Tag Archive for: Muslim

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi

/in , , /by

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:

  • Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner puts it very well:

The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.

It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch’s release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee’s decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch’s supposed “rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers.” Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration – so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.

The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren’t deployed, specifically “a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain.” The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration’s dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.

All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch’s independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

Judicial Watch recognizes that local cities’ and states’ “sanctuary policies” for illegal alien criminals are deadly and unlawful – so much so that we’re willing to go to court to try to stop them.

You will be pleased to know that JW just filed a taxpayer lawsuit in San Francisco County, California Superior Court to end a March 2015 expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance that prohibits San Francisco Sheriff’s Department personnel from exchanging information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the citizenship or immigration status of inmates in the Sheriff Department’s custody. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco taxpayer Cynthia Cerletti (Cynthia Cerletti v. Ross Mirkarimi (No. CGC -15-54250)). We’re pleased to be working with Robert Patrick Sticht, a Los Angeles-based attorney, who is serving as lead counsel in the Cerletti litigation.

On March 13, 2015, current San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi put in place a new policy directive, entitled “Immigration & Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications,” mandating that “absent a court issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access . . . SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives: Citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.”

Mirkarimi’s new policy directive, which goes even further than San Francisco’s infamous sanctuary ordinance, runs directly contrary to federal law, which states, “[A] Federal, State, or local government entity or officials may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from [ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. § 1373).

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department receives over $200 million in taxpayer support annually to fund its operations, a portion of which is being spent to carry out the new policy directive and train personnel on its requirements. As California grants its taxpayers the right to sue government officials to prevent expenditures of taxpayer funds on unlawful activities, Judicial Watch filed suit against Mirkarimi, in his official capacity, on behalf of Cerletti. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department from expending any taxpayer funds on the policy directive and a judgment declaring the policy directive to be illegal.

Sheriff-Elect Vicki Hennessy, who defeated Mirkarimi in a November 3, 2015 election, has promised changes to Mirkarimi’s policy directive. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks to ensure that Hennessy makes good on her promise when she takes office.

San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance gained national attention on July 1, 2015, when Kathryn Steinle was gunned down at one the of city’s most popular tourist spots, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been released from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department despite a request from ICE that he be detained for possible deportation. The Sheriff’s Department not only ignored ICE’s detainer request, but also failed to notify ICE when it released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, 2015, little more than a month after Mirkarimi issued the new policy directive.

Sheriff Mirkarimi’s expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is dangerous and violates federal law. It needs to end. Our new lawsuit should encourage Sheriff-Elect Hennessy to repeal Sheriff Mirkarimi’s policy directive in its entirety – thereby protecting public safety, and surely saving innocent lives.

As the result of earlier Judicial Watch litigation, the San Francisco Police Department was required in 2011 to comply with a California law requiring federal officials be notified whenever an alien is arrested on certain drug offenses. Our team is separately investigating whether the release of Steinle’s alleged killer violated this court order, so stand by for further developments.

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

The Clintons have a demonstrated record of selling their public office, often to foreign interests and governments who would harm our nation’s security. They did it with the Chinese during Bill Clinton’s administration and now they seem to have done it repeatedly during the Obama administration. That’s why we filed a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to gain access to documents involving a uranium deal approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton that is tied to major Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra and Russian-state issues. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:15-cv-01776)).

We filed the lawsuit after the Treasury Department of the “most transparent administration in history” ignored a FOIA request sent on May 29, 2015. Judicial Watch’s request seeks emails between key Treasury agencies and Hillary Clinton non-governmental email accounts:

Our investigative focus is on a controversial 2010 deal involving Uranium One, the Canadian company currently at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals and ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, which recently took a 51 percent controlling interest in Uranium One. The lawsuit seeks information about the approval of this deal and whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ignored the mandatory 75-day review approval process, approving the deal in just 52 days. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was a member of CFIUS.

Peter Scheweizer’s book Clinton Cash first raised questions about the Uranium One deal, which benefited many donors to the Clinton Foundation. One of these donors was Frank Giustra, who, among other dealings, helped set up a Clinton Foundation entity in Canada that had the effect of hiding donations from foreign governments and others from public disclosure, despite promises of disclosure by Hillary Clinton and the Foundation.

As the New York Times reported on April 23, the Clinton Foundation hid many of the beneficiaries of the deal approved by Mrs. Clinton and CFIUS:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The documents we are trying to force from Treasury should shed light on the apparent conflict of interest between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the expedited approval process. Under United States law, uranium is a strategic asset; therefore, a committee of U.S. government officials must approve any such deal. The CFIUS board, which reviews all foreign acquisitions of American national security assets, consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury.

In 2010, Jose W. Fernandez represented the State Department on the CFIUS board, and the documents sought by Judicial Watch lawsuit could clarify whether Clinton failed to disclose to Fernandez that several executives at Uranium One made millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately before and after CFIUS reviewed and approved the ARMZ-Uranium One deal.

This latest conflict of interest is part of a wider investigation into the Clinton cash machine and the related corruption of the Obama administration.

Separate Judicial Watch FOIA litigation forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflicts-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others. The August 13, 2014, investigative report that first disclosed the Clinton financial dealings, “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions,” is available here.

The approval of the uranium deal seemingly resulted in millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., and made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers.

Hillary Clinton’s cash and secrecy on this Russian uranium deal looks corrupt and criminal. And now that his Treasury Department violated FOIA to cover-up yet another Clinton scandal, there is no daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this scandal that placed our nation’s security at risk.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

 

Prescribing Solutions for Radical Islam in America

/in , , , , , /by

Dr. Welner, on Fox & Bill Bennett, Decries Lies About Mass Shootings and Crisis Incidents, Issues Multi-Pronged Homeland Proposal to Mitigate Risk.

New York – Reacting to the mass shooting incident at a staff holiday party in San Bernardino, the United States government and many media initially emphasized that a workplace mass shooting had taken place. The early national discourse directed itself to gun control advocacy. Once a terrorist motivation could no longer be denied, outlets began suggesting that the shootings were instigated by remarks that one of the deceased had made about Islam not being a peaceful religion, suggesting that he had provoked the killings. More recently, revelations of how United States immigration policy allowed one of the perpetrators into the country has touched off a highly-charged policy debate.Almost immediately after the perpetrators were identified, Dr. Michael Welner, forensic psychiatrist and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, recognized the event to bear the hallmarks of Islamist terrorism, given the role of a female perpetrator – a fact never associated with American mass shootings without direct personal conflict. Such American mass shootings customarily involve perpetrators aspiring to idealized destructive masculine identity.

Dr. Welner’s early appearance on “Fox and Friends” laid out the distinctions from workplace mass killing, and raised the importance of learning more of how a woman taking up destructive spectacle crime (which happens regularly overseas) related to how Muslim identity is expressed in America. Dr. Welner relied on his extensive experience in evaluating mass shooting incidents, workplace risk assessment, and risk assessment and other Jihadi psychology and criminology issues.

Dr. Welner added, in an appearance later that hour on “Fox & Friends,” that the hallmarks of how far one would go for their faith, demonstrated in a woman leaving an infant behind, bore the hallmarks of ISIS’ modus operandi. He encouraged the government and press to be straightforward about terrorist motivation, adding that being forthright was essential to devising public safety plans ahead.

Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, in his nationally broadcast program“Morning in America,” praised Dr. Welner for focusing the discussion on the core cause and not allowing a false narrative to take hold in the press. Dr. Bennett then invited Dr. Welner onto “Morning in America” yesterday to discuss Dr. Welner’s proposals for mitigating Islamist risk in America. Dr. Welner asserted that it was necessary to dismiss a number of oft-repeated false assertions as deliberate manipulations by informed authorities seeking to avoid addressing violence risks and risk factors of potential perpetrators, specifically:

  • Islamist terror is not Islam
  • Adherents to Radical Islamist thinking are very few in number
  • America is responsible for creating intense Muslim hostility towards this country
  • We are not at war with Islam
  • Frank discussion of Islamist terrorism endangers American Muslims

In their extended discussion, Dr. Welner proposed a number of policy prescriptions for mitigating risk. Dr. Welner’s recommendations, which have since been re-published by the Investigative Project for Terrorism and the New English Review, include:

  • Flipping the paradigm to focus on how American Muslims can actively defuse national anxieties of Americans who witness Islamist terrorism, rather than Americans’ alleviating anxieties of attacks on Muslims, which are altogether rare
  • Branding America and how it has helped Muslims around the world
  • Promoting Muslim attitudes reflecting loyalty to America first
  • Encouraging mosque, parental, and family responsibility to self-police communities in order to root out radical nihilists who recruit others and ensnare young people
  • Financially support Muslim institutions’ efforts to root out terrorism from within communities
  • Promote humor and the arts to promote the marginalizing, reform, and self-regulation of Islamist intolerance
  • Retake the campuses from rejectionist Islam, prevent access of radical leadership
  • Retake the prisons from intolerant imams who groom new and alienated adherents and feed angry violent wannabees into the community
  • Ban investment by governments and large donors promoting radical Islam from American media, campaigns, and academic institutions
  • End American backdoor funding and support of countries and entities that collaborate with Islamist terror
  • Expose and root out Islamist contributions to political candidates and to media entities
  • Full security screening of federal employees in sensitive positions who do not currently undergo security clearance
  • End exclusion of Jewish Arabic speakers by American intelligence services, who are available but not relied upon for gathering human intelligence

A more extensive explanation of these proposals can be found at billbennett.com

To listen to Dr. Welner’s interview with Bill Bennett, click here

Dr. Welner’s two interviews with Fox & Friends on San Bernardino, click here and here

VIDEO: Knife-brandishing Muslim threatens Donald Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

This video is certain to convince ol’ Trump that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that he should, as Bah Ebou demands, show some more “respect.” Or else.

If Trump is circumcised, will he change his mind about Muslim immigration?

WARNING: Strong language, high emotions, and a certain paucity of calm, rational argumentation.

Video thanks to Tea Partyer.

RELATED ARTICLE: Some Muslims in U.S. irritated by Obama’s call for them to root out “extremism”

EDITORS NOTE: Will U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch arrest this Muslim for violent talk?

A Biblical Solution to the Omnibus-Muslim Problem

/in , , , , /by

The Omnibus Budget Bill to be voted Friday, Dec 11, will provide $1.2 Billion for “nearly 700,000 green cards – or lifetime residency cards – to migrants from Muslim nations over the next five years (as we did over the last five years),” said Senator Sessions of AL, re Friday’s vote. Readers should email congressman.

The Muslim problem is about militancy as taught in the Koran. Christ said, “Blessed are the peace-makers.” The Bible covenant with Abraham provided the Middle East for his descendants. That includes Arabic Muslims from Ishmael. Islam’s push into Europe and America is foreseen in Daniel 8, but it ends badly for a militant Muslim ram.

First the Problem from a 2002 UN Report: “More books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand, suggesting at the very minimum an extraordinarily closed world.” Mark Steyn.

The PROBLEM is complex; leaders and media can’t seem to identify it. Maybe we could help them?

The Shoe Bomber. the Beltway Snipers, the Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim. The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim. The Underwear Bomber, the U.S.S. Cole Bombers, the 9-11 Hijackers and now the San Bernardino Terrorists–ALL OF THESE (and many edited from this list) WERE MUSLIMS!

More innocent people died on 9-11 than died in Pearl Harbor. We declared war then, but not now; not on Muslims, but we need to declare war on militancy as taught by numerous quotes in the Koran such as, “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123.

For hundreds of years, it has been no problem for Hindus to live with Buddhists, Jews or Christians.

Atheists have lived with Buddhists, Jews or Confucians, Christians have lived with Jews, Hindus and Shintos—these religions don’t have a problem being neighbors.

But Muslims have a problem living with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and worst of all, MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS IS A BIG PROBLEM!

MUSLIMS don’t want to live in Muslim countries of Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya or Sudan.

They want to be in Australia, England, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, India, Canada, USA—any country that is not Islamic; why is that if it’s a “religion of peace?

When trouble comes, who do they blame? Not their leader. Not themselves, they blame the country and want to change it to be like the countries they left!

Islam likes organizations: Islamic Jihad: an ISLAMIC terror organization, ISIS/ISIL an ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION; Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine Liberation Front. ALL of these and many more are ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATIONS.

Are we so stupid that we can’t figure out how to deal with the problem? At least President Obama and now Attorney General Lynch know it’s not the Muslims and to speak against them may soon be a CRIME! This isn’t “hate speech.” We shouldn’t hate anyone; Christ died for all. We should end our “Stupid problems” with Free Speech while we still have it.

Obama admitted being Muslim and he wants to flood US with Muslim “refugees” Now we come to the biblical solution:

God promised to give Abraham the land between Egypt and the Euphrates River for his descendants in the 15th chapter of Genesis. Five verses later, Abraham agrees with Sarah to have a son by Hagar. The Arab nations are descendants of Ishmael, and they should occupy the area in the covenant for Abraham’s “seed.”

Any other plan, like the pope’s encouragement for Germany to take a million refugees while the Vatican takes two families, [isn’t that interesting?] is against the provision that God made for Abraham’s descendants. When leaders become part of a stupid problem, we need to go back to basics. Dan88

The Bible shows the problem of Muslim militancy will soon be solved “at the time of the end.” A militant Muslim ram gets stomped by a GOAT [Global Organization Against Terror] that flies from the west in Daniel 8 (the book Christ recommended when asked about end-times.)

Leaders should consider the Bible solution, rather than “wait and see”–hoping for an answer in the election next November. Congress has proven they go along to get along with hidden forces and rewards while voting against the Constitution that made us great.

The answer for everyone reading this is to Google their congressman and send him an email SAYING “I WILL CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU IF YOU DON’T SAY NO TO OMNIBUS DEC 11.” Leaving a message by phone doesn’t work–“mailbox is full.”

IF WE DON’T ACT, WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ON HIS ELECTION NIGHT: “CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA!”

 

Syed Farook’s Mother a Suspect in the San Bernardino Slaughter?

/in , , , , , /by

Evidence is mounting the mother of Syed Razwin Farook, who with wife Tafsheen Malik killed 14  injuring 21 in the San Bernardino Jihad Massacre,  may become a suspect in the Islamic Terrorism plot. Packaging, gun range practice targets and tools were found in the car registered in the name of Rafia Farook. Moreover, Fox News intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge disclosed that Syed  Farook’s Union bank records showed a  $28,500 deposit  from the alleged proceeds of a loan  from the Utah-based web bank.com two weeks before the December 2nd attack  at the Christmas Party gathering of the County Health Department.

The records further revealed three transfers of $5,000 each, totaling  $15,000, were made to Syed’s mother.

Further, there was evidence in the Redlands , California rented home that Rafia had been a member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Pakistani fundamentalist Muslim group, whose adherents in the U.S. had been involved in terrorism plots both in the U.S. and in Pakistan. Rafia had lived with her son Syed and his late wife  Ms. Malik allegedly caring for their six month old daughter. Lawyers for Rafia had denied she had any knowledge of her son Syed and his wife Tashfeen amassing  weapons, ammunition and manufacturing  pipe bombs and IEDs  in the garage of the rented Redlands, California town house.

Rafia Farook1

Rafia Farook

Fox News’ Megan Kelly File reported on  the evidence found in Rafia’s registered car:

Trace Gallagher reported on “The Kelly File” that FBI agents found an empty GoPro camera package, shooting targets and tools inside a car belonging to Rafia Farook, the mother of Syed Farook.

Gallagher said those items raised a number of red flags because investigators know that the husband and wife killers took numerous trips to gun ranges for target practice and were building homemade explosive devices, which could explain the targets and tools.

Gallagher said that the GoPro package is significant because even though authorities have denied that the shooters strapped cameras to themselves before the massacre, mounted GoPros have been used by ISIS followers in other attacks.

“Even mundane items found inside the car, like U-Haul receipts and notebook and legal documents could ultimately help answer whether the mother could have driven the car and not noticed the tools and targets, could have lived in the house and not noticed the so-called ‘IED factory’ in the garage,'” Gallagher said.

He added as the investigation has unfolded, Rafia Farook has been placed on a terror watch list.

“When it comes to what, if anything, the mother knew, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says they are looking very, very closely,” Gallagher said.

The Daily Caller revealed Rafia Farook’s membership in the ICNA, “Shooter’s Mother Active In US Branch Of Pro-Caliphate Islamic Group:”

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami. Farook’s affiliation with ICNA was revealed on Friday when MSNBC and other new outlets scoured the Farooks’ apartment in Redlands, Cal. An MSNBC reporter found a certificate of appreciation presented to Safia Farook last summer by ICNA’s sisters’ wing.

The terrorism track record of the ICNA members  and  ties to a Muslim U.S. Congressman:

Though ICNA has not been named as a target in the ongoing investigation into Wednesday’s attack, the group has been associated with many others who have engaged in terrorism or plotted to do so.

Al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki has spoken at the group’s events. He spoke at an ICNA event in Baltimore in 2002, though the group has said that al-Awlaki was not radicalized at that time. Al-Awlaki exchanged emails with Nidal Hasan, the Army major who killed 13 people in a terrorist attack at Fort Hood in Nov. 2009. Al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011 in Yemen.

Another ICNA member was indicted in April on federal terrorism charges. Noelle Valentzas and another woman were charged with plotting an attack on New York City similar to the attacks at the Boston Marathon.

As The Daily Caller uncovered at the time, Velentzas gave presentations at least two ICNA events in recent years. One of those, ICNA’s 2012 annual convention, was also attended by Indiana Rep. Andre Carson, one of two Muslims in the House of Representatives. (RELATED: One of theWomen Who Plotted NYC Attack Had Ties to U.S. Islamic Group)

And in 2009, five American students who knew each other from an ICNA mosque in Alexandria, Va. were arrested in Pakistan and charged with plotting to attack American troops in Afghanistan.

Founded in 1968 and is based in Jamaica, N.Y., ICNA is considered one of the more conservative Islamic umbrella organizations operating in the U.S. Unlike other groups like the Islamic Society of North America or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, ICNA segregates men and women at its events, a practice endorsed in the Farook household.

The  ICNA is heavily influenced by the Islamist  doctrine of Abul A’la Maududi:

ICNA is heavily reliant on the teachings of Abul A’la Maududi, the controversial Islamist founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, a political party operating in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh whose goal is to establish an Islamic state, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

As the ADL notes, an article in ICNA’s “The Message” stated that “using the organizational development methodology of Maulana Mawdudi and the Jamaat Al-Islami of Pakistan, which lays special emphasis on spiritual development, ICNA has developed a strong foundation.”

Maududi “is a jihadi ideologue,” according to the ADL. “He has written that ‘the nation of Jews will be exterminated’ in the end of days.”

In one of his numerous books, Maududi wrote that devout Muslims “would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge [non-Muslims] from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

RELATED ARTICLE: President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from coming to the United States during the Hostage Crisis

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

POLL: Trump Strongest Candidate on Fighting Terrorism

/in , , , , , /by

SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire/ — A new survey of more than 1000 adults from the Saint Leo University Polling Institute puts terrorism as the second-leading issue America faces. Americans are also personally concerned about attending large public events and about the adequacy of security measures generally.

When asked “what do you think is the most important issue facing the country today?”

  • The response “jobs and the economy” continued to hold the top spot, but the response level declined to 25.8 percent, compared to 32.4 percent in October. Meanwhile, the generalized response “terrorism” shot up more than 10 percentage points to 16.9 percent from 5.6 percent in October 2015, putting the issue in second place. The third-place issue was “homeland security and anti-terror policy,” at 15.1 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in October.

When respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or were unsure about policies and opinions in the news, these findings emerged:

  • More than three-quarters, at 78.2 percent, strongly or somewhat agree that “It is likely ISIS terrorists are hiding among Syrian and other refugees in order to enter Europe and the United States.”
  • Two-thirds, at 66.9, percent agree strongly or somewhat with “a pause in accepting Syrian refugees intothe United States until additional FBI background checks and approvals are added to the current screening process.”
  • Half, at 51.1 percent, disagree strongly or somewhat that “the U.S. and Americans have an obligation to accept Syrian refugees.” The cumulative percent of those who agree with the notion of an obligation was 39 percent.
  • Just over half, at 52.5 percent, disagree somewhat or strongly that “I trust our federal government’s ability to accurately verify entering refugees are not terrorists.” Fewer than four in 10, or 36.4 percent, reported agreement with the trust statement.
  • Those who agree somewhat or strongly that they are “concerned about terrorism when attending large public events” were reported at 61.8 percent.
  • Nearly half—48.3 percent—somewhat or strongly agree that “Russia’s President (Vladimir) Putin is stronger on fighting terrorism than President Obama.

When respondents were asked which current presidential candidate—despite personal preference—”would likely mount the strongest and most effective effort against terrorists worldwide while protecting Americans at home” they said, in descending order:

  • Donald Trump, 24.1 percent
  • Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 20.7 percent
  • U.S. Senator (VT) Bernie Sanders, 7.7 percent
  • U.S. Senator (TX) Ted Cruz, 5.5 percent
  • Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, 4.7 percent
  • Dr. Ben Carson, 4.4 percent

The poll was conducted by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute and has a +/- 3.0 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level on a composite basis.  The national online poll of more than 1,000 adults was conducted by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute between November 29 and December 3.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to U.S. During Hostage Crisis

America’s Muslims object to Obama’s push for more self-surveillance

Hamas Complains About Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy

Catholic University locked down after “Middle Eastern” man makes “terroristic threats”

/in , , , /by

The “shelter in place” order has been lifted now, and D.C. police have “located the suspicious person.” Now no doubt there is a long line of Catholic priests lining up to engage in “dialogue” with the poor dear, hoping to explain to him how Islam, at its core, is a religion of peace that has been tragically misunderstood. They will fix this problem up tout suite.

“D.C. police locate a ‘suspicious person’ at Catholic University,” by Martin Weil, Washington Post, December 8, 2015:

Catholic University students were advised Tuesday night for the second time in less than 24 hours to shelter in place while authorities investigated a report of a possible armed person on campus.

Just before 9 p.m., the D.C. police said they had “located the suspicious person.” About an hour later, the university said it had lifted the shelter in place order. It also said that the person who prompted Tuesday night’s alert was not the same person who was sought during the alert that began early Tuesday.

The Tuesday night alert was sent about 8:30 p.m. and advised members of the university community to shelter in place while D.C. police and the university’s public safety department investigated a report of a possible armed man.

A similar alert was issued about 1 a.m. Tuesday. Authorities said that they searched but that no one was found.

The university said the earlier alert was initiated after a custodial worker reported being approached Monday night by a man with a weapon.

The man reportedly approached the worker at Pangborn Hall about 10:30 p.m. Monday, and asked directions to the administration building.

In a message posted Tuesday on the university’s Facebook site, the university’s president, John Garvey, offered an explanation of the overnight response. He said the person had “made claims that sounded to our custodian like terroristic threats.”

A description provided on a university social media site said the individual had a Middle Eastern appearance….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Both San Bernardino jihad murderers pledged allegiance to the Islamic State

BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie, desperate to defame Trump, libel Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

VIDEO: Terrorist Supporter Nihad Awad attacks Trump’s call for banning Muslim Migration to U.S.

/in , , , , /by

CAIR’s Nihad Awad has a problem with Donald Trump’s statement on no more Muslim immigration to the U.S.

But Awad has no problem supporting the designated TERRORIST group HAMAS!

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from coming to the United States during the Hostage Crisis

7 Ways Barack Obama Created Donald Trump

Islamic State Papers: How ISIS is building its state

Daily Kos a paper tiger! Most respondents say “too dangerous” to admit Syrian refugees

Indiana: Various social justice/peace groups ‘welcome’ Syrian Muslims to live among them

U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul use the “M” word! MORATORIUM! Trump follows with ban!

/in , , , , , , /by

Be still my beating heart!  There it is, out there—the M-word!  Several of them in fact!  Moratorium on Muslim Migration!

moratorium-logo-update-blk

I started to write this post yesterday, then spent the day running out to the doctor (nothing is fast with doctors these days, have you noticed that) and as I’m trying to read news on my phone, the Cruz and Paul news was eclipsed by The Donald news when he jumped on the bandwagon.

However, all of the news reports I was reading and hearing claimed Donald Trump was alone in his call for a ban on Muslim migration to America.  He was actually the third Presidential candidate to make that call. Trump called it a “ban,” but that sounds like moratorium to me.

This is what I started to write about yesterday from Julia Hahn at Breitbart.   She has Senator Cruz uttering the word and I heard Senator Paul say it on Fox News yesterday morning!

trump paul cruz ap ap reuters

Presidential candidates Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are demanding a halt to immigration from Muslim nations with jihadist movements.

Their fellow contender, Sen. Marco Rubio, did not call for curbs to Muslim immigration in his live response to the President address on Fox News – a response promoted by Rubio’s campaign.

Cruz tweeted that if elected president, “I will shut down the broken immigration system that is letting jihadists into our country.” Cruz elaborated in a statement:

The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I’ve introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States.

Similarly, Rand Paul tweeted, “While ‪@POTUS paid lip service to this fight, he plans to keep failed rules in place & allow tens of thousands of refugees to enter the US.”

“Immigration visas & refugees from countries with active terror networks must be halted while we determine how to better secure our borders,” Paul in a separate tweet. “His administration is focused on gun laws that won’t stop terrorists while pushing policies that will let more of them in the country,” Paul wrote.

Continue reading here.

Go here to see the ten Senators who might be counted on to support these calls.

Action Alert!  It is not too late, go here and follow instructions to call Congress today!  Stopping the funding for refugee resettlement is the surest way to get the job done immediately!  Details can be worked out once the money is cut off!  If they can cut off the visas too, more power to them!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Dick Cheney don’t get it! Bring in the Muslims!

Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul: ISIS has tried to infiltrate refugee stream to U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz is by AP/John Locher/Reuters/Carlos Barria/Photo montage by Salon.

Suspect charged in ‘anti-Muslim hate crime’ is named Mohamed

/in , , , , , /by

Islamic supremacist groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.

Hamas-linked CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. Most notably, in February, a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

“Suspect Charged in CAIR’s Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Crime’ Is Named … Mohamed,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, December 7, 2015:

The day after Thanksgiving, in the wake of a terrible shooting that left a Muslim cabdriver in Pittsburgh hospitalized, CAIR was screaming ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIME! Naturally, left-wing news outlets like the Washington Post and others gleefully accepted those marching orders.  Five days later police had a suspect in the shooting. He’s pictured above. His name is Anthony Mohamed.

Investigators have taken a suspect into custody in the shooting of a cab driver who is Muslim in the city’s Hazelwood neighborhood in the early morning hours of Thanksgiving Day.

Pittsburgh Police announced the arrest at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. They identify the suspect as 26-year-old Anthony Mohamed of Hazelwood.

Five days earlier, and just after the ISIS attacks in Paris, this was the headline:

Police: Muslim Taxi Driver Shot After Being Asked About ISIS

A Muslim civil rights group is asking the Justice Department to investigate the shooting of a Pittsburgh taxi driver.

The driver was shot Thanksgiving night in the Hazelwood section of Pittsburgh, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants the Justice Department to investigate the case as a hate crime.

According to reports, the 38-year-old driver picked up the man outside the Rivers Casino about 1 a.m. Thursday.

F.B.I. statistics prove that Jews are more than three times as likely as Muslims to be victims of religion-motivated hate crimes. Overall, those among the Faithful who are not Muslim are targeted for hate crimes almost 84% of the time, compared to 16% for Muslims. In a country of around 325 million, there were 183 hate crimes aimed at Muslims last year. Nearly a thousand were aimed at other religious groups….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Mainstream Media’s Multifarious Mental Junk

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy

/in , , , , /by

In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.

One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.

Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.

“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”

Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.

We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”

In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.

It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”

This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”

Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”

The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider

The current administration’s engagement of extremists in the Islamic world has also been reflected through America’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and at home.

However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.

All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.

The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”

In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Consulate in Turkey Under ‘Imminent Security Threat’

France Shuts Down Three Radical Mosques

California Shooting: The Debate Starts Here

Al-Aqsa Mosque Preacher: West Carried Out Paris Attacks

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of mourners praying at a makeshift memorial for the victims of the California terrorist attack. (Photo: © Reuters)

Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link

/in , , , /by

U.S. President Barack Obama’s December 6 speech contained few surprises and, on many points, he said the right things.

He mentioned the “I” word, admitting there is a perversion of Islam out there that resulted in last week’s San Bernardino massacre.

The president repeated his refrain about aerial strikes against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), which he prefers to a boots-on-the-ground approach.

He gave us the very quotable quote: “If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization.”

But outside of that, and a plea for all in America to use non-inciting language, his televised White House speech focused on ISIS.

His speech lacked a clear policy on what to do about the Islamist extremists already operating in the United States – with or without the support of ISIS, al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.

See a map of some of the Islamist terror attacks planned or carried out in the United States in 2015.

There seemed to be no linkage in his comments between the order for more bombing raids in the Middle East and the inspiration ISIS provides for terrorists on American soil – whether directly under ISIS’ aegis or acting alone.

This was where Obama missed the point in his speech:

“But over the last few years, the threat has evolved as terrorists have turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. For the past seven years, I have confronted the evolution of this threat each morning. Your security is my greatest responsibility. And I know that, after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.”

The obvious follow up to this would have been to give at least some details of the numbers of arrests in the U.S., or the types of actions being taken by the FBI and other agencies, without going into sensitive operational details.

However, Obama’s logical follow up was not on home soil but rather:

“So, tonight, this is what I want you to know: The threat of terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Here’s how:” (this part of the speech was bolded in the statement to the media)

And then he discussed what Washington will and will not do in its war against ISIL in the Middle East.

Maybe the president is trying to avoid panic in the homeland, but he did not give the American public any reason to feel calmer by ignoring the very real, palpable threat in the United States.

And if his policy of destroying ISIS succeeds, will it mean no more terror attacks on U.S. soil? The answer to that I will leave for the reader to mull.

Suffice it to say, unless the president announces a clear intention to increase surveillance and other interventionist measures at home – and yes, it should come from the president himself – he will leave Americans scared and the terrorists feeling emboldened.

Watch President Obama’s speech:

David Harris is editor in chief of Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS Children Rewarded With Execution

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

ISIS Wants to Carry Out a WMD Attack in Europe

San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy

​Franklin ​D​. Obama addresses Congress after attack on Pearl Harbor

/in , /by
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 – a date which will live on in our memories with hashtags, awareness ribbons, and candlelight vigils – America was attacked. While we haven’t yet ruled out the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions for what might have been an act of workplace violence.The United States was at peace with Japan and, at the solicitation of its government, we were still in conversation about the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague were negotiating a performance of James Taylor’s You’ve Got a Friend with Secretary of State Kerry. While this may appear suspicious, we must not blame the entire Japanese Empire for the actions of a few.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was likely the result of a few disgruntled employees, maybe even the Emperor’s wife suffering from post-partum depression. Therefore, I urge patience and understanding.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu. No doubt these attacks were carried out by lone wolves who have hijacked the noble religion of Shinto which, we must remember, built the very fabric of our nation.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island. However, the fact remains that most Japanese are moderate and peaceful.

Japan has, in the minds of a few intolerant Asiaphobes, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves, they say. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of anyone who dares to engage in anti-Japanese rhetoric that edges toward violence.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for the immediate reduction of our military forces, especially our navy. Like I’ve said since since the invasions of Poland and France, every time something like this happens, these sort of military actions just don’t happen in other countries. I think it’s time to reconsider the Kellogg-Briand Pact which made war illegal, and to rethink the Washington Naval Treaty. If we could take combat vessels off of the high seas, events like these wouldn’t happen. We could make the oceans safer for our children.

Always will we remember that this would never have happened if America hadn’t acted arrogantly during the Spanish-American War by seizing overseas territories. No matter how long it may take us to overcome our own bigotry, the American people will reflect and support common sense arms reductions.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only decommission all of our naval assets, but make sure we never again threaten other countries with a military that air raids villages and kills civilians.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are primarily responsible. In the meantime, I don’t want to hear any nonsense about “America leading” or “America winning”.

With confidence in our policy of tolerance – with the unbounded determination of our people – we will lead from behind – so help us, uh, I’ll come back to that.

Given that the provoked and understandable attack by Japan was caused by a despicable video on YouTube, I ask that the Congress declare that the future must not belong to those who insult the Emperor of Japan and the peace-loving religion of Shinto.

​And another take –

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

A Sad Day for Free Speech in America

/in , , , , /by

The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his female partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’:

Lynch failed to describe what constitutes speech that “Edges toward violence”. No one wants to see incitement to violence. But the non-standard enunciated by Lynch is so ambiguous that  anything Lynch or the Obama administration decides they don’t like may be defined as “edging toward violence” and could subject a person to prosecution. This is also a violation of the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio 1969 which held that free speech is protected unless the speech leads  to “Imminent Lawless Action” or is a “Clear and Present Danger”. Edges toward violence does not meet this standard. It is no standard at all. Under Lynch’s non-standard the Obama administration could find it actionable if a person notifies the authorities that a Muslim might be involved in terrorist activities but it turns out to be inaccurate.

This is a sad day for the rule of law and free speech in America and only used to happen in totalitarian countries.

The FBI and police are already overwhelmed by the number of Muslims under investigation. Allowing Muslim refugees and other Muslims into the country without more thorough and accurate vetting than in the past will only exacerbate the problem. It is sad that Muslim clerics and the Muslim population don’t publicly call for changes in the interpretation of their ‘Supremacist Religion’ and expose Radical Islamists before they act.

It is no secret that Radical Islamic terrorists generally live and emerge from the bowels of the Muslim population. They are the only ones who can effectively fight extremism.

Read more: Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egyptian TV Host On California Terror Attack: Americans Should Stick Obama On An Impalement Rod

Muslim bangs on cockpit door, threatens to down plane, “wanted to see Allah”

Robert Spencer in Italy’s Libero: “Occidente remissivo fino al suicidio”