converts with little Arabic who comprise some of the increasing number of Westerners joining and pledging loyalty to Al-Qaeda and, now, to ISIS; Gadahn recordings have been found on the computers of many Westerners arrested on terrorism charges.

Beginning in 2010, Gadahn, now under the alias of Abu Suhail, regularly provided articles and interviews to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP’s) English-language magazine for jihadis in the West, Inspire, reaching an entire new generation of recruits.

Gadahn last surfaced in October 2014, in the inaugural issue of Resurgence magazine – the Al-Qaeda media company As-Sahab’s English-language mouthpiece for the recently formed Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). In the cover story, “Besiege Them!” he called for the establishment of the Caliphate and focused on economic tactics for combatting the West, concluding with a call to Muslims worldwide to wage jihad and warning the West that Al-Qaeda’s war on it has only begun.

The killing of Adam Gadahn is a significant blow to Al-Qaeda. This is because he was a big part of Al-Qaeda’s media outreach efforts, in particular outreach to potential Western recruits. Following the emergence of ISIS and its proficiency at producing English-language content, including online magazines and videos, and at distributing them via social networks – efforts which far surpassed Al-Qaeda’s – Gadahn’s death will increase the already significant gap in the rivalry between the two organizations. However, like Osama bin Laden and Yemeni-American sheikh Anwar Al-Awlaki, his legacy will live on, on YouTube and other platforms and outlets where his videos are viewed every day by the increasing numbers of Westerners turning to jihad.

Steven Stalinsky is Executive Director of The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). He is the author of the upcoming book release: American Traitor – Inside the Mind of Adam Gadahn – Al-Qaeda’s U.S. Born Leader.

Also see: