Posts

Saudi Graduate of al Qaeda Terror Camp Arrested in Oklahoma

On February 6, The New York Times published a chilling report on the arrest in Oklahoma of a foreign national who had attended an al Qaeda training camp. The defendant in this case is Naif Abdulaziz M. Alfallaj, a 34-year-old citizen of Saudi Arabia who has been residing in the U.S. since 2011. Allegedly he attended a terror training camp in Afghanistan in 2000 when four of the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists also attended training sessions at that very same camp.

Here is an excerpt from the Justice Department’s press release on the arrest:

According to the (criminal) complaint, the FBI found 15 of Alfallaj’s fingerprints on an application to an al Qaeda training camp, known as al Farooq, which was one of al Qaeda’s key training sites in Afghanistan.  The document was recovered by the U.S. military from an al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan.  The document is also alleged to include an emergency contact number associated with Alfallaj’s father in Saudi Arabia.  Alfallaj is alleged to have first entered the U.S. in late 2011 on a nonimmigrant visa based on his wife’s status as a foreign student.  According to the complaint, he answered several questions on his visa application falsely, including whether he had ever supported terrorists or terrorist organizations.

The indictment returned today charges two counts of visa fraud.  Count One alleges that from March 2012 to the present, Alfallaj possessed a visa obtained by fraud.  Count Two alleges he used that visa in October 2016 to apply for lessons at a private flight school in Oklahoma.  The third count in the indictment charges Alfallaj with making a false statement to the FBI during a terrorism investigation when he was interviewed and denied ever having associated with anyone from a foreign terrorist group.

This is a “good news/bad news” story.

It is certainly impressive that our government was able to uncover the evidence upon which this criminal case is based, however, he was lawfully admitted into the United States in 2011, more than a decade after he received terror training.  He has been in the United States for about seven years and his presence in the United States only came to the attention of the FBI when he sought pilot training in October 2016.

It was discovered that he had lied when he applied for his visa to enter the United States by concealing his connection to terrorism.

This case causes me to have a sort of flashback to the congressional hearing at which I testified on March 19, 2002. The title of the hearing was the “INS’s Notification of Approval of Change of Status for Pilot Training for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi.”

The C-SPAN video of that hearing is one that every member of Congress and the leadership of DHS, the State Department and other agencies of the Trump administration should be required to watch, especially as they contemplate calling into action a bureaucracy that continues to demonstrate its ineptitude in effectively screening aliens applicants for immigration benefits.

I have frequently noted in many of my articles and in my testimony before congressional hearings that the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key entry and embedding tactic of terrorists.  This is why the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) are ICE agents.

As a former INS agent I don’t like to speculate, I certainly prefer to deal with facts, however, there are some very serious and obvious questions that the Alfallaj case raises.

While it may be that Alfallaj had no nefarious purposes for taking pilot training, it is impossible to not consider the that Alfallaj is a “sleeper agent,” that is to say, an enemy combatant who entered the United States with the ultimate goal of participating in a deadly attack.  If so, was he planning to participate in a hijacking of an airliner with others who perhaps have yet to be identified? Or was he perhaps planning to complete his flight training and then use a rented airplane as a weapon?

Having considered the case of Alfallaj, we must contemplate President Trump’s offer to provide 1.6 million DACA aliens with lawful status and pathway to citizenship.

Purportedly these illegal aliens entered the United States as children and hence had no control over their situation.  However, because they may be in their mid 30’s it is entirely possible that a significant number of them may lie about their actual dates of entry and that, although they claimed that they entered as children, they may well have entered relatively recently as adults.

Furthermore, these aliens are citizens from countries around the world, as reported by the DHS.

I addressed my misgivings about the the president’s plans in a recent articleDACA Solution Must Heed 9/11 Commission Findings. In conducting their deliberations about President Trump’s solution for DACA illegal aliens, members of Congress must take into account that the adjudications process would be conducted by a division of the DHS, along with other agencies that have failed, time and again, to properly vet aliens who have turned out to be terrorists and/or criminals.

President Trump ignited a firestorm, awhile back, when he issued executive orders to prevent the entry of aliens from countries that sponsor terrorism who could not be effectively vetted by our officials. President Trump’s stand on this issue was entirely proper and prudent, given the totality of circumstances. As I noted in an article back then, a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182, provides the President of the United States with the discretionary authority to imposed such restrictions even though he was enjoined by judges from implementing his orders.

The President is still very much concerned about the vetting process for aliens seeking entry into the United States to prevent the entry of terrorists and criminals. Indeed, during his State of the Union Address, when he discussed the second of his “four pillars” for reforming the immigration system, he referred to the “loopholes” by which criminals and terrorists enter the United States.  In reality, there are no “loopholes” but fraud that goes undetected and a lack of integrity of the immigration system.

Nevertheless the President is willing to rely on that same system to legalize 1.8 million DACA aliens.  It is likely that even more aliens would file applications, many laden with fraud information and claims.

After the attacks of 9/11 we were frequently told that for America to be safe, our officials had to “get it right 100% of the time” while in order for the terrorists to succeed, they only had to “get it right once.”  Every application filed by an alien for a visa or for lawful status provides terrorists with that opportunity of “getting it right.”

Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Before 9/11, no agency of the U.S. government systematically analyzed terrorists’ travel strategies. Had they done so, they could have discovered the ways in which the terrorist predecessors to al Qaeda had been systematically but detectably exploiting weaknesses in our border security since the early 1990s.

We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U.S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers.

Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.

Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism.

The succession of terror attacks carried out by aliens who gamed the immigration system and acquired political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even citizenship, prove just how incapable that system is to deal with its current workload of 6 million applications annually, sounding alarms the President must hear.

False security is worse — far, far worse — than no security, particularly where terrorists are concerned.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Missouri: Muslim diversity visa recipient sent $1M to terrorist in Jordan

Just like the 9/11 hijackers, possible Saudi terrorist arrested by the FBI told his flight instructors he wanted to be a commercial pilot

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Afghan security forces tipped off Taliban in failed attempt to kill Secretary of Defense Mattis

“NBC spoke with two unidentified Taliban commanders, who claimed sources in Afghanistan’s security apparatus tipped them off to Mattis’s visit. Mattis…told reporters that Afghan forces would strongly oppose the action.”…”They will find Afghan security forces against them.”

Maybe they will. But will they find Afghan security forces for them? Why not? Afghan forces supposedly on our side have been responsible for numerous attacks on their U.S. “allies.” There remains no reliable way to distinguish Afghan jihadis from “moderates.” What is Mattis doing to address that? Nothing? Why not? Would it be too “Islamophobic” to explore that problem realistically?

“Taliban Tries To Kill Mattis During Surprise Afghanistan Visit,” by Thomas Phippen, Daily Caller, September 27, 2017:

The Taliban claimed responsibility for an attack on Kabul International Airport Wednesday morning targeting Defense Secretary Jim Mattis who was making an unscheduled visit to Afghanistan.

Mattis had left the airport by the time the attack started, NBC News reports, and no casualties have been reported….

“At 11.36 am two missiles were fired on Kabul International Airport from Deh Sabz district, damaging the air force hangers and destroying one helicopter and damaging three other helicopters, but there were no casualties,” airport chief Yaqub Rassouli said according to USA Today….

“We fired six rockets and planned to hit the plane of U.S. secretary of defense and other U.S. and NATO military officials,” one Taliban commander told NBC News. “We were told by our insiders that some losses were caused to their installations but we are not sure about James Mattis.”

NBC spoke with two unidentified Taliban commanders, who claimed sources in Afghanistan’s security apparatus tipped them off to Mattis’s visit.

Mattis was holding a press conference away from the airport at the time of the attack, and told reporters that Afghan forces would strongly oppose the action.

“If in fact there was an attack … his is a classic statement to what Taliban are up to,” Mattis said. “If in fact this is what they have done, they will find Afghan security forces against them.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Oklahoma Beheading Trial: Is Obeying the Qur’an a Form of Mental Illness?

Minnesota: Leftists in city of jihad stabbing spree protest Iranian ex-Muslim’s speech: “Islamophobia is White Supremacy”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. General John Nicholson, the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission, saluting U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis upon arrival at NATO’s headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 27, 2017.

Who shares responsibility for the Suicide Bombing at the Manchester Arena?

The emerging profile of 22 year  Salman Abedi, the home grown  suicide bomber or shahid (martyr) who perpetrated the Manchester Arena massacre, whose family were Libyan refugees, raises questions about the political future of UK Prime Minister Theresa  May in the looming June 10, snap elections called over the Brexit impasse.  Abedi was claimed by ISIS as one of their own, “a solider of the Caliphate.”  With arrests of four suspects, following the Manchester Arena massacre, police are now saying “we may be dealing with a network.”  The Manchester Arena attack triggered UK PM May ordering the deployment of thousands of soldiers to prevent an imminent attack after raising the threat level to the highest level, “critical.”

In the wake of the dastardly Manchester Arena bombing that killed 22 people, especially young girls, injuring 59, many with life threatening wounds, questions abound about the policies May implemented as former UK Home Minister. May had been the long term Home Minister in the former Cameron Conservative governments. Her track record on lax immigration controls and surveillance of radical Muslim communities ironically may have contributed to the massive  terror explosion at 10:30 PM at the close of U.S. pop star Ariane Grande’s concert that shredded the lives of those killed and injured with  a bomb loaded with deadly shrapnel of nuts and bolts.

Here’s what we know about Abedi, the perpetrator of this heinous attack on the 20,000 attendees at Ms. Grande’s Manchester Arena concert. Police obtained a photo ID card from his remains identifying him as the suspected bomber. They stormed his residence in South Manchester seeking information about both him and possible jihadist network connections. He was born in the UK to Libyan refugee parents who lived in a tight émigré community.  He prayed at a Mosque with known Al Qaeda connections to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. A number of worshipers who left to join ISIS as foreign fighters.

Abedi had made numerous trips to Libya following the fall of the Gadaffi regime and may have received training in bomb making with powerful ingredients. His travels to and from Libya must have put him on the Mi-5 watch list. Abedi had enrolled at a local university studying business management. He appears to have enrolled for the 2016 academic year but not attended classes. More concerning was he had outward vestiges of becoming radical such as wearing a long Islamic Islamic gabilla gown, Kufi skull cap and growing a beard.

Note what this UK Telegraph article revealed, “Everything we know about Salman Abedi, named as the Manchester suicide bomber:”

Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.

A school friend told The Times: “He went to Libya three weeks ago and came back recently, like days ago.”

He had become radicalized recently – it is not entirely clear when – and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fundraising for jihadists.

Abedi’s older brother Ismail had been a tutor at Didsbury mosque’s Koran school. The imam last night said that Salman Abedi, who wore Islamic dress, had shown him “the face of hate” when he gave a talk warning on the dangers of so-called Islamic State.

His mother, Samia Tabbal, 50, and father, Ramadan Abedi, a security officer, were both born in Tripoli but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Whalley Range area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least a decade.

Abedi went to school locally and then on to Salford University in 2014 where he studied business management before dropping out. His trips to Libya, where it is thought his parents returned in 2011 following Gaddafi’s overthrow, are now subject to scrutiny including links to jihadists.

A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.

[…]

Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda.

Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making.

Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi. The mosque at the time vehemently denied the claim. “This is the first time I’ve heard of the LIFG. I do not know Salah,” a mosque spokesman said at the time.

At the Abedi family home in Elsmore Road, a non-descript red-brick terrace, neighbors told how Abedi had become increasingly devout and withdrawn.

Lina Ahmed, 21, said: “They are a Libyan family and they have been acting strangely. A couple of months ago he [Salman] was chanting the first kalma [Islamic prayer] really loudly in the street. He was chanting in Arabic.

“He was saying ‘There is only one God and the prophet Mohammed is his messenger’.’

A family friend, who described the Abedis as “very religious”, said most of the family had returned to Libya, leaving only Salman and his older brother Ismail behind.

UK PM Theresa May. Source: The Independent

As to why UK PM Theresa May is partly to blame for the lax surveillance of radicals like suicide bomber Abedi, we turn to a UK Spectator article in July 2016 by Jonathan Foreman about May’s track record as Home Secretary under former Conservative PM David Cameron, “Theresa May’s record as Home Secretary is alarming, not reassuring.”

Foreman wrote:

Despite her carefully fostered reputation for toughness, Mrs. May’s record on extremism is perhaps the least impressive aspect of her checkered tenure at the Home Office. Any public official who seriously addresses radicalization, ghettoization and extremism risks being labeled an Islamophobe or worse. It takes a brave politician, one more committed to doing the right thing than to securing a glorious political future, to take on this hornets’ nest; Mrs. May was not such a politician. This began to be clear during the Trojan Horse affair, when official reluctance to confront radicalization in Birmingham schools prompted a concerned Education Secretary to venture onto the Home Secretary’s turf. (Her characteristic fury at this trespass was damaging to both departments at the time, and may well wreak havoc into the new government. Certainly her firing of Michael Gove’s as Justice Minister, despite the fact that his incomplete prison reforms have been universally lauded, looks like a destructive act of petty vengeance and personal spite.)

[…]

It became more apparent when Mrs. May, having delivered some appropriate sound-bites, avoided potential career-inhibiting controversy by ensuring that the Home Office’s efforts to deal with tricky issues like female genital mutilation, honor killings and forced marriage remained as low key – and low impact – as possible. But it is even more obvious in the investigation Mrs. May eventually set up into whether Britain’s Sharia courts, some legal, some not, might possibly discriminate against women in matters of divorce, domestic violence and child custody, as a result of a ‘misuse’ of Sharia teaching. (In the past the Home Secretary has implicitly claimed a surprising intimacy with Islamic law and political thought, asserting in 2014 that the actions of Isis ‘have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Koran.’)

[…]

Then there was the cynical political correctness. Mrs. May talked about coming down hard on hate crimes and lambasted the police about a lack of diversity. But she abjectly failed to identify the child rape rings of Rotherham, Rochdale, Sheffield, Bradford and Oxford as the racially and ethnically motivated hate crimes that they were.  [SEE:  Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat:  inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal,   New English Review Press, 2016.]

[…]

May has also done little to reverse various policing trends that have alienated the public from the police, including the abandonment of neighborhood policing, the substitution of decoy-like PCSOs and CCTV for beat patrols, and the massaging of crime statistics, At the same time Mrs. May has given the nod to massive, transformative budget cuts that may genuinely make Britain’s police forces unfit for purpose.

[…]

As the then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper pointed out, three years after May took over the ministry, the number of people refused entry had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up, the number of foreign prisoners removed had gone down, and the number of illegal immigrants deported had also gone down. Tens of thousands of international students kicked out of the country by the Home Office – in a panicked response to a TV documentary about a test cheating scam – then turned out to have been wrongly deported.

UK PM Theresa May’s track record as Home Secretary may now been thrust into the public limelight as a result of the Manchester Arena massacre by  UK born  Jihadist, the late Salman Abedi.  The prior neglect by Mi-5 and UK security services monitoring jihadists in the country’s midst may impact on the looming snap election originally called to empower her to resolve the Brexit impasse. With her raising  the terror threat to its highest level in the UK following the Manchester Arena attack, perhaps Conservative backbenchers might question her policies and performance.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The New English Review.

Confirmed: Top Saudi Officials Aided the 9/11 Jihad Plot

The 28-page section of the 9/11 report detailing Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks have finally been released (albeit with substantial portions still redacted), and it is now clear why one President who held hands with the Saudi King and another who bowed to him worked so hard all these years to keep these pages secret: they confirm that the 9/11 jihad murderers received significant help from people at the highest levels of the Saudi government.

Obama-Bows

President Obama bowing to Saudi royalty.

The report states that Omar al-Bayoumi, who “may be a Saudi intelligence officer,” gave “substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mindhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a public place shortly after his meeting with an individual at the Saudi consulate.” Around the same time, al-Bayoumi “had extensive contact with Saudi Government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense.” That company “reportedly had ties to Usama bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida.”

Another possible Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, who “has many ties to the Saudi government” and was also a supporter of Osama bin Laden, boasted that he did more for al-Mindhar and al-Hamzi than al-Bayoumi did. He also “reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi government officials.” The report says that at one point, “a member of the Saudi Royal Family provided Bassnan with a significant amount of cash,” and that “he and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi ambassador to the United States and his wife.” That ambassador was Prince Bandar, about whom the New York Times later noted: “No foreign diplomat has been closer or had more access to President Bush, his family and his administration than the magnetic and fabulously wealthy Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia.”

Then there was Shaykh al-Thumairy, “an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and one of the ‘imams’ at the King Fahad mosque in Culver City, California,” who also “may have been in contact” with al-Mindhar and al-Hamzi.

bush-holds-hands-saudi-ap-gerald-herbert

President Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty. Photo: AP

Saleh al-Hussayen, “reportedly a Saudi Interior Ministry official, stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Virginia where al-Hazmi was staying. While al-Hussayen claimed after September 11 not to know the hijackers, FBI agents believed he was being deceptive. He was able to depart the United States despite FBI efforts to locate and re-interview him.” Who got him out of the country?

There is much more. The report redacts the name of “another Saudi national with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family,” but notes that he “is the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations and reportedly was checking security at the United States’ southwest border in 1999 and discussing the possibility of infiltrating individuals into the United States.” There is no telling who this could have been, but Prince Bandar’s unlisted phone number turned up in a phone book of Abu Zubaida, “a senior al-Qa’ida operative captured in Pakistan in March 2002.” Abu Zubaida also had the number of “a bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC.”

The report also mentions a CIA memorandum that “discusses alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi Government officials, and members of the Saudi Royal Family. This memorandum was passed on to an FBI investigator; yet “despite the clear national implications of the CIA memorandum, the FBI agent included the memorandum in an individual case file and did not forward it to FBI Headquarters.” Why?

There is still more, and with this much smoke, there is almost certainly fire: the Saudi connection to 9/11 goes to the highest levels of the Saudi government. And as I detail in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, a U.S. District Judge ruled in 2011 that the Islamic Republic of Iran was liable for damages to 9/11 families because of Iran’s role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks. The judge found that Iran and its proxy Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11 in planning the attacks, and continued that cooperation after the attacks.

After 9/11, the U.S. declared war on terror and entered Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Bush had really been serious about attacking jihad terror at its root, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran instead. Under Obama, the betrayal has gotten exponentially worse. There needs to be a full Congressional investigation now into why these 28 pages were kept secret for so long, with those responsible punished accordingly. And above all, the next American administration must make a searching reevaluation of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and stop treating enemies as allies.

U.S. Muslim Organization admired Bin Laden, conspired to influence Congress, tipped off a terror suspect

Chris Gaubatz delivers jaw dropping details about CAIR operations at Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Senator Ted Cruz presided over a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday titled, Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism. The panelists were equally divided, half fit the title, willfully blind, while the other half see clearly that the enemy is Islam.

gaubatzOne of the panelists was Chris Gaubatz, a national security consultant. He has every reason to be awake to the threat of the Islam since he conducted undercover research with HAMAS/Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) at their Washington, D.C. headquarters as well as in Virginia and Maryland. He worked alongside them as an intern, and was able to keep many physical files that were to be destroyed.

According to Gaubatz, HAMAS/CAIR actually,

“Discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates, placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices, conspired to influence congress, (specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees), and worked with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect.”

The panelist also relayed being at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in which DHS and the FBI had booths set up to recruit members there. Now why would those agencies want to recruit from a group of Muslims most likely to have ties with terrorism? This sounds like another case of willful blindness.

In addition he saw Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a strong advocate for implementing Sharia Law, and also an unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, actually ask for money to support HAMAS.

So much for see something say something. It appears Gaubatz has amazing evidence to support the facts that HAMAS/CAIR who is the Muslim Brotherhood in America, remains alive and well influencing our government and its national security apparatus, and not one of the senators felt the need to ask a follow-up question to his statements.

In stark contrast the opening statement by Senator Coons was equally stunning in a display of simply failing to grasp the truth of the terrorism problem we have here in America, not to mention his misunderstanding of who ISIS is.

Senator Coons stated,

“ISIS is not Islamic. It is a perverted misinterpretation of one of the world’s great religions. No religion condones the massacring of thousands of innocent people,”

It sounds as though Senator Coons may be taking a play out of the Obama playbook as he also expects some mental gymnastics to take place while we are to accept that Islamic State in Iraq and Syria isn’t Islamic. And it doesn’t seem as though the good senator has looked back into the history of Islam. Certainly if he did he would see deaths in the hundreds of millions of people throughout the peaceful Muslim history.

Two more zingers from Coons,

“The country is still trying to make sense of a tragic event in Orlando. 16 days ago a man entered the Pulse nightclub armed with dangerous weapons and massacred 49 innocent people, injuring 50 more leaving our nation and world shaken…I utterly reject the notion that there is some sort of political correctness preventing us from fighting our enemies.”

Senator Coons, if you reject the notion of political correctness then your above statement should read like this,

“16 days ago America experienced yet another Islamic terrorist attack, when an armed Muslim jihadi, swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State, entered the Pulse nightclub and killed 49 innocent people and wounded another 50. In short order, the majority of Americans knew exactly what the motive was as did the whole world, yet the Obama administration, his DHS and FBI are still to this day baffled as to his reasoning. In fact, the denial of what is clear to all with the exception of the “experts” brings shame to the leadership and makes our country even more vulnerable to Islamic attacks.

The hearing was meant to bring light to how our law enforcement agencies continue to down-play Islam’s ideology as the culprit for numerous terrorist attacks because of the political correct approach of Obama’s administration. Part of fixing a problem is identifying it, and the Obama law enforcement agencies miss clues about these Islamic terrorists within our country that would alert them to potential terror threats because the agents are not properly trained as to who the enemy is.

One thing was obvious, the senators in the chamber were given clues over and over by the expert panelists who have 20/20 vision when it comes to understanding and seeing the threat, but until our leaders remove the scales from their eyes they will miss the mark on nailing terrorists in our midst.

Obama Only Knows How To Stand Down

Not only has Obama essentially issued a stand down order to our entire federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies when dealing with the increasing Islamic war occurring on American soil, but he implies a passive response from all Americans as he would have us lay down our arms in response to an attack.

With every passing Islamic jihadi attack, he proves the only position he expects from us all is to submit to Islam and take the violence they dish out as discipline for our overly Islamophobic responses to their peaceful culture and our freedom to own and use guns to protect ourselves.

The Stand Down order is a military order given to put a halt on offensive actions. In Benghazi the same order was given to those brave security operators who were told to do nothing in the wake of an Islamic group attacking the Americans at the US diplomatic facilities. This order to withhold life-saving assistance in Libya was given even as the operators were armed and ready to defend their fellow Americans. Thankfully they broke those orders and acted on their conscience or 25 Americans would be six feet under today.

The same order has been implied from the Commander in Chief to our law enforcement departments and agencies including the DHS and FBI. There have been numerous occasions of the FBI initiating investigations on individuals with either terrorist ties or expressing their allegiance to Islamic State, Al Qaeda and others only to have the cases closed or agents reportedly receiving reprimands for pursuing those who are Muslims.

Look at Orlando’s jihadi, Omar Marteen. He was questioned three times and investigated twice by FBI agents for having terrorist ties and making contact with a suicide bomber, but the case was closed with no charges filed. Why?

According to Philip Haney, former member of the National Targeting Center’s unit, whose job was to filter through information on people for possible terrorists or weapons used by them, the FBI didn’t use the same analysis that he used to connect the dots from Marteen to the Fort Pierce Mosque he attended.

According to a WND article,

“As a member of one of the National Targeting Center’s advanced units, Haney helped develop a case in 2011 on a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaat, as he recounts in his new book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”Within a few months, the case drew the “concern” of the State Department and the DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office because the Obama administration believed it unfairly singled out Muslims. The intelligence, however, had been used to connect members of the movement to several terrorist organizations and financing at the highest levels, including for Hamas and al-Qaida.”

Haney correctly uncovered connections between different Islamic terrorist organizations yet the way the DHS and the State Department reward him is to discarded some 67 reports related to information he compiled that would enable the FBI to identify possible terrorist threats as well as the loss of his job.

Clearly the message goes out from the top down that you will not be tolerated for linking Muslims with terrorism. Obama’s livid response to Trump calling him out on his glaring omission of the term radical Islam is indicative of his protective stance of Islam.

When you have the President leading by stating, the guns are the enemynarrative after every Islamic terrorist attack, why would you engage an enemy that is never named. A stand down order is what can be taken from his lack identifying our enemies are Islamic terrorists, but instead an inanimate objects…guns.

Moreover, the focus for Obama’s entire presidency has been one of empowering the Islamic narrative inside the White House and among his administration. What we have been experiencing for the past eight years is trickle-down Islamophilia that has colored our national security department’s and law enforcement’s response to Muslim suspects.

How else can one explain the insulting response of Mayor Jim Kenney, who said of the execution-like attack on one of his police officers back in January by a man dressed in Muslim garb and later admitted pledging allegiance to Islamic State and following Allah,

“The shooting had nothing to do with Islam. It does not represent the religion in any shape or form or any of the teachings.”

The denial about the motivations of jihadists by Obama has affected many in leadership positions and according to Gen. Jerry Boykin has definitely touched our law enforcement officers. He said,

“people at every level are gun-shy about dealing with Muslims. There is tremendous pressure to show Muslims favor and treat them differently than others, based on information that I am getting from my contacts. The Jihadist[s] have us right where they want us. We are going all out now to pander to the enemy and to appease the same people who are here to destroy us,”

Americans need to take a lesson from the Benghazi warriors and act with our conscience in the face of Islamic terrorist attacks. There is no winning from a Stand Down position. Obama is telling us to lay down our weapons while Islamic leaders are screaming at Muslims to pick up theirs. He has placed himself 180 degrees in opposition to his oath of office and deserves nothing less than to be tried for treason. See video:

RELATED ARTICLES:

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy

Why can’t Obama just tell Americans the truth about the Orlando attack and radical Islam?

Has the world learned anything since Brussels?

It has become alarmingly clear since the Brussels terror attack that the West either doesn’t understand the nature of Islamist terrorism or doesn’t want to.  President Obama denies that the Islamic State poses an existential threat, belittles those who disagree, and seems more vested in undermining allies and political opponents than fighting terror.  Whether acting out of ideology or naiveté, he refuses to admit the role of religious doctrine and instead blames terrorism on generic criminality, violent extremism, gun violence, or global warming.  He fails to address the jihad and genocide being waged against non-Muslims in the Mideast and beyond, does not speak honestly about the Islamist threat, and portrays those who do as hatemongers.

Under his administration, the U.S. has abdicated its global leadership role and left a void in which Russia seeks to reconstitute its empire, China threatens American strategic and economic interests, and Iran continues to export terror while violating a feckless nuclear deal under which it derives great benefit but makes no concessions.  The president has eschewed sound military and intelligence advice in favor of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, empowered terrorists, and caused a refugee crisis that is tearing Europe apart.

Whether the administration’s foreign policy stems from ideology or incompetence, it seems to regard Islamic radicalism as a natural response to western oppression, though European entrée into the Mideast was preceded by centuries of jihad waged in Europe by Arab-Muslim invaders.  Its knack for promoting revisionism is facilitated by the public’s lack of historical perspective, as reflected by the inability to recognize that ISIS is not historically aberrant, but rather embodies the same doctrine that mandated forceful spread of the faith starting in the eighth century.

Political correctness inhibits discussion of radical Islam and, thus, stifles the ability to combat the terrorism it spawns.  Television coverage after Brussels showed witnesses uttering platitudes, such as, “If we stop traveling, we give the terrorists what they want”; and commentators warning that terrorists will somehow win if their religious motivations are scrutinized by the security establishment.  However, such sentiments wrongly presume that terrorists merely seek to induce fear or discomfort, when in fact their goals include conquest and subjugation.  Islamists don’t want to disrupt European travel plans; they want to kill “infidels” and force them into submission.

Comments from presidential aspirants this election cycle have been no better informed.  The Democratic candidates predictably refused to utter the words “Islamic terrorism,” while some Republicans were overly deferential in their assessments.  John Kasich, for example, acknowledged the perpetrators were Islamists, yet seemed compelled to add that “…the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims…think their religion has been hijacked … [a]nd they want to stop that as much as we want to stop it.”  But on what did he base this assertion?  While moderates may well have denounced the Brussels attacks, there were no surveys indicating what the majority believed.  If there were no mass condemnations of the 9/11 attacks, the Charlie Hebdo and Paris massacres, or the San Bernardino shootings, what evidence is there to suggest majority censure of this latest outrage?

Democrats and Republicans cannot begin to address the problem when political correctness inhibits them from even identifying it.  If westerners really want to know the terrorists’ goals, they should read the language contained in their charters and manifestos.

They should consider Al-Qaeda’s constitutional charter, rules and regulations, which contain the following passages:

Al Qaeda:

An Islamic Group, its only mission is Jihad, because Jihad is one of the basic purposes for which Al Qaeda personnel come together.  In addition, they perform other Islamic duties if possible.  Jihad will take precedence over other duties in case of interference.

Goals of Al Qaeda:

The victory of the mighty religion of Allah, the establishment of an Islamic Regime and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, God willing.

Or this excerpt from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” by the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Or this passage from Article Seven of the Hamas Charter:

…the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: ‘The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.’ (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim).

Such language leaves no doubt about these organizations’ goals, which include conquering infidels, killing Jews, and destroying Israel.  Americans and Europeans need to learn what drives today’s terrorism if they truly wish to defeat it; but this cannot happen if they continue hiding their heads in the sand and gushing apologetic nonsense.  Neither can it happen under a president who attends a baseball game with the dictator of Cuba and dances the tango in Argentina while Brussels is reeling, or with a White House that censors comments made by visiting heads of state who dare to mention Islamist terrorism.

Mr. Obama’s recent behavior is consistent with his administration’s efforts over the last eight years to obscure the connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which efforts are echoed by progressives who romanticize terrorists as “freedom fighters” and their murderous assaults as “armed struggle.”  Perhaps more disturbing is the ease with which such perceptions go unchallenged because of progressive reluctance to use judgmental terminology to describe enemies sworn to our destruction.  It is the height of absurdity when opponents of a doctrine that preaches subjugation and genocide are accused of racism and intolerance.

Our milquetoast politicians will not acknowledge any doctrinal component of terrorism for fear of offending the Arab-Muslim world.  Ironically, progressives who engage in such doublespeak have no qualms morally equating attacks against Jewish civilians with Israel’s responses to terrorism, or falsely labeling Israel an apartheid state.  The targeting of unarmed Jewish men, women and children is irrelevant to those moral dilettantes who consider terrorism a legitimate response to so-called occupation.  Unfortunately, those who control the definitional language use it to influence public perception to the point where distortions become reality and history is meaningless.

The administration’s verbal disingenuity regarding the word “terrorism” is especially poignant in light of its bowdlerization of remarks by French President François Hollande, who in an address from the White House used the term “Islamist terrorism” when discussing the horrific attacks on French soil.  The phrase was deleted from video of the speech released by the White House.  This is troubling, but not surprising from an administration that early on forbade mentioning the word “Islamic” in conjunction with terrorism, and which referred to attacks by Islamic extremists as “man-caused disasters” – a ludicrous term conjuring images of bridge collapses or traffic fatalities, not premeditated assaults against unarmed civilians.

The obvious question raised by this verbal sleight-of-hand is, who is the administration attempting to appease?  A common dictionary definition of terrorism is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”  It is difficult to see how the term would be deemed offensive by those who traffic in terror – or why we should care about offending their sensibilities in the first place.  Indeed, referring to them as freedom fighters effectively legitimizes their attacks against civilians, even though such conduct violates the Geneva Convention III of 1949 and the international laws of war.

One could argue philosophically that true freedom fighters are justified in fighting tyranny and attacking strategic or military targets.  But while freedom fighters with a just cause may be seen as serving a higher moral purpose, nothing justifies the slaughter of school children, hospital patients, yeshiva students, or families celebrating holidays and weddings.  There is no virtue in blowing up teenagers in pizzerias or passengers on public buses, or stabbing Israelis just for being Jews.  Mainstream liberals would disagree that the administration engages in such linguistic and moral subterfuge, but they cannot deny that it manipulates language to promote a narrative in which terrorism is often rationalized by illusory contextualization.

While many Americans simply do not understand the nature of radical Islam, the president endeavors to minimize its significance and doctrinal motivations.  He did so in the past when he misleadingly claimed victory in the war on terror and dubbed the Islamic State junior varsity, and he does so now when he calls Islamist terror “violent extremism” and says ISIS is not an existential threat.

Clearly, if Americans want to understand the nature of the threat, they’ll have to look for answers beyond the administration’s partisan dissimulation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brussels Terrorist Featured in Immigrant Integration Film

Turkish Official in Sweden: ‘Death to Armenian Dogs!’

60 Minutes Crew Attacked in ‘No-Go Zone’ in Sweden

Justin Trudeau: Changing the Face of Canada Forever?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.

Commentary on the Saudi Situation

Since 9/11, the terms of our relationship with Saudi Arabia have been defined by the Saudis, not by the U.S.

To gain their support in the ‘War on Terror,’ one of the first post-9/11 compromises America made with the Saudis was to redact the 28 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, thus shielding and/or exonerating them from any involvement or responsibility.

A second compromise we made with our Wahabbi partners in peace was to ignore their decades-long role in the funding and support of thousands of pro-Jihad Madrassas throughout the Eastern Hemisphere.

Nor should we overlook Saudi Arabia’s ongoing support of Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood family member and Globally Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization since 1997. On July 16, 2015, King Salman of Saudi Arabia met with top Hamas leaders, including Qatar resident and political leader Khaled Meshal, thus publicly revealing his willingness to work with known Islamist terrorist organizations.

According to the Saudi royal family, the meeting reflected King Salman’s determination to rally the Arab world against Iran, as Iran becomes empowered by its “deal with Western powers to lift economic sanctions in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.”

So, as a consequence of the Iran Deal, we are now seeing a revived Saudi-Sunni-Hamas alliance

The one-sided quid pro quo arrangement between America and Saudi Arabia is remarkably similar to the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between Turkey and Europe (and the West), to overlook the Armenian Genocide, for the sake of peace, and political and economic stability.

In fact, President Obama reinforced this point on April 19, 2016, when he stated: “A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States.”

To reiterate this response, Josh Earnest, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary in the White House Office of Communications, stressed that the administration’s concerns about the pending Congressional legislation (allowing U.S. citizens to sue the Saudi government for their possible part in 9/11), were not just about Saudi Arabia.

On April 15, 2016 (‘Tax Day’), he said “The concern that we have is simply this: It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

More ominously, Mr. Earnest asserted that “The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.” If we pause and explore what this revealing statement actually means, we might easily come to the conclusion that no country on earth will ever be held accountable for supporting terrorist attacks and/or regional wars, simply because one country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter.

Ironically, the first reaction by the Saudis to the pending legislation and simultaneous possible release of the redacted 28 pages was to threaten the U.S. with an economic assault.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, personally informed Washington in March 2016 that “Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.”

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the administration has been aggressively lobbying against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill, which is sponsored by a bipartisan group of 16 US senators who are attempting to curtail the ability of countries to invoke sovereign immunity in lawsuits accusing them of supporting terrorism.

Specifically, this effort is move designed to clear the way for U.S. citizens seek legal remedy for  Saudi Arabia’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks.

As cited here, on Thursday, April 14, 2016, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) reintroduced JASTA, which is the third time the bill has been submitted since 2011. The Senate passed it last December, but it stalled in the House.

There is hope that the time has finally come for Congress to approve it. The latest version is co-sponsored by 14 other senators, including Al Franken (D-MN), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Finally, the families of 9/11 victims remain infuriated by the Obama administration, which has consistently sided with the kingdom and thwarted efforts to discover the truth about the role Saudi officials may have played in the attacks 15 years ago.

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

At least 14 members of the House also agree with Ms. Kleinberg. On January 13, 2016, they introduced House Resolution 588, entitled Condemning and Censuring President Barack Obama, which “Censures and condemns President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy.”

To conclude, President Obama landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, April 20, in the midst of a swirling storm of controversy and confusing, contradictory policies and allegiances. The world will be watching, and many questions will need to be answered.

First, the Saudis will want to know: Is Obama a friend of the Sunni world, or of the Shia world? “It is a concerning factor for us if America pulls back,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, an outspoken member of the Saudi royal family, a former head of intelligence and a former ambassador to the United States. “America has changed, we have changed and definitely we need to realign and readjust our understandings of each other.”

Second, Americans will want to know: Will he put the interests of American citizens first, who deserve to know the truth about any possible Saudi involvement (enablement) in 9/11, or will he compromise for the sake of ‘peace and stability’?

And, third, analysts and members of Congress will want to know: What price will President Obama agree to pay Saudi Arabia for their help in the war against ISIS, and/or to continue harboring former Guantanamo Bay detainees?

We should all carefully note the statements Obama makes in Saudi Arabia, and the outcome(s) of the decisions he will have to make.

Will he call Saudi Arabia’s bluff (about economic consequences), or will he continue appeasing the Guardian Of The Holy Places; Islam and Muslims?

The next three days will have a major effect on the course our two countries will take (along with the rest of the world) in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intelligence Agency to Deadly Attack on CIA

Recently disclosed documents suggest that Pakistan’s intelligence agency paid a terror group to perpetrate a deadly attack on the CIA in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s intelligence agency paid a Taliban-affiliated terror group in Afghanistan to perpetrate one of the deadliest attacks on the CIA in the agency’s history, according to inferences made in recently-declassified U.S. government cables and documents.

On December 30, 2009, a Jordanian suicide bomber blew himself up in Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan, located near the border with Pakistan, killing seven CIA employees. The bomber, a Jordanian doctor and double agent, tricked the Americans, telling them he would lead them to Ayman al-Zawahri, now head of al-Qaeda and, at the time, second in command.

A document dated January 11, 2010 , issued less than two weeks after the bombing, reports how the head of the Haqqani network, a Taliban-allied organization designed as terrorist by the U.S., met twice with senior officials of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) the month of the bombing.

During the first meeting, funding for “operations in Khowst [Khost] province” were discussed. “Funds were later provided to tribal elders in Khowst province for their support of the Haqqani network,” according to the cable.

At the second meeting, ISI officials gave “direction to the Haqqanis to expedite attack preparations and lethality in Afghanistan.”

Although heavily redacted, a cable issued the following month specified the head of the Haqqani network as well as another individual were given $200,000 “to enable the attack on Chapman.” The cable specifically mentions a number of individuals involved in the operation, including an Afghan border commander who was given money “to enable a suicide mission by an unnamed Jordanian national.”

The Jordanian mentioned is assumed to be the suicide bomber, Humam al-Balawi, whom the CIA had cultivated as an al-Qaeda informant. Code-named “Wolf,” al-Balawi turned out to be a double agent, perpetrating the deadliest attack against the CIA in the 15-year history of the war in Afghanistan.

Although each document states, “This is an information report not finally evaluated intelligence,” Admiral  Mike Mullen (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) terms the Haqqani network a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency. The U.S. has long-documented the connection between the ISI and the Haqqani terrorist organization.

The documents were the first public disclosure connecting the attack on Camp Chapman to the Pakistani ISI. They were released in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request. The U.S. had previously blamed al-Qaeda for the attack.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Seeks to Charge Aussie With Radicalizing US Citizen

Persecuted Christians Support Brotherhood Terror Act

Austrian Police Arrest Pakistani Terrorist Now Working for ISIS

Iran Forcing Afghan Refugees to Fight for Assad in Syria

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Jennifer Ehle who plays Jennifer Lynne Matthew in the film Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, head of Al Qaeda. Matthews, a mother of three was described as “one of the CIA’s top experts on al-Qaeda.” She was head of Camp Chapman and killed in the attack on the base.

Extortion 17, Obama’s Sacrificial Lamb

“We lost more Americans on Extortion 17 than at Benghazi, Fort Hood, and Chattanooga combined. No loss is acceptable because of a rules-of-engagement failure, but Extortion 17 is the Mother of all Failures, yet most Americans don’t know about it. 30 of our finest servicemen, including 17 US Navy SEALs.” -Don Brown, author Extortion 17

After the killing of bin Laden, before Benghazi, was the shoot down of Extortion 17 by Islamic jihadists. The call sign had been given to the CH-47D helicopter and the mission dubbed, “Lefty Grove”. It occurred in the early morning hours of August 6, 2011 in the Taliban stronghold along the Tangi River Valley, Wardak Province, Afghanistan.

Some say the incident was a sacrificial offering by the Obama administration to Islamic terrorists for the U.S. killing bin Laden. On board this flight were most of the members of  Seal Team 6 who were responsible for taking out the founder of al-Qaeda.

The crash that day signified the largest loss in Naval Special Warfare, as well as single day loss since the war on Islamic terrorism was declared. No matter the motive, it is clear that the mission was compromised from the start, and too many red flags have been raised concerning the details of their mission as to dismiss foul play.

Several of the concerns are the following:

  1. The elite group was placed on a sub-standard helicopter versus traveling in a MH-47, which was typical.
  2. No return fire was allowed even after the circling CH47 sees Taliban moving into the landing zone. At that time they were flanked by to Apaches, all were denied permission to take out the enemy. A stand down order was given.
  3. No suppressive fire was offered to protect Extortion 17 while flying into a region where a 3 1/2 hour operation had been underway already, even though an AC 130 gunship was  available.
  4. The flight manifest was not changed, but a last minute swap of  7 Afghan security forces and 1 Afghan translator was made, an unusual happening in itself. So, there was no way of knowing who may have compromised the flight or tipped off the Taliban as far as location of the chopper. The identities of the Afghans are still not known.

If our rules of engagement were constructed in order to protect our soldiers instead of handcuff them, our brave men would all be alive today. The “stand down” order is proving lethal to our military.

Even after the incident, a disturbing and outrageous thing happened at the memorial service of these men at the Bagram Airbase before their bodies were flown back to the U.S.  During the ramp ceremony, a Muslim Imam prayed over the bodies of the Americans, once translated it seemed to have damned their souls to hell. At a 2013 Washington D.C. press conference, Lt. General Jerry Boykin stated,

“What I’m concerned about is that we had an Imam, praying over the bodies of our soldiers, is an indicator that we don’t know who the enemy is, we don’t know the enemies’ doctrine, his theology, or what motivates him.”

See below video:

General Boykin however, is well aware of those facts of Islamic doctrine and has been a leader in educating others about the dangers of it.  Now the Islamic ideology is in our face day in and day out, but what should alarm many is that the more clear the motives of this enemy, the more the administration and leftists showcase their affinity for those practicing and adhering to it within our country.

Representative Louis Ghomert, Tx states,

“When the families were briefed, one of the father’s of one of the Seal team said, ‘Why didn’t you just send a drone if it was such a hot area.’ And the Admiral stated, ‘Because we are trying to win the hearts and minds.’ ”

Billy Vaughn, father of Aaron Vaughn, one of the fallen Navy Seals, emotionally stated in the same press conference,

“Aaron Vaughn did not become a Navy Seal, Team 6 Gold Squad, to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic Jihadists. He became a Navy Seal to fight for this republic and defeat the enemy. And I’ll tell you right now any American flag officer that does not want to defeat the enemy, needs to find another job.”

The families of the fallen deserve to hear answers to their questions from the government. In addition, the Rules of Engagement must be changed to free our soldiers from debilitating regulations that continue to give a conquerable enemy an unfair advantage instead of providing our warriors with support to gain a crushing victory.

A documentary is being made about Extortion 17, called Fallen Angel. The intention is to raise awareness of the faulty ROEs, and in turn put pressure on our legislators and top military leaders to change them for the better. Please watch Fallen Angel: The Shoot Down of SEAL Team 6:

RELATED VIDEO: Barack Obama Accessory to Extortion 17 Murders!

Two Palestinian refugees arrested for supporting the Islamic State

Here is the hot news this morning.  The LA Times has a more detailed account of the story that broke overnight, than some other news outlets (maybe CA is getting a little more sensitive to the terrorists living in their midst).

The two Iraqis are actually Palestinians who had been living in Iraq.  By the way, we only bring a small number of Palestinians to the U.S. as refugees.  And, it is not clear to me if one or either of these actually became refugees by arriving here through some other means and then granted asylum.  I guess only their federal resettlement contractor knows for sure!

However, in all likelihood at least one of the two came from our special resettlement project for Palestinians when back in 2009 the US State Department agreed to bring in 1,350 Iraqi Palestinians to your neighborhoods.

It was quite big news at the time.  And, the issue was that these were Palestinians Saddam Hussein had invited to live in Iraq and once the regime fell, no one wanted them.

Because of his arrival date, at least one of the two alleged Islamic terrorists could have been in that group.  Here is what we said in 2009.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab

Now, the LA Times:

A man who came to the U.S. as an Iraqi refugee was arrested in Sacramento on Thursday on suspicion of lying about fighting alongside terrorist organizations in Syria, federal authorities said.

On the same day, federal authorities in Houston announced that an Iraqi refugee in Texas, who had been communicating online with the man in California, was charged with attempting to provide support to the militant group Islamic State.

The allegations against two men residing in the U.S. with links to foreign terrorist groups comes as the nation reels from the Dec. 2 shooting in San Bernardino, which left 14 dead. That is considered the deadliest terrorist act on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And the arrests of two refugees from Iraq, part of a wave of about 103,000*** Iraqi refugees admitted from 2006 to 2014, is likely to add fuel to the debate over whether the U.S. should welcome refugees from Syria, and if so, whether the screening process is adequate.

The man living in Sacramento, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, had reported in private messages on social media that he fought alongside various groups in Syria, including Ansar al-Islam, a Sunni terrorist group and an affiliate of Al Qaeda, according to a federal complaint filed Wednesday and unsealed Thursday.

There is much more here…..

Because of the ages at which these two must have arrived in the US (as teenagers), it shows how ludicrous the discussion about vetting refugees can be when they are obviously becoming more devout after they get here (I refuse to use the word radicalized!).

And, these two are not the first, remember there is another pair of Iraqi refugee terrorists in federal prison.  See our complete archive on the Kentucky terrorists by clicking here.

The only way to make sure we are completely safe is to stop the migration from terror-producing Islamic countries! I’ve been meaning to check out the numbers for Iraq for some time.  

Using the State Department’s data base I went back to 2007 and grabbed a map from then until December 31, 2015.  The Bush Administration was slow to admit Iraqi refugees, but opened the door in its last year in office.  The Obama Administration has made Iraqis the largest group of refugees we admit each year since then.

Here is where 127,906 Iraqis have been resettled since 2007 (remember though that this does not mean they stayed where the contractors originally seeded them).

Iraqis to US map

Top five states:

  1. California (26,343)
  2. Michigan (19,186)
  3. Texas (12,314)
  4. Illinois (7,336)
  5. Massachusetts (4,322)

And, because it isn’t far behind (for my VA friends), Virginia (4,158)

For ambitious readers, our Iraqi refugee category has 675 previous posts archived there!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islam Set To Become Second-Largest Religion in America by 2040

Another 41 (Muslim) Immigrants Snagged On Terror Charges

Alabama files suit to rein-in refugee program, but…..

Al-Qaeda recruitment video features ‘Minnesota martyrs’

What is being done to prevent more Muslims in Minnesota from joining the jihad? Why, nothing. To take any such action would be “Islamophobic.”

Minnesota ISIS recruits

“Terror Recruitment Video Highlights ‘Minnesota Martyrs,’” by Nina Moini, WCCO, January 3, 2016:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) A new video, aimed at recruiting jihad fighters, highlights Minnesotans who have left to fight with terrorists.

Al-Shabaab released the 50-minute video Friday which was similar to past propaganda videos, featuring high-quality graphics and video editing to glorify fighting overseas.

It also attempts to use American history to justify the terror group’s actions, arguing the country’s history of racism will lead to more discrimination in the near future.

Less than 15 minutes in, the video highlights local men nicknamed the “Minnesota Martyrs,” who died while fighting overseas.

“In the face of the global crusade against Islam, these young men could not afford to sit and watch as the American crusaders perpetrated the most hideous atrocities across the globe,” the video’s narrator said.

The FBI says more than two dozen young Somali-Americans from the Twin Cities have already been lured to training camps overseas, mostly in Somalia….

RELATED ARTICLE: Kenya: Muslims murder bus driver who couldn’t recite Islamic profession of faith

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Minnesotan Muslim students planting Islamic crescents on the lawn of a public school.

New Al-Qaeda recruitment video features Hillary, Black Lives Matter… and BTW Trump

This establishes once again that the jihad is not provoked by what we say and do — because if anyone has indefatigably pursued a course of not saying or doing anything that could possibly anger Islamic jihadis or Muslims in general, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Hillary in Shabaab video

“Media gleefully reporting al-Shabab video with Trump, IGNORES Hillary and ‘Black Lives Matter’ are in it TOO!!,” Right Scoop, January 2, 2016:

El Trumpo is finally being used in a terrorist training video and the media couldn’t be more happy.

Here’s TIME magazine:

An al-Qaeda affiliate released a recruitment video Friday that includes an excerpt of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announcing his call to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.

AND:

The video, apparently the first to include footage of Trump, juxtaposed clips of the presidential candidate and al-Awlaki saying “the West will eventually turn against its Muslims citizens,” according to the Times, while also including footage of al-Awlaki calling for attacks similar to that of the Fort Hood shooting in 2009, in which Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and injured more than 30 in Killeen, Texas.

But, as NRO columnist Stephen Miller points out, they’re completely ignoring some details:

Hillary al shabaab

Image from Twitter.

Here’s how TIME is vaguely reporting the Black Lives Matter appearance:

According to the New York Times, al-Shabab—the Islamic militant branch of al-Qaeda in Somalia—included the clip of Trump along with footage of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American imam and recruiter for al-Qaeda who was killed in 2011, as well as clips of white supremacists and protests over police use of force in the U.S.

Funny how they don’t mention their name, isn’t it?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran: Protestors firebomb, ransack Saudi Embassy after execution of Shia cleric

Iran says Saudi Arabia will ‘pay a high price’ for execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr

VIDEO: GOP Candidates Completely Wrong on Origin of the Islamic State

The name ISIS [Islamic State] was said over 100 times during the last GOP debate and yet so many factually incorrect statements were made. Truth in the Media’s Ben Swann gives those candidates a Reality Check about where ISIS really came from.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn More at Truth In Media.

Congressional Democrats Visit Radical Mosque in “Anti-Islamophobia” Act

In the wake of the California Islamist terrorist attack, a group of congresspeople visited the extremist Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia in an ‘show of solidarity’ with ordinary, non-extremist Muslims in America.

The idea for the visit was conceived before the California Islamist terror shooting but after the Paris attack. “We just thought it was really important to continue to reiterate to the many, many peace-loving Muslim Americans that they were still a welcome part of our community,” Representative Don Beyer (D-Virgina), one of the organizers of the visit, told The New York Times.

Speaking the day after the California attack and just one day before the visit, Beyer said, “Yesterday does make it a little harder. It’s just another unfortunate data point. So, I think it’s more necessary than ever to go talk to the people who have nothing to do with that [editor’s emphasis].”

Either Beyer and his group of lawmakers failed to research the history of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, or they are incredibly naïve. Both are enormous problems and speak volumes about the inadequate strategy currently in place in the United States government for weeding out radical Islamists before they wreak more havoc on an already traumatized country.

Dar al-Hijrah is one of the most radical Islamic centers in America. Its history of extremism dates back decades to one of its founders, Ismail Elbarasse, who was an assistant to a senior Hamas official. In 2002, a government document written by the Customs and Border Protection stated Dar al-Hijrah was “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” A December 2007 document says it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing.”

Click here for a complete history of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Other salient points about Dar al-Hijrah include:

  • Dar al-Hijrah’s imam from 2001 to 2002 was Anwar al-Awlaki, who later became a senior al-Qaeda operative. His sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers and Nidal Hassan, who carried out a terror shooting at Fort Hood in 2009.
  • It’s imam from 2003 to 2005, Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh justified Palestinian suicide bombings and  was a member of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood. He was previously the regional director of the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was labeled by the U.S. Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Terrorist organization because of its links to Osama Bin Laden and Hamas.
  • The current imam of Dar al Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed, said the teachings of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, are the “closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life.” He has also called for Muslims to arm themsleves for jihad (see video below).
  • In 2010 and 2013, radical texts teaching that Muslims are to wage violent jihad in order to resurrect the caliphate, destroy Israel and implement sharia governance were found at the mosque.

Watch Dar al-Hijrah Imam Shaker Elsayed call for armed jihad:

All congresspersons are equipped with numerous staff members who are specifically hired to do research for their employer. A simple Google search by one of them would have yielded the above information.

Perhaps for Rep. Beyer and his fellow Dar al-Hijrah visitors, these facts were just more “unfortunate data points.”

But for the majority of the population, including “peace-loving Muslim Americans,” who are concerned about the radicalized Islamists in our midst, these are data points that are too deadly to ignore.

To check if there is an extremist mosque near you, click here for Clarion Project’s Islamist Organizations in America project

ABOUT MEIRA SVIRSKY 

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Are We Defeating ISIS?

Trump Asks Us to Choose: The Boot or the Feather

Obama’s Take on Terror: The Good and the Bad

Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link